Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report. FY 2003.pdf

Community ServicesBlock GrantStatistical Report

FY 2003

National Association forState Community ServicesPrograms

The Community ServicesBlock GrantStatistical Report

FY 2003

Meg Power, Ph.D.Jennifer Clark, Ph.D.Gretchen KnowltonRamsey Alwin

Editing by Mary Loebig Giles.This publication was developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of CommunityServices. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Health and Human Services,and the endorsement of the federal government should not be assumed unless otherwise granted.

Prepared by

The Center for Community Action ResearchA Division of the National Association for State Community Services Programs

With the Assistance of Economic Opportunity Studies, Inc.

November 2004Washington, DC

HighlightsCommunity Services Block Grant Information System (CSBG/IS)

Statistical Report, FY 2003

Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report – FY 2003

National Association for State Community Services Programs

(202) 624-5866 • [email protected]

FY 2003 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Network Resources

In the FY 2003 CSBG/Information System Survey, 51 states (including Puerto Rico

and the District of Columbia) reported that:

• Their CSBG local networks were made up of 1,080 local eligible entities, of which nearly 88% wereCommunity Action Agencies (CAAs);

• The local agencies used CSBG funding for their core operations and for developing and coordinating pro-grams to fight poverty in 96% of the counties in the U.S.;

• The network’s funding from all sources totaled more than $9.3 billion;

• Nearly $589 million was from the federal Block Grant to support the core activities of the state and localCSBG network, and

• Volunteers provided more than 42 million hours of additional support, the equivalent of about 20,224 full-time employees’ annual work hours. If valued at only the minimum wage, the volunteers’ time was worth$217 million.

CAAs used FY 2003 Block Grant resources to leverage state, local and private funding:

• Every CSBG dollar was matched by $14.84 from all other sources, and

• $5 of that match came from state, local and private sources; this figure includes the value of the volunteers’hours. In fact, the network’s private funding alone exceeded FY 2003 CSBG resources.

FY 2003 CSBG Program Participants

CSBG/IS data on CAA program participants indicated that in 51 states, the CAAs

provided services to:

• As many as 19% of persons in poverty in 2003;

• More than 13 million individuals who were members of almost 6 million low-income families;

• Slightly more than 4 million families provided income data. Of these,• Almost 2.9 million families had incomes at or below their federal poverty guideline, including at least• 1 million families who were “severely poor,” with incomes below 50% of their poverty guideline, and• Another 1.8 million families with incomes between 50% and 100% of their poverty guideline;

• More than 3.5 million children;

• Almost 1.4 million families headed by single mothers;

• More than 1.7 million adult program participants who had not completed high school;

• More than 418,000 TANF participant families in FY 2003 CAA programs, or 18% of monthly TANFcaseloads in the states reporting, and

• More than 1.7 million “working poor” families who relied on wages or unemployment insurance and whocollectively made up nearly 50% of all local agency program participants.

Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report • FY 2003

Executive Summary

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... i

A. FY�2003 CSBG Funding and Expenditures .................................................................... iB. State Management of the Block Grant .......................................................................... iiiC. The Participants in the CSBG Network FY 2003 Programs ....................................... ivD. The CSBG Network’s FY 2003 Resources and Programs ......................................... viiiE. Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds ......................................................................................... xF. Trends in Network Resources and Expenditures .......................................................... xi

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. xiii

Report

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

I. FY 2003 CSBG Funding and Expenditures ................................................................... 5Federal CSBG Funds Appropriated .................................................................................... 5FY 2003 CSBG Funds Expended by the States ................................................................. 6

II. State Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds ............................................................................... 7Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7State Discretionary Programs ............................................................................................. 8State Management of the Block Grant ............................................................................. 11Other Programs Administered by State CSBG Offices .................................................... 14The Extent of the Network’s FY 2003 Programs ............................................................. 15The CSBG Network.......................................................................................................... 16

III. The Participants in the CSBG Network’s FY 2003 Programs ................................... 17Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 17Characteristics of Families Participating in CSBG Network Programs ........................... 18Family Size and Composition........................................................................................... 19Children ............................................................................................................................ 20Older Adult Program Participants ..................................................................................... 21Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................... 21Family Income Levels ...................................................................................................... 22Client Income Sources ...................................................................................................... 23Barriers to Self-Sufficiency .............................................................................................. 25Lack of Education ............................................................................................................. 25Disability and Health Risks .............................................................................................. 26

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

The Extent of the Network’s FY 2003 Programs


IV. The CSBG Network’s Resources and Programs ......................................................... 27Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 27FY 2003 CSBG Network Resources ................................................................................ 27Leveraging ........................................................................................................................ 28The CSBG Network’s Total Resources in FY 2003, by Source ....................................... 30

Federal Resources Other Than CSBG ........................................................................ 30State Resources ........................................................................................................... 34Local Government Resources ..................................................................................... 36Private Resources ........................................................................................................ 37Volunteer Services ...................................................................................................... 38

V. Local Agency CSBG Programs ..................................................................................... 40Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 40FY 2003 Services Provided by the CSBG Network ......................................................... 41CSBG Employment Programs .......................................................................................... 44CSBG Education Programs .............................................................................................. 47CSBG Income Management Programs............................................................................. 48CSBG Housing Programs ................................................................................................. 50CSBG Emergency Services Programs .............................................................................. 53CSBG Nutrition Programs ................................................................................................ 55CSBG Linkage Programs ................................................................................................. 58CSBG Self-Sufficiency Programs .................................................................................... 61CSBG Health Programs .................................................................................................... 63Other CSBG Programs ..................................................................................................... 64CSBG- Supported Programs for Youth and Seniors ......................................................... 65

VI. Trends in Network Resources and Expenditures, FY 1999–FY 2003 ........................ 68Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 68Network Resources Other than CSBG 1999–2003 .......................................................... 68CSBG Appropriations ....................................................................................................... 69

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 72

Endnotes ...................................................................................................................................... 73

Appendices

Appendix A State-by-State Detailed Tables ............................................................................ A-1Appendix B CSBG Information System Survey..................................................................... B-1Appendix C The National CSBG/IS Data Collection Task Force .......................................... C-1

Table of Contents


List of Tables

Executive Summary

Table A CSBG Appropriations, FY 2003 ............................................................................. iiTable B State Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds ...................................................................... iiTable C FY 2003 Local Agencies by Type ......................................................................... iiiTable D Scope of the FY 2003 Demographic Survey .......................................................... vTable E CSBG Network Resources, FY 2003 .................................................................. viiiTable F FY 2003 Ratio of Non-Federal Leveraged Resources to CSBG Funds by Source .. ixTable G CSBG Leveraging Trends: Value of the Network’s State, Local and Private

Funds Compared to the CSBG, FY 1999 v. FY 2003 .......................................... xii

Report

Table 1 Community Services Block Grant Appropriations, FY 2001–FY 2003 ................. 5Table 2 Sources of FY 2003 CSBG Funds Expended ......................................................... 6Table 3 State Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds ...................................................................... 7Table 4a Uses of FY 2003 State Discretionary Funds by Purpose of the Awards ................ 8Table 4b Uses of FY 2003 State Discretionary Funds by Type of Recipient Agency ......... 10Table 5 Administrative Location of FY 2003 State CSBG Programs ............................... 12Table 6 Planned and Actual FY 2003 Expenditures .......................................................... 12Table 7 FY 2003 CSBG Funds Used for Local Administrative Expenditures .................. 13Table 8 Other Federal Programs Directed by CSBG Administrators, FY 2003 ................ 14Table 9 FY 2003 Local Agencies by Type ........................................................................ 16Table 10 Scope of the FY 2003 Demographic Survey ........................................................ 17Table 11 FY 2003 Ratio of Non-Federal Leveraged Resources to CSBG Funds ............... 29Table 12 Examples of Other HHS Programs Reported in FY 2003 .................................... 32Table 13 Examples of Other Federal Programs in FY 2003 ............................................... 33Table 14 Examples of Other State Programs in FY 2003 ................................................... 35Table 15 FY 2003 CSBG Expenditures by Service Category ............................................. 42Table 16 CSBG Leveraging Trends: Value of the Network’s State, Local and Private

Resources v. CSBG Funds, FY 1999, FY 2002 and FY 2003 .............................. 71

Table of Contents


List of Figures

Executive Summary

Figure A Counties Served by a CAA in FY 2003 ................................................................ ivFigure B FY 2003 CAA Program Participants by Age Group .............................................. vFigure C Number of FY 2003 Participant Families by Poverty Status................................. viFigure D Ethnicity of CSBG Network Clients FY 2003 ..................................................... viiFigure E Local Agency Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds ...................................................... xiFigure F Trends in CSBG Funding, FY 1999–FY 2003 ..................................................... xii

Report

Figure 1 Counties Served by a CAA in FY 2003 ............................................................... 15Figure 2 Family Composition, FY 2003 ............................................................................. 19Figure 3 FY 2003 CAA Program Participants by Age Group ............................................ 20Figure 4 Ethnicity of CSBG Network Clients FY 2003 ..................................................... 21Figure 5 Number of FY 2003 Participant Families by Poverty Status................................ 22Figure 6 Sources of Income for FY 2003, CAA Program Participant Households ............ 24Figure 7 Education Levels of Adult CAA Participants FY 2003 ........................................ 26Figure 8 The CSBG Network’s Total Resources in FY 2003 by Source ............................ 27Figure 9 CSBG Leveraging of FY 2003 Private, Local and State Resources ..................... 28Figure 10 Sources of FY 2003 Federal Funding in CSBG Local Agencies and

Share from Each Source ....................................................................................... 31Figure 11 Sources of FY 2003 State Funding for CSBG Local Agencies ............................ 34Figure 12 Types of FY 2003 Local Government Funding for CSBG Local Agencies ......... 36Figure 13 FY 2003 Private Resources Leveraged by Type ................................................... 37Figure 14 Local Agency Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds ..................................................... 43Figure 15 Trends in Leveraged Resources, FY 1999–FY 2003 ............................................ 69Figure 16 Trends in CSBG Funding, FY 1999–FY 2003 ..................................................... 70

Table of Contents


List of Appendix Tables

Table 1 Sources of All CSBG Funds Expended, FY 2003 .............................................. A-1Table 2 Uses of All CSBG Funds Expended, FY 2003 ................................................... A-2Table 3 State Reporting Periods, FY 2003 ...................................................................... A-3Table 4 Entities Funded by States with CSBG “allofed” Funds, FY 2003 ..................... A-4Table 5 Organizations Receiving Discretionary Funds, FY 2003 ................................... A-5Table 5-1 Other Organizations Receiving Discretionary Funds, FY 2003 ......................A-5-1Table 5-2 Purposes of Giving Discretionary Funds, FY 2003 .........................................A-5-2Table 6 Sub-state Allocation Method and Jurisdictions Served, FY 2003 ...................... A-6Table 7 Administrative Location of State CSBG Office, FY 2003 ................................. A-7Table 8 Title and Department of State CSBG Administrator, FY 2003 .......................... A-8Table 9 Other Programs Directed by State CSBG Administrators, FY 2003...............A-9-1Table 10 Provisions of State CSBG Statutes in Effect, FY 2003 .................................... A-10Table 11 State CSBG Personnel: Positions and Full-Time Equivalents, FY 2003 ......... A-11Table 12 CSBG Network Client Characteristics ..........................................................A-12-1Table 13 CSBG Network Client Family Characteristics ..............................................A-13-1Table 14 Non-CSBG Federal Sources of Local Agency Funding, FY 2003 ................A-14-1Table 15 State Program Sources of Local Agency Funding, FY 2003 .........................A-15-1Table 16 Local Resources in Local Agency Funding, FY 2003 ...................................... A-16Table 17 Private Resources in Local Agency Funding, FY 2003 .................................A-17-1Table 18 Total Non-CSBG Federal, State, Local, and Private Resources, FY 2003 ....... A-18Table 19 CSBG Dollars Spent on Programs, By Categories ........................................A-19-1Table 20 CSBG Dollars Spent on Youth and Seniors Programs...................................... A-20

Table of Contents


Executive Summary • i

Community Services Block Grant


Executive Summary

Introduction

The CSBG network, the subject of this report, is a state-administered local network composed of

almost 1,100 local agencies –– predominantly Community Action Agencies (CAAs) –– that

create, coordinate and deliver a broad array of programs and services to low-income Americans.

Their institutional operations are supported by the federal Community Services Block Grant

(CSBG). Its purpose is to fund initiatives to change conditions that perpetuate poverty, especially

unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition and lack of educational opportunity. The

universal characteristic of the local community-governed CSBG-funded programs is that they

support mobilization of the residents of the area served and the public to build or rebuild the low-

income community and to provide resources to support families and individuals seeking to

become self-sufficient.

The network’s FY 2003 program data were gathered by the Community Services Block Grant

Information System (CSBG/IS) survey, administered by the National Association for State

Community Services Programs (NASCSP) and supported by the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Office of Community Services (OCS). Forty-nine states, the District of

Columbia (DC) and Puerto Rico provided some information about the level and uses of their FY

2003 CSBG funds, the sources and uses of other funding, their activities, and the number and

characteristics of families and individuals participating in their programs.

A. FY 2003 CSBG Funding and Expenditures

Congress appropriated nearly $693 million for the FY 2003 CSBG. This included the block grant

to the states of almost $646 million, a figure fractionally lower than in the previous year, and

nearly $47 million for programs, shown in Table A, that are coordinated with the CSBG network

agencies in many states. The state block grant is the focus of this report.


Fifty-one states reported on how they used CSBG. Table B summarizes their data. Collectively,

they distributed 92% of their block grant funds to their local eligible entities.

ii • Executive Summary

Table A

CSBG Appropriations, FY 2003

Programs Funds

Block Grant to the States $645,778,000

Community Food & Nutrition Program $7,252,000

Community Services Discretionary Activities* $39,740,000

Total $692,770,000

12345678901234567890123456789123456789012345678901234567891234567890123456789012345678912345678901234567890123456789123456789012345678901234567891234567890123456789012345678912345678901234567890123456789

Table B

State Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Uses of Funds Amount Number of Percentage ofExpended States Funding Used

Grants to Local Eligible Entities $576,808,600 51 92%

State Administrative Costs $25,846,200 50 4%

Discretionary Projects $21,902,500 45 4%

Total used in FY 2003 $624,557,300 51 100%

Carried forward to FY 2004 $48,592,900 30

All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred.

* Includes Rural Facilities and Community Economic Development funding.

About 4% of funding used was for state administrative expenditures, and the remaining 4% used

was for state discretionary projects that addressed a broad range of needs with a mix of strategies in

45 states. More than half of these projects were awarded to eligible entities or their statewide

associations. Thirty states reported that they carried about $49 million forward to FY 2004 programs.


B. State Management of the Block Grant

Half of the state managers of the CSBG worked in the state Departments of Human Services,

Human Resources or Social Services, while slightly more than one-third were executives in

Departments of Community Affairs or Community Development; the rest were housed in other

offices, such as Departments of Commerce, Labor or state executive offices. The block grant

funded all or part of the 602 positions in 48 states’ administrative structures; the hours funded

were the equivalent of about 254 full-time state employees. Most CSBG administrators also

were responsible for a number of other state programs designed to assist the poor.

The FY 2003 CSBG Local Network

There were 1,080 local CSBG “eligible entities” in the 51 states. Table C below displays the

numbers of local agencies of each type and shows that the vast majority (nearly 88%) were

Community Action Agencies. These local agencies served at least part of 96% of all U.S. counties.

Figure A shows those counties.

Executive Summary • iii

123456789012345678901234567891234567890123456789012345678912345678901234567890123456789123456789012345678901234567891234567890123456789012345678912345678901234567890123456789

Table C

FY 2003 Local Agencies, by Type, in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Category of Eligible EntityNumber of Unduplicated Number of

Entities Reported Count of Entities* States

Community Action Agencies 945 945 51

Limited Purpose Agencies 33 33 11

Migrant and/or Seasonal Farm61 13 21

Worker Organizations

Local Government Agencies 205 68 24

Others 84 21 10

Total 1,080 51

* Includes CAAs and organizations not designated as Community Action Agencies that therefore were not countedin the first column.


C. The Participants in the CSBG Network FY 2003 Programs

CAAs in 50 states reported that they provided services to over 13 million individuals who were

members of nearly 6 million families. The 1,080 local agencies that reported on client

demographics managed 95% of all of the CSBG network’s FY 2003 funding. Their data indicate

that a heterogeneous group of low-income Americans participated in CSBG-funded initiatives.

The typical CAA client:

• Lived in a family with children,

• Was white and non-Hispanic,

• Was very poor, and

• Had family members currently working or with work experience.

iv • Executive Summary

Figure A

Counties Served by a CAA in FY 2003


Nearly three-fifths of the CAAs’ participant families included children younger than 18 years of

age. While 35% of them lived with both parents, more than half lived only with their mothers;

single fathers headed yet another 6% of families. As Figure B shows, children made up about

38% of all program participants. This figure includes only children who were themselves partici-

pating in CAA programs. It excludes those indirectly affected by the programs because their

family members were assisted.

Executive Summary • v

Table D

Scope of the FY 2003 Demographic Survey in 49 States and DC

Number of states reporting 50

Number of local agencies reporting 1,081

Percent of total network resources in agencies reporting 95%

Individuals assisted 13,046,700

Individuals surveyed 10,643,200

Families assisted 5,954,000

Families surveyed 4,886,800

Numbers for individuals and families are rounded to the nearest hundred.

Figure B

FY 2003 CAA Program Participants

by Age Group

9.5 Million Individuals in 49 States

Seniors 55+18%

3.5 Million Children and Youth

Ages of Child and Youth Participants

Adult 24-5435%

Youth Adult 18-239%

Children0-1738%

Age 12-1730%

Age 6-1132%

Age 0-538%


About 8% of program participants were 70 years of age or older, and another 10% were between

55 and 70 years old. As Figure C shows, 71% of CAA participant families’ incomes were below

the HHS poverty guideline of $15,260 for a family of three. In fact, 26% of the clients in

poverty, about 1 million families, were “severely poor.” This means they had incomes at or below

50% of their poverty guideline, or below $7,630 for a family of three. About 13% of families had

incomes exceeding the poverty guideline but lower than 125% of the guideline, and another 15%

had incomes slightly higher.

These figures suggest that the CSBG local network served 19% of all those in poverty in the U.S. in

2003, as well as more than a million near-poor families.i However, this national average masked

interstate variation; in a few states, the CAAs served between 60% and 72% of all the state’s poor.

vi • Executive Summary

The data on the sources of CAA program participant families’ income in states show that the

“working poor” turned to CAAs in substantial numbers:

• More than 1.7 million families, nearly half of those reporting their income, included at least one

member of the 2003 workforce, either active workers or job seekers receiving Unemployment Insurance;

• More than a million of them had wage income only;

• About 473,000 families had wages plus some other form of income (e.g. disability or

assistance payments);

• Nearly 1.2 million families included one or more retired workers;

Figure C

Number of FY 2003 Participant Families by Poverty Status

(as Percent of Federal Poverty Guideline)

Num

ber

of C

lient

Fam

ilies

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

150% of Poverty Guideline125% of Poverty Guideline

Poverty Guideline

75% of Poverty Guideline


4 Million Families in 49 States


More than 400,000 TANF-participant households, who may also have been working, were taking

part in CAA FY 2003 programs. Analysis of HHS caseload data on TANF families in 47 states

shows that the population CAAs served was equivalent to about 18% of the average monthly

TANF population in the same states. Further, CAAs in five of those states served at least half the

state’s average monthly TANF population.ii

The large number of families with no income, nearly 540,000, represent some of the most

vulnerable “working poor” Americans. Because of the shortage of living-wage jobs, those who

had previously left TANF often experienced severe hardships if they became unable to work.

CAA programs were called upon for appropriate emergency interventions and linkages to

resources that could provide continuing support for returning to stability.

The CAAs’ clientele was also ethnically diverse, as shown in Figure D. More than half were

white and non-Hispanic, 23% were African-American and 16% were of Hispanic origin.

Executive Summary • vii

Figure D

Ethnicity of CSBG Network Clients

FY 2003


White53%

Hispanic16%

African-American23%

American Indian/Alaskan

4%

Asian2%

Other2%


viii • Executive Summary

Of the more than 4 million adult CSBG program participants for whom education data were

reported, just over half had a high school diploma or equivalency certification, and only 35%,

just over one-third of those completing high school, had undertaken any post-secondary study.

The majority of adult CSBG clients had levels of education so low that their odds of leaving

poverty behind without additional training were very low.

D. The CSBG Network’s FY 2003 Resources and Programs

The CSBG/IS collects state reports on all resources expended by CAAs from all major funding

sources—federal, state, local, private, and reports on volunteers working in CAA programs.

Table E shows the FY 2003 total network resources.

In FY 2003, the total spent by the CSBG network in 50 states, including federal CSBG appro-

priations, was more than $9.3 billion; if the value of volunteers’ time were added, as shown in

Table E, the figure would have been more than $9.5 billion.

Table E

CSBG Network Resources, FY 2003 in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

(in Millions of Dollars)

Source of Funds Total

Federal (not CSBG) $ 6,170

State $ 1,083

Local $ 565

Private $ 922

Private: Volunteers’ Hours (42.1 million @ $5.15) $ 217

Subtotal: Non-CSBG Resources $ 8,956

CSBG Resources $ 589

Total Resources $ 9,545All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest million. Columns may not add up to exact totals listed due to rounding.


Leveraging

Every CSBG dollar was matched in the local network by $14.84 from all other sources. When

only non-federal leveraged funds and resources are considered, CSBG leveraged $4.36 of state,

local, and private resources for each CSBG dollar, as shown in Table F. In fact, private sector

contributions alone represented $1.57 for each CSBG dollar spent.

Executive Summary • ix

Federal Resources Other Than CSBG

Approximately 66% of all FY 2003 “leveraged” resources, more than $6 billion, came from

federal programs other than the CSBG. The largest of these federal programs were Head Start

and Early Head Start with more than $2.7 billion in combined funding, or over 42% of all non-

CSBG federal funding reported.

Total State, Local Government, Private and Volunteer Resources

States utilize the CSBG local network to deliver a large number of state-funded, low-income

programs. Thirteen provided state appropriations for general support of CSBG local agencies’

programs. Grants and contracts for specific state low-income programs delivered by CAAs

provided almost $1.1 billion. Roughly one-third of the state funds were spent on early childhood

development and child care programs.

Table F

FY 2003 Ratio of Non-Federal Leveraged Resources to CSBG Funds,

by Source, in 51 States

Source Ratio per $1.00 of CSBG Funds Compared to CSBG ($588,935,800)

State $1.84 $1,083,136,300

Local $0.96 $565,287,600

Private* $1.57 $922,068,700

All Non-Federal $4.36 $2,570,492,600All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred.* However, if volunteer hours were valued at just minimum wage and included, the ratio would become $1.93.


Fifty states reported on their FY 2003 local government resources, which totaled more than $565

million, including grants, unrestricted funds and contracts to administer specific initiatives. All

the states reported on private contributions to the CSBG network. The value of private funds,

client-paid fees and in-kind donations was more than $922 million.

More than 42 million donated volunteer hours were recorded. When conservatively valued at the 2003

minimum wage of $5.15, they added an additional nearly $217 million to the support of CAA activities.

E. Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds

Local CAAs are expected to mobilize and coordinate their communities’ initiatives to reduce the

causes of poverty. CSBG funds are used to support the people and provide the resources needed

for organizing community partnerships and for project development. They also can be used for

direct services or assistance to other community groups as well as to individuals and families

participating in CAA programs.

Reports from 50 states provided details about the local uses of CSBG funds by the nine

categories of activity specified in the CSBG statute. These activities are categorized according to

specific barriers to self-sufficiency that are causes of poverty. They are shown in the chart with

the share of CSBG funds allocated to each. Most of the network’s other funds could also be

assigned to these categories, as CAAs integrate resources from numerous funders to combat a

single cause of poverty.

The full report provides short case studies of the coordination of other resources with CSBG to

address each specific service category. As Figure E shows, the three largest categories of

CSBG expenditures were Linkage programs, emergency services and self-sufficiency

programs. These claimed 17%, 18%, and 15% of CSBG resources respectively. These

categories require flexible funding not available from categorized programs. CSBG is uniquely

useful for the activities involved.

x • Executive Summary


Executive Summary • xi

F. Trends in Network Resources and Expenditures

Indicators of the 5-year funding trends for the states reporting each year are adjusted to reflect

their real purchasing power as measured in inflation-adjusted 1999 dollars. The analysis shows

that the network’s funds from federal, state, local and private sources (other than CSBG itself)

were 29% greater in FY 2003 than in FY 1999. Figure F shows the trends for each source of

funding other than CSBG in 47 states. It indicates a change in the previous pattern of growth;

from FY 1999 through FY 2002, state, local and private resources had grown steadily, as had

CSBG appropriations. However, all non-federal funds combined in FY 2003 were slightly below

FY 2002 levels. CSBG FY 2003 funding also was slightly lower when compared to FY 2002, in

both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars.

Local Agency Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds

Figure E

Self-Sufficiency15%

Linkages17%

Nutrition9%

Emergency Services18%

Housing8%

Income Management5%

Education11%

Employment10%

Other3%

Health4%

$559 Million in 50 States


The drop in FY 2003 CSBG funds was accompanied by even steeper reductions in federal and state

funding. The 5-year trend of growth in local government and private leveraging persisted, but at a

slower rate. The changed proportion of non-federal funds in the network, 30% in FY 2003 versus

28% in 1999, is one indicator that CAA leadership had invested heavily in local development

activities. CSBG is, typically, the source of funds for the people and operations that mobilize new

resources. CSBG is used to fund project planning and development and to mobilize resources, as

well as for direct support of local projects. Table G compares the “leveraging” power of a CSBG

dollar before and after the CSBG expansion in the 47 states that reported in both 1999 and 2003.

xii • Executive Summary

Trends in CSBG Funding, FY 1999–FY 2003

(in 1999 Dollars)

Figure F

$700,000,000

$600,000,000

$500,000,000

$400,000,000

$300,000,000

$200,000,000

$100,000,000

$01999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Table G

CSBG Leveraging Trends: Value of the Network’s State, Local and Private

Funds Compared to the CSBG, FY 1999 v. FY 2003 (in 1999 Dollars)

Non-Federal Funds Source 1999* Funds Leveraged 2003 Funds Leveragedper $1.00 of CSBG per $1.00 of CSBG

State $2.19 $1.84

Local $0.99 $0.96

Private (including volunteer hours) $1.35 $2.01

All Non-Federal $4.54 $4.81* CSBG/IS Statistical Report, 1999, NASCSP p. 26.


Conclusion

In 2003, the U.S. poverty rate increased for the third year in a row to 12.5%. There were 1.3

million more persons whose household incomes were at or below the poverty threshold ($15,670

for a family of three) than there had been just one year before. All together 35.9 million people,

including nearly 12.9 million children (an increase of three-quarters of a million children

compared to the year before), were officially in poverty.

In FY 2003, many state governments could not fund higher levels of supportive services,

including the services that could sustain self-sufficiency. At the end of the fiscal year, state

revenues were only 0.4% higher compared to the year before, far below the rate of inflation.

Community Action Agencies were pressed to meet the needs of low-income families, many of

whom were experiencing the consequences of a slow and uneven economic recovery. When

compared to the real value of the previous year’s resources, both federal and state funding had

dropped 4%. In addition, the FY 2003 block grant was slightly lower than it had been in FY

2002, both nominally and in inflation-adjusted dollars. The continuing economic uncertainty and

loss of public funding, especially from state budgets, might be expected to have dramatically

affected FY 2004 CAA programs; those data will be available in late 2005.

Executive Summary • xiii

Endnotes

i The U.S. Census Bureau records the number of individuals living in poverty in each state, but the CSBG/IS recordsthe number of households with incomes below the poverty guideline in each state. The number of individuals inpoverty served by each state’s CAAs can be reasonably well estimated by multiplying the number of participantfamilies by the average family size to obtain a count of individuals, and then multiplying all individuals by thepercentage of CAA families with incomes at or below the poverty threshold in the state.

ii Family totals and the network’s share are based on comparisons to the average monthly caseload shown by the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, TANF: Total Number ofFamilies and Recipients, Percent Change from March 2003 to June 2003 (Washington, DC, 2004), http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2003/mar03_jun03.htm. VT was omitted from calculations of the proportion of TANFrecipients served because data for VT are missing from the HHS table. LA and RI also were not included, as the datafrom those states were not comparable to the reports of other states.


Community Services Block Grant


Introduction

In 2003, the U.S. poverty rate increased for the third year in a row to 12.5%, a 0.4% (.004) jump.

In 2002, the rate had been 12.1%. However, by 2003, there were 1.3 million more persons whose

household incomes were at or below the poverty threshold ($15,670 for a family of three) than

there had been just one year before. This meant that a total of 35.9 million people, including

nearly 12.9 million children, were officially in poverty. This number included almost three-

quarters of a million more children than were in poverty a year earlier.1

The sharpest increase in the incidence of poverty was in the South, but the poverty rate did not drop

in any of the regions. In every region in FY 2003, Community Action Agencies (CAAs) were

pressed to meet the needs of a low-income population that was experiencing the consequences of a

slow and uneven economic recovery. The recession that began in March of 2001 lingered through

the summer of 2003. At the end of September 2003, the proportion of the workforce classified as

long-term unemployed had increased to 23.4% from 19.9% a year before.2

Among Americans who were employed, the effects of the economic recovery were not uniform.

In several industries employing low-wage workers (such as food services and child day care

services), wage growth was slower after the end of the recession, compared to the average for the

private sector overall.3 Moreover, by the end of September 2003, the number of people who were

working part time because they lacked full-time options increased by more than half a million

compared to a year before.4

State governments were strained in their ability to provide supportive services in FY 2003,

including services that could sustain self-sufficiency. At the beginning of FY 2003, state revenues

had been projected to grow 6.7% over revenues in FY 2002. In fact, at the end of the 2003 fiscal

year, they were only 0.4% higher compared to the year before, far below the rate of inflation.

Many states pared back spending significantly.5

Introduction • 1


For the 6 million families whose members participated in CAA programs, any earlier gains they had

made in earning power or in developing assets and skills were threatened. Other struggling families

were at risk of losing so much income that they would become eligible for CSBG–funded programs.

When estimating the numbers of individuals and working families who might need assistance

during a year, closer investigation of the income patterns of the 20% of households at the very

bottom of the income scale indicates that the circumstances of many poor and near-poor

individuals fluctuate over the course of several months. This means that more individuals

experience periods of impoverishment over the course of a year than the number calculated at

any one moment by the Census Bureau. Many of these families faced the routine misfortunes of

life in 2003, including illness, deaths, job loss or divorce, but they were without the reserves of

assets or savings needed to endure bad times; for these individuals and families, bad luck and

hardship became crises that threatened their health, safety and the stability not only of their

income stream but of their family’s future. Growing poverty meant that more families needed

accessible and immediate assistance, perhaps including more comprehensive support to build or

rebuild their financial assets and personal capabilities.

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) supports a national network of local

organizations; more than 87% are Community Action Agencies, or CAAs. This state-

administered group of more than 1,100 local agencies creates, coordinates and delivers a broad

array of programs and services to low-income Americans in the communities where they live.

CAAs are community-based institutions providing support, services and resource mobilization in

low-income communities. By statute, CAAs are governed by a tri-partite board consisting of

one-third elected public officials and at least one-third representatives of the low-income

community, with the balance drawn from leaders in the private sector including businesses, faith-

based groups, charities and civic organizations. While agencies’ structures vary, for purposes of

this report the designation “CAA” will refer to all the CSBG network’s local agencies.

2 • Introduction


The CAAs’ core federal support and institutional framework is the CSBG, whose purpose is to alleviate

poverty by funding initiatives that fight its causes, especially unemployment, inadequate housing, poor

nutrition and lack of educational opportunity. The universal mission of the CSBG-funded programs is

to provide people and communities with the resources and tools to become self-sufficient.

The network’s FY 2003 data were gathered by the Community Services Block Grant Information

System (CSBG/IS) Survey, a system of reporting by states that includes information on the

programs from all funding sources managed by the CSBG local network. The reporting system is

developed and administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs

(NASCSP) and supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of

Community Services (OCS). NASCSP is the national association of the state administrators of the

CSBG and of the U.S Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (DOE/WAP).

Fifty-one of the 52 CSBG grantees surveyed responded to at least one section of the FY 2003

survey, including 49 states, the District of Columbia (DC) and Puerto Rico.† The report refers to

all these grantees as “states.” They provided information on the level and uses of FY 2003

CSBG funds, on the sources and uses of other funding administered by the CSBG local network,

on the program activities of the network, and on the number and characteristics of clients served.

In addition, most provided information regarding the level and sources of at least one other form

of federal, state, local or private resources administered by the CSBG local network in their state.

This report is divided into six sections:

Section I discusses FY 2003 federal appropriations for the CSBG and examines the expenditures

of those funds by state.

Section II analyzes in detail the states’ management of the FY 2003 CSBG funds. It covers

statewide initiatives, management investments, an organizational profile of the legislative and

administrative framework of state CSBG programs, as well as the funds distributed to local

agencies. It concludes with an overview of the CSBG local network of CAAs.

Introduction • 3† Data for the state of Wyoming are not included in this report

because they were not submitted in time for publication.


Section III provides a report on the number and characteristics of participants in the programs

managed by the CSBG network.

Section IV considers in detail the resources, other than CSBG, that were generated and

administered by CAAs. It reviews sources and levels of funding from federal, state and local

governments and from private donations and compares them to CSBG funding that supports the

resource-mobilizing activities of CAAs. It also presents data on the investment of volunteers’

time in local CSBG projects.

Section V profiles the activities of the CSBG network’s local agencies. It shows details of their

uses of CSBG resources and how they coordinated other resources with their FY 2003 CSBG

programs. These are examined in the context of nine service categories: employment, education,

income management, housing, emergency services, nutrition, linkages, self-sufficiency and

health. The stories of a few of the 13 million people assisted by the network in FY 2003 are

included in Section V of the report, as are reports from programs that coordinated many

resources with CSBG. They demonstrate how the CSBG is used to convert disparate resources

into an integrated set of responses to community and family needs.

Section VI analyzes the trends in the resources and expenditures of the CSBG network over the

five years ending in FY 2003. CSBG funding from FY 1999 to FY 2003 is reviewed, as are

trends in funding from other federal, state, local and private sources.

Appendix A shows state-by-state responses to the FY 2003 survey.

Appendices B and C present the survey instrument (B) and a list of the members of the National

CSBG/IS Data Collection Task Force that provides direction for the CSBG/IS (C).

4 • Introduction


I. FY 2003 CSBG Funding and Expenditures

Federal CSBG Funds Appropriated

Congress appropriated nearly $734.8 million for the FY 2003 CSBG. This included a block grant

to the states of nearly $646 million, a figure that was slightly below the FY 2002 funding level.

That portion of the CSBG appropriation is the focus of this report. The balance went to several

smaller programs for the poor, including the Community Food and Nutrition Program (more than

$7 million), federal discretionary initiatives to fight rural poverty and support economic develop-

ment of low-income communities (nearly $40 million), Individual Development Accounts (IDAs)

($25 million) and Youth Sports ($17 million). Table 1 displays the three primary categories of

CSBG funds that were appropriated for the programs run by the CSBG local agency network

from FY 2001 to FY 2003. The Youth Sports and Individual Development Accounts are not

shown; they are not directed to the CSBG local network, although numerous CAAs successfully

compete for the annual IDA grants, as discussed below. The FY 2003 appropriation for the state

block grant portion of the CSBG, the subject of this CSBG/IS Report, is hereafter referred to

simply as “the block grant.”

Section I • 5

Table 1

Community Services Block Grant, Appropriations for Local Programs,

FY 2001–FY 2003

Programs FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Block Grant to the States $600,000,000 $650,000,000 $645,778,000

Community Food & Nutrition Program $6,315,000 $7,300,000 $7,252,000

Community Services Discretionary Activities* $35,300,000 $39,500,000 $39,740,000

Total $641,615,000 $696,800,000 $692,770,000All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest thousand. Columns may not add up to exact totals listed due to rounding.* Includes rural development and community development funds.


6 • Section I

Table 2

Sources of FY 2003 CSBG Funds Expended in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Sources Expenditures Number of States

FY 2003 Block Grant $560,197,400 51

FY 2002 Funds Carried Forward $64,359,900 31

Subtotal: All Federal CSBG Funds $624,557,300 51

State CSBG Appropriations $12,248,700 10

Total $636,806,000 51All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred. Columns may not add up to exact totals listed due to rounding.

FY 2003 CSBG Funds Expended by the States

The statistics in Table 2 are from the FY 2003 CSBG/IS survey responses; they describe the sources

of all CSBG funds spent by 49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico during FY 2003.

The total in Table 2 is not the same as the appropriated amount shown in Table 1. Table 2 subtotals

do not include unexpended FY 2003 appropriations carried forward for use in FY 2004, but they do

include FY 2002 funds carried forward to FY 2003. Further, Table 1 shows the funding Congress

provided for the entire nation, Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories, while Table 2, below, is the

survey data reported by 49 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico.

The 51 states collectively expended nearly $625 million from the federal CSBG, of which

slightly more than $560 million came from the FY 2003 appropriations, and more than $64

million came from FY 2002 funds.

In addition, 10 states’ legislatures appropriated about $12 million for state and local CSBG

programs. This state CSBG appropriation figure does not include the state programs

administered by CAAs for specific purposes or sub-populations; those state programs are

described in Section IV of this report. The state funds shown in Table 2 provided the same

flexible local agency operational support to CSBG local grantees, as did the federal block grant.


II. State Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds

Introduction

Table 3 below shows the four primary categories of state expenditures. The CSBG statute

requires that 90% of block grant funds to the states be allocated to local eligible entities, and

nearly 1,100 received almost $577 million. Although several types of local entities are eligible by

statute to deliver CSBG-funded services, most were Community Action Agencies (CAAs). They

are described below in detail. The FY 2003 CSBG supported the management, infrastructure and

operations of the CAAs and funded personnel to coordinate multiple programs, fill gaps in

services, avoid duplication, and improve the continuity of services and activities for participants

as well as to build partnerships for reducing poverty. On average, states used 92% of their block

grant funds for formula grants to local eligible entities. Appendix A, Table 2 shows the details.

Section II • 7

States may use as much as 5% of their grant for their administrative costs, with the exception of

states that have very small allocations, which may use more. As Table 3 shows, states used

slightly less than $26 million for their administrative expenditures, or about 4% of all their

expenditures. The remaining funds may be used at the state’s discretion for programs that help to

accomplish the statutory purposes of the CSBG.

123456789012345678901234567123456789012345678901234567123456789012345678901234567123456789012345678901234567123456789012345678901234567123456789012345678901234567123456789012345678901234567

Table 3

State Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Uses of Funds Amount ExpendedNumber of Percentage of

States Funding Used

Grants to Local Eligible Entities $576,808,600 51 92%

State Administrative Costs $25,846,200 50 4%

Discretionary Projects $21,902,500 45 4%

Total Used in FY 2003 $624,557,300 51 100%

Carried Forward to FY 2004* $ 48,592,900 30

All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred.* Thirty states reported that they reserved $48.6 million for use in FY 2004, of which about 90% will also be

distributed to eligible entities.


State Discretionary Programs

Forty-five states used another 4% of their collective allocation, nearly $22 million, for

discretionary initiatives. They provided a breakdown of uses by purpose and organization.

Purposes of the Discretionary Awards

Statewide Programs

Twenty-four states used nearly $6 million of the discretionary funds for statewide initiatives,

such as programs that address a particular need and involve state-level planning, research,

information dissemination, coalition building and/or intra-state coordination. These may include

activities conducted by the statewide professional associations of the CAAs. Table 4a lists the

programs funded, organized by six general purposes. Appendix A, Table 5-2 provides state-level

details. In addition, states submitted many narrative descriptions of management and program

initiatives funded with discretionary grants, which can be accessed at www.nascsp.org.

8 • Section II

Table 4a

Uses of FY 2003 State Discretionary Funds by Purpose of the Awards

in 43 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Purpose of Discretionary Awards ExpendituresNumber of Percent of

States Discretionary Funds

Statewide Programs $5,964,200 24 28%

Competitive or Demonstration Grants $1,671,000 10 8%

Training & Technical Assistancefor Local Agencies

$3,735,500 31 17%

General Support of Local Agencies $5,393,800 22 25%

Expansion $1,153,100 8 5%

Other Discretionary Uses $3,731,600 20 17%

Total $21,649,200 45 100%

All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred. Columns may not add up to exact totals listed due to rounding.


Competitive and Demonstration Grants

CAAs and other organizations in 10 states competed for about $1.7 million in grants that supported

exemplary competitive or demonstration programs to eliminate one or more causes of poverty.

Training and Technical Assistance

Thirty-one states used $3.7 million to provide training and technical assistance to local agencies,

including support for the introduction of new management information systems to implement

Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA). Some of the management

information system development activities funded are listed as “other” in the table. The details

are shown in Appendix A, Table 5-2.

Expansion to New Areas or Partners

States may expand services to new geographic areas by creating new local eligible entities or by

enlarging the assignments of neighboring CAAs. During the transition period required to

establish CSBG eligibility for such entities, states provide discretionary funding for their

operations. Eight states used more than $1.1 million for expansion of services to new areas.

Other Discretionary Uses

About 17% of the discretionary funds, or about $3.7 million, did not fit into any of the

discretionary categories described above. These “other” programs in 20 states included a broad

range of programs run by CAAs and other organizations such as youth crime prevention,

volunteer mobilization campaigns, scholarships, disaster relief, employment training, health care

for the working poor and other programs to address needs identified by the state agencies.Section II • 9

Putting Rural Community Resources on the Map

Idaho’s Community Action Partnerships collectively have joined with the Rural Policy ResearchInstitute and the 211-Idaho information system to provide rural community mapping, resourcesmobilization and identifying sources of services and other community resources throughout thestate. The project is expected to last at least three years and to produce long-term benefits.Goals are threefold: 1) To enable communities to identify their resources, strengths and needs;2) To provide local decision-makers with easily accessible and useful information about theircommunities and 3) To establish a process by which local communities and groups canindependently continue the process of community mapping as they develop strategies to improvethe conditions in their community. The initial phase of community mapping has been completed,as has the initial process of identifying sources and low-income demographics statewide.

Idaho


Type of Agency Awarded Discretionary Projects

CAAs and CAA Associations

Individual CAAs or their state professional associations managed 60% of the discretionary

program funding, or about $13 million. Twenty-one states allocated $3.4 million of the sums spent

for training to state professional associations of CAAs to provide training to local managers and

staff. State CAA associations enhance CAA management capabilities, provide training and

technical assistance to local agency managers and staff and coordinate statewide efforts to

implement new program initiatives and management systems. Table 4b shows the national totals

categorized by the type of recipient agency. Appendix A, Table 5 provides state-level details.

10 • Section II

Migrant/Farm Worker and Tribal Organizations

Migrant and/or farm worker organizations received more than $1.2 million from discretionary funds

in eight states, while eight states collectively provided nearly $1.3 million to tribal organizations.

Many were also CSBG eligible entities, but the funds are recorded only once in the table.

Other Organizations

At least seven states used all discretionary funds for the other organizations shown in Table 4b to

support and augment the efforts of eligible entities. Nine states provided support to all these types of

recipient agencies, eligible entities, other organizations and state CAA associations. Table 4b shows

the other kinds of organizations that received nearly $6.2 million, or 28%, of the discretionary funds.

Table 4b

Uses of FY 2003 State Discretionary Funds by Type of Recipient Agency

Type of Grantee ExpendituresNumber of Percent of

States Discretionary Funds

Tribal Organizations $1,293,000 8 6%

Migrant and/or Farm WorkerOrganizations

$1,212,500 8 6%

State CAA Associations $3,400,000 21 16%

Eligible Entities $9,556,800 32 44%

Other Organizations $6,186,900 28 28%

Total $21,649,200 45 100%

All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred. Columns may not add up to exact totals listed due to rounding.


Section II • 11

State Management of the Block Grant

States provided information on their management achievements in FY 2003 as well as their

program accomplishments. All states reported on their continuing progress in implementing

Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA). ROMA systems help determine

specific results to be achieved by local programs and measure the achievement of those results.

Many states upgraded their local computer networks and hardware to enable efficient data

exchange among programs and agencies across the network. In addition, many states also

convened statewide meetings of local CAAs in order to discuss outcome management strategies

and to implement strategic planning processes.

State Administration

The block grant funded all or part of 602 positions in 48 states’ administrative structures during

FY 2003; 49 states reported that their CSBG-funded employees’ time was the equivalent of about

254 full-time state employees (FTEs).

States listed the departments responsible for administering their CSBG. These departments,

shown below in Table 5, are divided into four broad groupings:

• Those that administer public assistance and income support programs;

• Those that administer community and local programs to address housing and neighborhood

economic development;

• Those that primarily administer employment and job or business development programs; or

• Special executive offices assigned anti-poverty program responsibilities.

The most common administrative location, in 26 states, was the Human Resources, Social

Services and/or Human Services department. The next most common, in 17 states, was the

Community Affairs, Community Services or Community Economic Development department.

In 8 states, CSBG programs were either housed together with programs related to commerce or

labor or in the state’s executive offices. Table 5 shows the state-by-state data.


FY 2003 CSBG Planned and Actual Spending

States reported on their planned spending as submitted to the Office of Community Services

(OCS) in their FY 2003 plans as well as reporting on their actual expenditures. Planned total

spending was about $643 million; nearly $625 million was actually spent, a difference of less

than one percent.

12 • Section II

Table 5

Administrative Location of FY 2003 State CSBG Programs

in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Department StateNumber of

States

AR, AZ, CT, DC, DE, GA, ID, IN,Human Resources, Social Services, KY, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, 26Human Services NC, NE, NH, NM, NV, PR, RI, SD,

TN, VA, WI

AK, AL, CA, CO, FL, IL, MD,Community Affairs, Community Services,

MA, ND, NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, 18Community Economic DevelopmentUT, VT, WA

Office of the Governor SC, WV 2

Other HI, IA, KS, LA, NY 5

Table 6

Planned and Actual FY 2003 Expenditures in 51 States

Use of FundsNumber of Funding

States Planned Actual

Local Eligible Agencies 51 $586,456,000 $576,809,000

State Administration 50 $30,688,000 $25,846,000

State Discretionary Projects 45 $25,976,000 $21,903,000

Total 51 $643,119,000 $624,557,000

All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest million. Columns may not add up to exact totals listed due to rounding.


Section II • 13

Local CSBG Administrative Expenses

Fifty states provided data on the amount of FY 2003 CSBG funds used for “administrative”

expenses for most of their local agencies. As Table 7 shows, the national average was about 22%

of the participating agencies’ CSBG. Twenty-two states used less than 20% of their CSBG for the

activities their state defined as “administrative.”

Table 7

FY 2003 CSBG Funds Used for Local Administrative Expenditures in 50 States

Average 22%

Median (ND) 21%

Lowest (CO) <1%

Highest (MI) 48%

It is difficult to interpret what these data mean about the real use of the funds. Close examination

of different state reporting practices shows that many states with higher percentages have

sweeping and informal definitions of the expenditures that constitute “administrative” costs. The

figures provided by some states CAAs include many expenses that other states deem to be

project expenses, so the reports exaggerate the national total administrative costs.

The CSBG/IS statistical report system includes the category “administrative” expenses as required by

the statutory language describing this report to HHS. This report is from the federally-mandated

accounting systems CAAs use. Although both the federally mandated accounting systems and this

CSBG report have administrative costs as a category, they differ significantly in that most local agency

accounting systems are based on the federal regulation that requires agencies’ core financial systems

to track their “indirect expenses,” including “general and administrative” costs as well as other expen-

ditures. The Office of Community Services provides guidance about the criteria to use when identify-

ing indirect expenses or non-program expenses for reporting on the CSBG/IS. There is room within

that guidance for significant variation in state practices. As a result, the “administrative” category

contains numerous local reports of expenditures for activities defined by CSBG statute as a direct

purpose and by The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation as “indirect,” such as

community mobilization activities, project development, and support of new grassroots groups’ costs.


14 • Section II

Other Programs Administered by State CSBG Offices

Just as the local agencies administer a number of federal and state programs for their

communities in conjunction with the CSBG, so do the state CSBG offices. Appendix A, Table 9

shows state-by-state details of these responsibilities. All together, the state CSBG offices

administered 234 programs. As shown in Table 8, nearly all state CSBG offices administered the

HHS Community Food and Nutrition Program. Twenty CSBG administrators reported that they

administered at least some part of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program

(LIHEAP), and 19 reported that they administered the Department of Energy Weatherization

Assistance Program (DOE/WAP). Seventeen CSBG administrators were responsible for one or

more Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs, and seven ran additional federal

programs for the homeless.

Twenty-six of the state CSBG offices had responsibility for other federal or state programs,

such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), self-sufficiency initiatives, state

housing and homelessness programs, state energy programs, Refugee Assistance, Safe

Drinking Water, childcare support and/or domestic violence-related services. Together, they

managed 110 such additional efforts.

Table 8

Other Federal Programs Directed by CSBG Administrators,

FY 2003 in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Programs Number of States

Community Food and Nutrition Program 49

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 20

Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) 19

Housing and Urban Development Programs (HUD) 17

Other Federal Homeless Programs 7

USDA Nutrition and Other 9

Head Start 3

Other Programs (110) 26


Section II • 15

The Extent of the Network’s FY 2003 Programs

In FY 2003, as has been the case in recent years, more than 96% of counties in the United States

were served by local agencies of the CSBG network.

Figure 1

Counties Served by a CAA in FY 2003

As the map of U.S. counties in Figure 1 shows, 44 states’ CAAs covered the entire state; another

four states reported that CAAs served 90% or more of the state. Only two states, Kansas and

Virginia, reported that fewer than 90% of their counties were served. Appendix A, Table 6 shows

the details. One state expanded CSBG local agency services to an additional county in FY 2003.

Three states reported that a local agency ceased operations during FY 2003. When past reports

from states not providing FY 2003 figures are included, the data show more than 96% of U.S.

counties were served by a Community Action Agency. Finally, thirty-one states reported that they

had legislation in effect authorizing CSBG programs. Details of each state’s CSBG legislation

can be found in Appendix A, Tables 10 and 10-1.


The CSBG Network

In FY 2003, there were 1,080 CSBG eligible entities in the 51 states responding. Table 9

displays the number of each type of local agency. It shows that the vast majority of these

organizations, nearly 88%, were CAAs. With few exceptions, these agencies are governed by a

tri-partite board consisting of one-third elected public officials and at least one-third

representatives of the low-income community, with the balance drawn from private sector and

other community leaders. Most CAAs served their communities throughout the 1970s before

being designated eligible entities in the 1981 legislation that created the CSBG. This designation

determines which agencies are eligible for CSBG funds.

Other types of organizations can also qualify as eligible entities. There were 205 eligible entities

that were units of local government, 137 of which were also constituted as CAAs; the remaining

68 government units were not CAAs and may not have been governed by tri-partite local boards.

The network included 33 “limited purpose agencies” which were not CAAs; these are agencies

specializing in only one or two kinds of programs. There were also 61 migrant and/or seasonal

farm worker organizations that were CSBG sub-grantees, of which 48 were structured as CAAs.

State-by-state data are found in Appendix A, Table 4.

16 • Section II

1234567890123456789012345678901123456789012345678901234567890112345678901234567890123456789011234567890123456789012345678901123456789012345678901234567890112345678901234567890123456789011234567890123456789012345678901

Table 9

FY 2003 Local Agencies, by Type, in 49 States, DC and Puerto Rico

Category of Eligible EntityNumber of Unduplicated Number of

Entities Reported Count of Entities* States

Community Action Agencies 945 945 51

Limited Purpose Agencies 33 33 11

Migrant and/or Seasonal Farm61 13 21

Worker Organizations

Local Government Agencies 205 68 24

Others 84 21 10

Total 1,080 51* Includes local CAAs and any organizations not designated as Community Action Agencies that were not counted

in the first column.


III. The Participants in the CSBG Network’s

FY 2003 Programs

Introduction

In FY 2003, most states collected unduplicated counts of individuals and families their CAAs

served, along with information about selected characteristics of most of those participants. Local

agencies in 49 states and the District of Columbia reported that over 13 million individuals who

were members of nearly 6 million families participated in local CAA programs.

As Table 10 shows, the vast majority of the CSBG network was represented in the responses to

this survey. The local agencies that reported demographic data managed nearly 95% of the

CSBG network’s total resources. The data from several states reflect not only eligible entities’

clients but also those served by other grantees, such as organizations managing state discretion-

ary projects. Altogether, the reports provide detail about most of the participants in 1,081 local

organizations’ programs in 49 states and Washington, DC.

Section III • 17

Table 10

Scope of the FY 2003 Demographic Survey in 49 States and DC

Number of states reporting 50

Number of local agencies reporting 1081

Percent of total network resources in agencies reporting 95%

Individuals assisted 13,046,700

Individuals surveyed 10,643,200

Families assisted 5,954,000

Families surveyed 4,886,800

Numbers for individuals and families are rounded to the nearest hundred.


18 • Section III

The responses collected do not include all program participants assisted in FY 2003. CAAs reported

that there were 2.4 million individuals in slightly more than 1 million families for whom no data

were recorded. CAAs did not survey many people with limited agency interaction; some who

participated in programs not funded by CSBG also were not included. For example, food bank

customers who visit briefly, or people who were provided with information and referrals but not with

services, were among those not surveyed. Some other CAA programs, such as HUD Section 8

rental assistance, prohibit sharing key family data with any other program’s data collection system,

including CSBG’s. However, demographic data obtained from agency interviews with more than

10.6 million people, or 82% of program participants, describe one or more attributes of the

individuals participating in agency programs and, in most cases, attributes of their entire family.

Characteristics of Families Participating

in CSBG Network Programs

Data on gender, age or ethnicity were reported for virtually all those included in the demographic

survey. They show that the network continued to serve a heterogeneous group of low-income

Americans in need of a variety of forms of assistance. The typical CAA program participant:

• Lived in a family with children;

• Was white and not Hispanic;

• Was very poor; and

• Had family members currently working or with work experience.


Section III • 19

Family Size and Composition

Nearly 4.3 million families in 50 states were classified by number of family members. The

national average for participants’ family size was 2.7 members; however, this average represents

a considerable range. There were more than 1.6 million two- or three-person families containing

4 million individuals. More than 46,000 families had eight or more members. The average

family size also varied substantially among states, from a low of 1.9 members in one state to a

high of 3.9 members in another. About a third of all households served by CAA programs,

nearly 1.4 million, were people living alone. This population includes many who are elderly or

disabled. Individuals living alone are disproportionately likely to be poor; they made up 20% of

the U.S. population living in poverty at the beginning of FY 2003.6

Family Composition, FY 2003

Figure 2

As shown in Figure 2, more than half, or 55%, of the CAA program participant families included

children. Just over a third, 35%, of these families had both parents present; although single

mothers headed almost 1.4 million, or 59% of the families with children. Single fathers headed

another 6% of families. Single-parent families have the highest poverty rate of all family types.

4.2 Million Families in 50 States

Other5%

WithoutChildren

40%

WithChildren

55%

Familieswith Children

Householdswithout Children

SingleMother

59%

SingleFather

6%

TwoParents

35%

SinglePerson

75%

TwoAdults25%


20 • Section III

In 2003, nearly 28% of the all US families headed by single mothers were in poverty, as were

13.5% of those headed by single fathers.7 A few families’ structure was characterized as “other.”

These 203,000 households included children living with adults who were not their parents and/or

parents with adult dependent children, as well as other people sharing housing. This variation in

family size and structure is one indicator of the multiplicity of needs among the poor, and the wide

variety of programs provided by the CSBG network is, in part, due to this diversity of family needs.

Children

The participants in CAAs’ programs in 49 of the states included more than 3.5 million children

younger than 18 years old.8 These children made up 38% of all individuals served; more than 1.3

million of them, or 40%, were five years of age or younger. CAAs play a major role in delivering

services for preschool children, especially Head Start and childcare. From 1995 through 2001,

CAAs provided Head Start services to about 40% of all enrollees in U.S. Head Start classrooms.9

CAAs also provide programming targeted at other specific age groups among the children and youth,

some of which are described in the following section. Altogether, more than 2.2 million school-age

children and teens were engaged in FY 2003 CAA programs. Figure 3 shows this age distribution.

Figure 3

FY 2003 CAA Program Participants

by Age Group


Seniors 55+18%

3.5 Million Children and Youth

Ages of Child and Youth Participants

Adult 24-5435%

Young Adult 18-239%

Children0-1738%

Age 12-1730%

Age 6-1132%

Age 0-538%


Older Adult Program Participants

About 18% of CAA program participants, or 1.7 million people, were more than 54 years old,

and almost half of them were 70 years or older. This latter population has special needs;

maintaining their independence requires services such as transportation, adult day care programs,

nutritional assistance, weatherization, home repair and social or recreational programming. All

these supports help aged program participants remain self-sufficient and engaged in the

community. These statistics also mean that CAAs helped many of the 10% of all seniors whom

the Census found living in poverty.10

Ethnicity

The CAAs’ clientele is ethnically diverse, as shown in Figure 4. The data on 9.6 million indi-

vidual program participants in 49 states show that more than half were White and also non-

Hispanic, as were 45% of persons in poverty in the U.S. in 2003.11 Participants of African-

American and Hispanic origin made up 23% and 16% respectively of those served by CAA

programs as compared to 24% and 23%, of persons in poverty. There was, of course,

considerable variation among the states with respect to the ethnic and racial mix of participants,

as shown in Appendix A, pages 12-2 and 12-3.

Section III • 21

Figure 4

Ethnicity of CSBG Network Clients

FY 2003


White53%

Hispanic16%

African-American23%

American Indian/Alaskan

4%

Asian2%

Other2%


22 • Section III

Family Income Levels

The extreme poverty of those assisted by the CSBG network is evident from the family income

data reported for 4 million families.12 Figure 5 shows the proportion of families with incomes at

or below percentages of the Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG), which is also used to determine

client program eligibility.13

Most CAA program participants had family incomes below not only the HHS Poverty Guideline,

which was then $15,260 for a family of three, but at or below 75% of the Guideline.14 In fact,

about 26%, or 1 million families, were “severely poor” in Census terminology; this means they

had incomes at or below 50% of their poverty guideline, putting their incomes below $7,630 for

a family of three. About 13% of families had incomes between 100–125% of the poverty

guideline, and another 15% had incomes above that level. Many of the other federal categorical

programs administered by the CSBG network are also open to these “near-poor” families.

Figure 5

Number of FY 2003 Participant Families by Poverty Status

(as Percent of Federal Poverty Guideline)

Num

ber

of C

lient

Fam

ilies

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

150% of Poverty Guideline125% of Poverty Guideline

Poverty Guideline



4 Million Families in 49 States


CSBG family income data can be used to estimate the percentage of all individuals who were

living in poverty in 2003 and whose families were served by CAA programs.15 State-by-state

2003 Census data for 48 states reporting CSBG/IS income data indicate that 34.9 million of their

residents were in poverty. Nearly 6.8 million members of CAA program participant families

were in poverty in the same states. This means that CAAs served about 19% of the poor in FY

2003, in addition to assisting 3 million people living in “near-poor” families.

This national average masked inter-state variation. For example, CAA programs in Vermont, Kentucky,

Minnesota and Iowa served between 60% and 72% of the state’s residents who were in poverty. Half

of the states served 26% or fewer of their residents in poverty. Since nearly two million other CAA

families did not report on their incomes, the figures reported here are undoubtedly undercounts.

Client Income Sources

Figure 6 groups the data on sources of family income into five categories. It shows that CAAs

were serving almost 2.9 million families with a worker, job seeker or retired worker. In fact,

more than 1.7 million families included at least one member of the 2003 workforce; they were

either working or job seekers who were receiving Unemployment Insurance when they came to

their CAA. This figure is nearly half the population that provided data about their income

sources. More than a million working participants relied entirely on their wages for income,

while almost 473,000 more families had income from wages plus at least one other form of

income. Those with pensions or Social Security benefits are all categorized as having retirement

income; CAAs served almost 1.2 million “retired” families in FY 2003.

The chart shows the working-poor program participants in the “In Workforce” bar of Figure 6; it

is divided into all those reporting they had family income from unemployment compensation,

those who relied entirely on wages and those who said they had income from wages and another

source – such as one of the forms of assistance or retirement income. When considered with the

information about income levels shown in the previous chart, it is clear that all these program

participants were low-wage workers; only 15% of all families, whether working, out of the

workforce or retired, had incomes over 125% of the poverty threshold.

Section III • 23


Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) accounted for 12% of all reported sources of

income. Recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) outnumbered TANF participants. The

chart shows the number reporting TANF grouped together with the number reporting SSI and/or state

General Assistance income in the bar labeled “assistance.” Analysis of HHS caseload data on TANF

families in the 47 states that provided 2003 CSBG/IS data shows that the population CAAs served

was equivalent to about 18% of the average monthly TANF population in the same states.16 Further,

CAAs in five of those states reported they served at least half the state’s average monthly TANF

population. These families may appear in more than one of the bars in Figure 6. For example, some

of the 418,000 TANF-participant households who received CAA services may have been making the

transition to work through part-time employment. Grandparents who were raising grandchildren and

who had retirement income or SSI payments could also have been receiving TANF for the children.

In addition, the 823,000 two parent-families with children served by CAAs would be likely to have

had income for each adult whether from work or assistance. The chart shows the aggregate number

of sources reported; the households with any income reported an average of one and a half income

sources, indicating that many households had more than one person receiving income, and many

households had one person receiving more than one form of income.

24 • Section III

Figure 6

Sources of Income for FY 2003

CAA Program Participant Households

No Income Assistance Retired Worker In Workforce Other

Num

ber

of F

amili

es R

epor

ting

Sou

rce

WagesOnly

UnemploymentCompensation

TANF

SSI

State Pension

SocialSecurity

Wages andAnotherSource

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0


Section III • 25

However, many families, nearly 540,000, came to their CAAs with no income at all. Generally,

they represented the most vulnerable working-poor Americans. They were not enrolled in

income support programs; most were without liquid assets, and many previously had lost their

sources of support, especially wages. Some of their stories, and the resources their CAAs

brought to bear to stabilize their situations, are outlined in narrative accounts that accompany the

CSBG statistics in Section V.

Barriers to Self-Sufficiency

Most CAA program participants have experienced not one but many causes of poverty. Some

have worked with other social service programs, but many have not had assistance or previous

support of any kind; others are difficult to serve because of history or personal characteristics.

The CSBG/IS collects data on three key barriers to economic stability and well-being: education,

physical or mental disability, and the lack of health insurance, which research shows to be a

strong predictor of serious health impairments and also of other personal hardships.17

Lack of Education

Forty-nine states reported on the education of more than 4 million adults participating in CSBG

programs.18 The data from forty-eight that used a common format are shown in Figure 7. Of

these individuals, only 56% had as much as a high school diploma or equivalency certification,

and only 20% of adult program participants, had undertaken any post-secondary study. In other

words, just 35% of those completing high school had further education of any kind. Most had

levels of education so low that the odds they could leave poverty behind without additional

training were remote.


26 • Section III

Figure 7

Education Levels of Adult CAA Participants

FY 2003

Disability and Health Risks

More than 1 million people who came to CAAs in 49 states were disabled. Most states indicated the

number of individuals they surveyed about disability status, and, collectively, 18% of those surveyed

were disabled.19 Fifty states reported that more than 2.7 million people were without medical

insurance. This group represented 46% of participants interviewed by CAAs in 49 states and is

undoubtedly an undercount, as fewer than half of the participants are included in these surveys.

The uninsured can be assumed to have been largely adult low-wage workers, as Medicaid coverage

is available for the indigent elderly and TANF or SSI recipients, and Medicare and new children’s

insurance programs cover retirees and the very young respectively. Recent research has found that

lack of any health insurance is a strong predictor of future critical hardships for families at all income

levels but is particularly strong for those with income below 200% of the poverty threshold.20 CAA

program participants are, therefore, a group at exceptionally high risk of experiencing episodes of

poor health or injury that will create major hardships for them and those depending on them. CAA

services that assist with emergencies and support low-income workers are part of the response to

these workers’ urgent needs while they pursue stable employment that provides health benefits.

Num

ber

of A

dult

Par

ticip

ants

0-8th Grade

9 or More YearsNo Diploma

High School Grad/GED

12 Years & SomePost-Secondary

2- or 4-YearCollege Grad

1,400,0001,300,0001,200,0001,100,0001,000,000

900,000800,000700,000600,000500,000400,000300,000200,000100,000

0

4 Million Adults in 48 States


IV. The CSBG Network’s Resources and Programs

Introduction

The CSBG/IS survey collects information on the source and purpose of all resources used by

CAAs and asks for details on the ways the CAAs use CSBG funds. CAAs categorized the

CSBG funds they used by the statutory purposes. Those responses are shown in Section V of this

Report. Other funding that CAAs leveraged, managed and coordinated is totaled below and

categorized according to the name of the program or sector providing the resources.

Section IV • 27

Figure 8

The CSBG Network’s Total Resources

in FY 2003 by Source

State12%

Local6%

Private10%

CSBG6%

Federal66%

$9.3 Billion in 51 States

FY 2003 CSBG Network Resources

CAAs and other grantees in the 51 states reported on all their FY 2003 funds and the time

contributed by volunteers. The reports submitted totaled more than $9.3 billion, including $589

million from CSBG. These local reports covered 94% of the CSBG funds allocated to all local

programs in those states. All these funds are shown, by source, in Figure 8.


28 • Section IV

Leveraging

Funding from all other sources, $8.74 billion, matched CSBG dollars in the local network by a

ratio of $14.84 to every dollar ($1.00) of CSBG. Considering only non-federal leveraged funds

gives one measure of the states’ and the local communities’ confidence in the agencies; by that

test, CSBG leveraged $4.36 in combined state, local and private funds per CSBG dollar.

Further, when volunteers’ hours are included with other private contributions and valued at the

minimum wage of $5.15 for every hour donated, the network leveraged $4.73 in non-federal

resources for every CSBG dollar. Figure 9 below shows the comparison between CSBG funds

and the funding from each non-federal source.

CSBG Leveraging of FY 2003

Private*, Local and State Resources

* Includes 42.5 million volunteer hours valued at the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.

Figure 9


$1,400,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$800,000,000

$600,000,000

$400,000,000

$200,000,000

$0CSBG State Local Private

Volunteer Hours(Estimated atMinimum Wage)

Funds


The private sector contributions of funds, goods and services alone, more than $922 million, not

including volunteer time, was more than $1.57 for each CSBG dollar. State funds were $1.84 for

each CSBG dollar. If the value of volunteers’ time at only minimum wage were added to private

contributions the total would exceed the state funding in the network. As discussed further in Section

VI, private funding for the network grew steadily over five years as CSBG resources increased.

Section IV • 29

Table 11

FY 2003 Ratio of Non-Federal Leveraged Resources to CSBG Funds,

by Source, in 51 States

Source Ratio per $1.00 of CSBG Funds Compared to CSBG ($588,935,800)

State $1.84 $1,083,136,300

Local $0.96 $565,287,600

Private* $1.57 $922,068,700

All Non-Federal $4.36 $2,570,492,600All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred.* However, if volunteer hours were valued at just minimum wage and included, the ratio would become $1.93.

The FY 2003 total represented a $26 million increase, or 2.9%, over the previous year. Table 11

compares leveraging ratios for each source of non-federal local agency funds. They reflect the

fact that one key function of CSBG-paid CAA staff is identifying and securing new resources

and that this is typically a CSBG-funded activity. CAAs provide opportunities for private donors

and volunteers to donate their resources or time to improve the welfare of families and their

communities; they also generate federal, state and local government support by obtaining

contracts, grants, partnership agreements and donations.


30 • Section IV

The CSBG Network’s Total Resources in FY 2003, by Source

Federal Resources Other Than CSBG

Figure 10 shows the federal program funding by source for the major network programs. Almost

three-quarters of all the network’s FY 2003 federal resources came from the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) programs. Programs of the Administration for Children and

Families (ACF) contributed the majority of HHS funds, or about $4.4 billion. These grants were

primarily for a variety of federal means-tested programs that served designated categories of low-

income people, such as Head Start, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP),

childcare programs, and senior citizen programs. Most were not programs provided as

entitlements; however, many CAAs did provide services for several federal agencies’ entitlement

assistance programs including the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program,

Medicaid and Medicare support services and Food Stamps. As shown in Figure 10, the largest CAA

federal programs were the Head Start and Early Head Start (EHS) Programs combined, with more

than $2.7 billion. This was 42% of all the non-CSBG federal funding reported by the network.

About 18% of all federal dollars, or $1 billion, came from low-income energy programs. CAAs

in 50 states spent more than $835 million from HHS’s LIHEAP program and $179 million from

Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program. Of the LIHEAP sum, 79% was for

energy bill payment assistance, including several pilot programs in the “Reach” demonstration

project. The balance, more than $149 million, was for LIHEAP-funded energy efficiency

investments in 44 states. The CAA network managed 42% of all the FY 2003 LIHEAP funds

distributed and 78% of all Weatherization Assistance funds.


Section IV • 31

Figure 10

Sources of FY 2003 Federal Funding in CSBG

Local Agencies and Share from Each Source


Other HHS7%

Nutrition USDA7%

Dept. of Labor5%

All Others4%

Head Start& EHS44%

Childcare4%

TANF3%

Energy Programs16%

HUD: Housing/CDBG10%

Almost $849 million came from other HHS programs run by CAAs; a third was from a number of

childcare programs that together contributed nearly $271 million; these included funds from

Childcare Development Block Grant, the Childcare Management Program, Childcare Resource and

Referral, childcare training and childcare food programs. TANF provided almost $167 million.

Numerous Administration on Aging programs totaled more than $101 million; Medicare or

Medicaid funding provided more than $79 million, and Social Services Block Grant funding was

nearly $29 million. These sources’ contributions are shown state by state in Appendix A, Table 14.

Forty-eight states collectively categorized more than $187 million as coming from “other” HHS

programs. Most were not identified by name in local reports, but more than 100 CAAs offered

subtotals and some description of their grants or contracts from other HHS programs. As a result,

more detail is available on the many local projects that make up the subtotal of “other” funds

from HHS, from other federal agencies and from states. The scale and variety of these should be

viewed as an indicator of the multiple related tasks CAAs perform when assisting families and

communities. Table 12 shows three categories of programs that group the reported HHS grants

into program areas and list the most common or largest HHS programs reported.


32 • Section IV

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), nutrition programs provided significant help to

network clients. Fifty-one states reported that $492 million was spent by USDA food and

nutrition programs. The CAAs’ single largest nutrition funding source was the USDA

Supplemental Nutrition Program, for Women Infants and Children, or WIC, which provided

more than $146 million in just 32 states. USDA also provided CAAs almost $35 million for rural

development activities and services in rural areas.

Table 12

Examples of Other HHS Programs Reported in FY 2003

HealthDomestic Violence & Other HHS Programs inFamily Enhancement a Significant No. of CAAs

• Immunization • Every Woman Matters • Children’s Trust Fund• Child Lead Poisoning • Family Preservation • Childcare Management

Prevention • Family Violence Prevention and Food• Health Services Block Grant • Fatherhood Initiative • Crisis Intervention• Medical Assistance • Displaced Homemaker • Elderly Housing

Program • Families and Children • Emergency Services• Maternal and Child Health Together Safely for the Homeless• Substance Abuse and • Family Reunification • Individual Development

Mental Health • Safe and Stable Families Accounts/Assets for• Community Health Center Independence• Family Planning • Refugee Resettlement• Rural Health Outreach • Social Services EZ/EC• HIV/AIDS Prevention • Technology Capacity Grant

and Treatment • Enterprise Community• Diabetes Control • CSBG Discretionary Grants• Healthy Start/SCHIP and Technical Assistance

• Emergency Shelter• Eviction Prevention• Find Work• Transitional Living

The network combined its HHS programs with activities supported by many other federal

agencies. For example, the next-largest funding source for the network was the Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Nearly $624 million was available from HUD

programs; the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), transitional services for the


Section IV • 33

homeless and the Section 8 rental housing subsidy programs provided most of the funding. As

the narratives provided by the states show, CAAs managed additional housing and community

programs, including home ownership initiatives.

Forty-eight states reported spending almost $325 million in U.S. Department of Labor funds, of

which more than 87% came from employment and training programs. In nearly every state the

network had a role in the work of the Corporation for National and Community Service, with

nearly $44 million in funding for the management of volunteers and the service projects on

which they worked. The Department of Transportation provided almost $82 million for projects

in 41 states; most supported shuttle and van service systems. Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) grants totaling almost $22 million supported CAA emergency services. The

“other” federal programs totaling more than $94 million were a varied list of activities. CAAs

provided program names and spending levels for about half of this amount. Table 13 shows the

most common programs in three categories.

Table 13

Examples of Other Federal Programs in FY 2003

Department of Education Department of JusticeOther Federal Programs

in a Significant No. of CAAs

• Parent Information • Crime Victim Assistance • Bureau of Indian AffairsResource Center/Parental • Office of Juvenile Justice • Community Tech CentersAssistance and Delinquency Prevention • Department of Treasury

• 21st Century Schools • Weed and Seed Program (CDFI) Community• Even Start • Law Enforcement and Development• Early Intervention Block Grant • Environmental Protection• Talent Search • Byrne Grants Agency: Brownfields,• Adult Basic Education • Federal Probation Program Healthy Homes• Passport • Stop Violence Against • Indian Health Services• Homeless Education Women Program• Community Technology • Internal Revenue Service• Family Literacy Tax Assistance• Safe Schools • HUD Lead Hazard Reduction

• Small BusinessAdministration Services


34 • Section IV

State Resources

States utilize the CSBG local network to deliver a large number of state-funded, low-income

programs. Altogether, the network’s FY 2003 resources included nearly $1.1 billion in state-

appropriated funding. Fifty-one states reported that they provided grants and/or contracts for CAAs

to manage specific low-income programs. Thirteen states collectively allocated almost $13 million

for general support of local CSBG programs. Figure 11 shows the breakdown by category.

Figure 11

Sources of FY 2003 State Funding

for CSBG Local Agencies

Sources of FY 2003 State Funding for CSBG Local Agencies

More than $319 million, nearly one-third of state program spending in 49 states, was for

programs for very young children: child development, child care programs or Head Start. Nearly

$41 million was spent on 41 states’ CAA programs for school-aged youth; this figure does not

include health services and substance abuse prevention activities that included many students

among the participants, as these are part of the “health” spending total.

Early Childhood/Childcare

29%Housing & Homelessness,

Community & Rural Development14%

Nutrition3%

Energy13%Health

10%

Youth& Seniors

9%

Employment& Education

7%

State CSBG & Other8%


Transportation7%


Section IV • 35

Forty-two states’ CAAs managed $103 million to improve health, support medical programs and/

or curb substance abuse and other risky behaviors. In thirty-five states the local agencies

collectively spent more than $137 million on state-funded energy assistance or weatherization

programs; however, one state, Illinois, reported almost 50% of this total, funding that results

from its utility rate-based fees added to the federal Weatherization and LIHEAP programs.

Forty-six states reported that their CAAs were allotted more than $223 million combined for

state-financed housing, community and rural development programs, including transportation

services and/or services to the homeless. States funded $75 million for CAA employment,

training, and education programs combined and almost $57 million for local services to senior

citizens. Nutrition program funding totaled $37 million in 42 states. Appendix A, Table 14

shows the resources for these activities state-by-state.

Almost $78 million, or 7%, of state funding was distributed by state programs that did not fit neatly

into the categories provided by the CSBG/IS. In the 43 states that reported they had “other” state

funding, some CAAs provided some program descriptions. Table 14 lists common initiatives.

Table 14

Examples of Other State Programs in FY 2003

Welfare to Work/TANF Justice SystemOther State Programs

in a Significant No. of CAAs

• Emergency Funding • Dept. of Public Safety • Asset Development• Family Development, • Partnership (IDA, EITC, etc.)

Support • Juvenile Justice: • Domestic Violence:• Family Preservation Prevention, Community Prevention/Response/Shelter• Fatherhood Probation • Adult Emergency Assistance• Employment and Training • Victims of Crime Services • Alcohol/Drug Programs

Support • Corrections Dept. Support, • Volunteer Programs• Social Services Transition • Home Repair• Crisis Care • Community Collaborations • Medicaid Support• Transportation for Children • Health Care Claim Services


36 • Section IV

Local Government Resources

Fifty states reported that their FY 2003 local government resources totaled more than $565

million. This is 16% less than was reported in FY 2002. As Figure 12 shows, 60% of local

resources were in the form of unrestricted local government appropriations in 49 states; these

typically were provided to local government agencies that were also CSBG eligible entities and

were used for general support of agency programs and services. Local governments in 44 states

also contracted more than $131 million of services to CAAs. The facilities, supplies, local ser-

vices and personnel that localities provided to CAAs as in-kind support added up to more than

$93 million in 45 states.

Figure 12

Types of FY 2003 Local Government Funding

for CSBG Local Agencies

Contract Services23%

In-Kind Goods& Services

17%

Unrestricted Funds60%



Private Resources

Fifty-one states reported on private contributions to their CSBG network. These are shown in

Figure 13 along with the donated CAA volunteer hours which, valued at minimum wage, were

worth almost $217 million. The total was more than $1.1 billion. The combined value of private

donations of funds, services or items was nearly $732 million, 64% of the total. Private

businesses or organizations also purchased services from CAAs in 44 states and spent more than

$66 million. These services included contracts for providing third-party assistance to Medicaid

recipients, transportation to jobs, and energy conservation services provided for utilities and

others. Further, fees paid by clients to offset the cost of services such as transportation, another

private resource, totaled almost $124 million in 50 states. Figure 13 shows the total and

proportional contribution of each source.

Figure 13

FY 2003 Private Resources Leveraged

by Type

Section IV • 37

* Includes 42.1 million volunteer hours valued at the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.

Value ofDonated Goods

22%

Fees Paid by Clients11%

Funds fromPrivate Sources

26%

Value ofIn-Kind Services

16%

Value ofVolunteer Services*

19%

Payments byPrivate Entities

6%



38 • Section IV

Volunteer Services

As noted above, more than 42 million volunteer hours were reported. When valued at the 2003

minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, volunteers help increased the network’s resources by an

additional $216.6 million, bringing total private contributions to more than one billion dollars.

However, this is a conservative estimate of the volunteer contributions. First, the total donated

hours reported is undoubtedly low, even in the states that are able to report this statistic. The high

administrative cost of maintaining hourly records for volunteers in every program has been cited

by CAAs as an almost insurmountable barrier to fully reporting the extensive volunteer

investment in their programs. Second, it is conservative to value these donations of time and skill

at the minimum wage. CAAs organize help offered by medical professionals, CPAs, lawyers,

teachers, retired executives, printers and builders, as well as homemakers and low-wage workers

in the community. Many of the services provided by volunteers would be valued far above the

minimum wage if provided by paid staff. In a recent study by Independent Sector, the average

value of volunteer hours in FY 2003 was $17.19.21 Using this more realistic figure would mean

the CAAs received support from individual volunteers worth more than $723 million. However,

their conservatively valued time, at the minimum wage is displayed in Figure 13, together with

the other types of private sector contributions.

Churches, civic groups and schools rely on CAAs to manage the logistics in their food and meal

distribution programs and to assign volunteer tasks to their members. Other community

volunteers provide services such as mentoring, information and referral, tutoring, chore services

to help the homebound elderly and driving vans that deliver clients safely to work and

appointments. One of the success stories provided by states told of the development of the

volunteer medical services offered to low-income residents of Lincoln, Nebraska, a story which

is included on page 39.


Section IV • 39

Valuable Volunteers Heal Individuals and Communities

The Clinic with a Heart provides free medical care for low-income families who otherwisewould have little or no preventive health care access. It is a joint endeavor of Lincoln ActionProgram and St. Mark’s United Methodist Church of Lincoln. St. Mark’s coordinates volunteersand helps collect donations of medical supplies. The congregation covers the cost of prescriptions.Lincoln Action Program provides space in its CSBG-funded center for the clinic, and fundsstaff who assist with coordination, language interpreters and child care services. CSBG fundspay for the staff time needed to plan and manage the program.

Patients of the clinic, which operates one evening a month, can make appointments to see aphysician, physician’s assistant or pediatrician. Health education, routine screenings andprescriptions are provided. Each month, the clinic provides interpreters for a different language,although speakers of all languages are welcome. Many patients have been referred for follow-up care, often provided by physicians or specialists who have agreed to provide care on a donatedbasis. For example, a referral from the clinic enabled one client to have a cancerous spotremoved and biopsied at no charge.

The clinic staff includes physicians, physician’s assistants, nurses, laboratory technicians,pharmacists and non-health professionals who have generously donated their services. Inaddition, local hospitals, service organizations and others from the community have volunteeredtheir time and expertise.

As a result, in its first five months of operation, the Clinic with a Heart provided health care,health education, and more than $1,000 worth of prescriptions to 108 people who, collectively,spoke 17 languages. Neither the patients nor the clinic could have paid for the professionalservices rendered by the many volunteers of Clinic with a Heart.

Nebraska


40 • Section V

V. Local Agency CSBG Programs

Introduction

This section of the report provides data on how local agencies spent their FY 2003 CSBG funds

and covers 89% of CSBG funding allocated to local agencies in 49 states and D.C.

CAAs are expected to mobilize and coordinate their communities’ initiatives to reduce the causes

of poverty. This requires them to draw upon many categories of limited-purpose programs to

combat a single condition of poverty. CAAs coordinate services, and they typically organize a

variety of interventions to support the participant as each makes changes to improve his or her

life. When creating new programs or organizations, either to fill a gap in community resources

for the poor or to coordinate existing facilities and services, CAAs bring together not only

material resources but also many groups in the community and the public sector that make up

their partners and board members.

The people, facilities, and equipment that mobilize, coordinate, and leverage resources are

typically supported by CSBG. The block grant funding permits CAAs to modify national and

state programs to meet local needs. For example, the CSBG might support a staff person’s time

to coordinate a child care referral service for working parents, yet a local employer or a county

agency may fund the equipment and space used for the program. Those coordinated funds were

listed in Section IV according to their source.


FY 2003 Services Provided by the CSBG Network

CSBG services, unlike many more narrowly targeted public-sector initiatives, are not classified by

the groups that are served, although most CAAs manage categorical programs that are so

classified. Examples are: Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program, the Crime

Victims Assistance program and Emergency Services to the Homeless. CSBG-funded projects are

classified as one or more of nine solutions to the conditions causing poverty that are defined in its

statute. For this report, CAAs allocate CSBG expenditures according to those nine categories:

• Securing and maintaining employment;

• Securing adequate education;

• Improving income management;

• Securing adequate housing;

• Providing emergency services;

• Improving nutrition;

• Creating Linkages among anti-poverty initiatives;

• Achieving self-sufficiency; and

• Obtaining health care.

The CSBG is used to fund the work and facilities or tools that contribute to these goals, and

therefore is not limited to direct service delivery. Of course, the distinctions among these

categories are necessarily somewhat arbitrary so expenditures can be assigned to a single purpose

to avoid double counting; in reality, many services could fall into more than one category. For

example, employment-related training is a form of self-sufficiency investment, as are educational

services. The state reports described below reflect the primary significant uses of CSBG

resources. In any single category of activity, CSBG typically provides a small percentage of the

financial support. CSBG funds staff, infrastructure and activities not covered by other resources.

Reports from 50 states provided details about the local uses of nearly $559 million of FY 2003

CSBG funding. This section of the report provides an overview of the uses of CSBG nationwide.

A short description of typical activities in each of the various service categories follows.

Section V • 41


42 • Section V

The past 12 CSBG/IS annual reports included an extensive accounting of each funding source

that was used together with CSBG in each service category. The reports were highly consistent

over more than a decade; the descriptions derived from those data are included in the outline of

services below. The Information System has dropped this reporting burden in favor of expanded

CSBG Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) reporting by the network.

However, it is not possible to visualize the usefulness and impact of CSBG funds without

understanding how the resources they support are coordinated with others; typically, CSBG

funds are used for different, complementary purposes and for development of the coordinated

resources. To illustrate the role of CSBG-funded activities, CSBG-coordinated initiatives are

described in each section below. Three of the programs are presented with a detailed summary of

the resources coordinated with CSBG. They are employment, education and Linkage programs.

Table 15 below shows the expenditures of FY 2003 CSBG by service category, and includes

other projects that did not fit into one of the nine categories.

Table 15

FY 2003 CSBG Expenditures by Service Category, in 48 States and DC

(in Millions of Dollars)

Service Category CSBG Expenditures

Employment $54

Education $62

Income Management $26

Housing $47

Emergency Services $100

Nutrition $49

Linkages $97

Self-Sufficiency $83

Health $23

Other $16

Total $559

All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest million. Column may not add up to totals listed due to rounding.


Figure 14 shows the percentages of CSBG funding allocated to each of the nine categories. Three

together accounted for the majority of the CSBG expenditures: Linkage programs, emergency

services and comprehensive family self-sufficiency services. About $97 million (17%) was

dedicated to Linkage initiatives. “Linkage” is the term used for CAAs’ mobilization and

coordination of a variety of local services and programs to combat both community-wide causes

of poverty and conditions affecting individuals. It also describes projects that create specific

connections, like medical transportation, or integrated databases of community resources and

support for new community-based groups pursuing solutions to poverty.

Local Agency Uses of FY 2003 CSBG Funds

Figure 14

Another 18% of CSBG funds, about $100 million, was devoted to emergency services. The

CSBG network agencies play an important role––they are a first local line of defense for

individuals and families facing the hardships brought on by personal and economic crises as well

as by occasional community-wide emergencies.

Self-Sufficiency15%

Linkages17%

Nutrition9%

Emergency Services18%

Housing8%

Income Management5%

Education11%

Employment10%

Other3%

Health4%


Section V • 43


44 • Section V

CAAs reported that they invested 15% of their CSBG resources in comprehensive programs for

family development to achieve self-sufficiency; the national total was more than $83 million. These

are formal, comprehensive programs that support families moving from welfare into the workforce

and from poverty to a decent living standard. These programs are described more fully below.

About $54 million, or 10%, was spent on employment initiatives. CSBG nutrition and education

initiatives claimed roughly 9% and 11%, respectively, while housing-related activities accounted

for 8% of CSBG expenditures. CSBG health care services and income management programs

claimed 4% and 5% respectively. In addition, $16 million was used for other services that could

not be categorized in these nine program areas.

CSBG Employment Programs

As the participant demographic data described in Section III indicate, the CSBG network’s

program participants included hundreds of thousands of adults working for low wages that kept

them in poverty and in jobs that were not stable.

The CSBG network managed a range of services designed to assist low-income people in

obtaining and maintaining employment. The funding sources enumerated in Section IV, taken

together with the anecdotal evidence provided by each local agency, show that a variety of

initiatives were undertaken to overcome barriers to employment at a living wage. The reports in

Section IV covered nearly $1.4 billion in basic employment and job support programs from

federal and state Departments of Labor, TANF programs and child care projects alone. The

anecdotal accounts and ROMA reports22 indicate that local programs included:

• Support for former TANF recipients who are preparing to leave the income support program

or who have already left and need further support to find or maintain employment;

• Support for job retention, including counseling, training and supportive services such as

transportation, child care and even purchase of uniforms or work clothing;

• Skills training, job application assistance, resume writing and job placement;

• On-the-job training and opportunities for work in agency programs;

• Job development, including finding employers willing to recruit through the agency,

facilitating interviews, creating job banks and providing counseling to employees, and

projects to develop new employment opportunities in the community;

• Vocational training for high school students and creation of internships and summer jobs; and

• Adult employment training, including computer skills and electronics training.


Section V • 45

Job Development through Mobilization and Partnerships

When the local paper mill closed in Berlin and Gorham, New Hampshire, several hundredpeople were laid off; the loss of this pivotal business threatened the financial stability of theregion. Two CAAs, Southern New Hampshire Services (SNHS) and Tri-County CAP (TCCAP),collaborated to create immediate and transitional assistance and to preserve the local economy.SNHS was the lead agency in establishing the Berlin/Gorham Dislocated Workers Project. UsingCSBG funds and Workforce Development program staff, re-employment services were up andrunning within days of the mill’s closing.

The project helped dislocated workers like Michael, who worked at the mill 28 years and latertestified to a U.S. Senate Committee,* “I was in a dilemma, not knowing where I could turn to.I had never been unemployed in my life!” For Michael and his colleagues, the DislocatedWorkers Project provided a variety of re-employment services, support and training, as well asemergency food and fuel assistance. Peer support workers offered understanding to laid-offworkers and served as the front line of contact to those entering the program. Michael commentedthat, “these programs prevented us from losing hope; it helped get us through; it gave us somedirection—because you feel very vulnerable in a place like that.”

The project staff tested Michael in order to provide training that would provide skills to matchhis aptitude and interests with local employment opportunities. Michael studied computer-aided drafting at a local college and was offered a full-time, professional position at a localcompany that worked with the project. He told the Senate Committee he loved his new line ofwork more than his paper mill job. In fact, of the 645 clients who exited the Dislocated WorkersProject, 94% entered employment with an average wage replacement rate of 93%.

Forging a coalition with many partners, TCCAP succeeded in coordinating innovative trainingfor TANF recipients. It then facilitated the direct placement of six program graduates in jobs atCat-Lin (manufactured) Homes. Cat-Lin hopes to expand in the near future, with a goal of 80new jobs by 2004 and welcomes more program graduates. The Cat-Lin project won the topaward at the NH Promising Businesses Showcase.

The CAAs also expanded their work on creating more jobs through economic development.Several community-based partnerships were created across the three counties. CSBG fundedhalf the position of TCCAP’s Economic Development director, who played a key role in all theprojects. The City of Berlin, which has no such official, was able to fund the remaining cost.

(continues on next page)

* Testimony of Michael Saucier, U.S. Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions, subcommitteeon Children July 8, 2003. www.gpoaccess.gov


46 • Section V

Job Development through Mobilization and Partnerships (continued)

Another key position, TCCAP’s project director for downtown redevelopment, is entirely CSBG-funded. She finds and coordinates funds for the development activities. Together, these twoprofessionals facilitated the relocation of a manufacturer by assembling a local coalition, clearingprocedural obstacles and overseeing each step of site preparation and workforce development.They also took the lead in negotiating the creation of a new manufacturing business in Berlinand its location in a specially designed site at the Berlin Industrial Park. Additionally, theyspearheaded new partnership to redevelop a significant portion of Berlin’s downtown. Its goalis to provide commercial and professional space, assisted elderly residential housing andintegrated parking facilities.

A summary of the role each funding source plays follows. It illustrates the ways CSBG-fundedactivities are coordinated by CAAs with other resources.

• CSBG supported both CAA programs for immediate help to dislocated workers, coveringsome staff costs and direct financial support. It also covered part or all of the work of theTCCAA project developers as they designed and coordinated training and placement forindividuals and/or economic development initiatives and the initial costs of communicationsand meetings with partners and funders.

• Federal funds supported the Dislocated Worker program, including the WorkforceInvestment training program, TANF and some emergency supports including LIHEAP.CDBG funds supported the county and city development planning and some of the HousingAuthority’s work.

• State funds matched several of the federal and local programs directly, but they also fundthe NH Housing Finance Authority, the Office of State Planning, the Department of Resourcesand Economic Development and the University of New Hampshire.

• Local government is fully involved and shares the costs of the Economic Developmentspecialist at TCCAP, and the work of the partners at the Housing Authority, the IndustrialPark Development Authority and the Main Street Development Program.

• Private Investment came from Berlin City Bank, Northern Community InvestmentCorporation, Cat-lin Modular Homes and Hexaport International.

New Hampshire


CSBG Education Programs

CAA education programs primarily include services to school age and adult students, but also

involve some activities coordinated with the extensive number of Head Start programs that CAAs

manage. Education is, of course, considered a major goal for those seeking self-sufficiency.

Forty-nine states’ agencies invested nearly $62 million of CSBG in their education initiatives.

They provided one or more of the following:

• Adult education, including courses in ESL and GED preparation with flexible scheduling

for working students;

• Supplemental support to improve the educational quality of Head Start programs

administered by local CSBG operators;

• Childcare classes, providing both child development instruction and support for working

parents or for home child care providers;

• Alternative opportunities for school dropouts and those at risk of dropping out;

• Scholarships for college or technical school;

• Guidance about adult education opportunities in the community;

• Programs to enhance academic achievement of students in grades K–12, while combating

drug or alcohol use and preventing violence; and

• Computer-based courses to help train participants for the modern-day workforce.

The need for educational programs is clearly indicated by the fact that only 20% of adult CAA

participants had completed any post-secondary education, as noted in Section III. The North

Carolina project for TANF recipients, below, provides a clear example of the way in which CAAs

integrate the CSBG with other resources.

Section V • 47

Adult Education Smoothes Welfare Transitions

In response to welfare reform, the Guilford County CAA took the lead and coordinated theefforts of community leaders to establish the Welfare Reform Liaison Project–a job trainingprogram aimed at reducing high unemployment among its low-income residents. The CAAinvolved community businesses, nonprofits and churches as well as every level of governmentto implement the program.



CSBG Income Management Programs

Many CAAs have reported funding for programs that provided instruction in “financial literacy”

and for initiatives to build family assets like home ownership and individual development savings

accounts. The programs also can include:

• Help with budgeting techniques;

• Consumer credit counseling;

• Business development;

• Home ownership assistance;

• Energy conservation and energy consumer education programs, including weatherization;

• Tax counseling and tax preparation assistance, especially for the working poor; and

• Assistance for the elderly with claims for medical and other benefits.

With the help of a CSBG-funded income management program, one Afghan refugee in Lincoln,

Nebraska, page 49, was able to open a restaurant to support herself and her family.

48 • Section V

Adult Education Smoothes Welfare Transitions (continued)

The Guilford County Department of Social Services provides referrals and case managementservices for the project; Guilford Technical Community College provides instructors, trainingmaterials and classroom space. Local businesses, such as Wal-Mart, Office Depot and UnitedWay, provide training opportunities for participants, donate supplies and offer job-training centers.Mt. Zion Baptist Church donates office space and administrative staff. Additional financialresources and grants from area foundations have been provided by the faith community.

The Welfare Reform Liaison Project has enabled 82% of program participants to completeeducational or literacy programs thereby giving them a competitive edge in the job market.Average earnings increased by $5,240 annually per participant family.

CSBG funds are used for training materials, textbooks, work-study stipends and transitionalassistance. It also covers operational expenses and CAA staff time to plan and coordinate theprogram. Federal and State TANF funds are used for referrals and case managers, training andsome expenses. Guilford Technical College receives federal/state support for formal job training.

North Carolina


Section V • 49

Developing Family Assets For Entrepreneurship

Mina and her five children were refugees from Taliban Afghanistan when they arrived in theUnited States in 2001. The Lincoln Action Program (LAP) maintains active outreach efforts inLincoln’s refugee communities. Mina participated in the microenterprise program at LAP,where she received business training and assistance in developing a business plan. She alsoparticipated in the Individual Development Account program, saving her wages and accumulatingthe program’s matching funds to use for launching a business. CSBG funds partially fund bothmicroenterprise development assistance and the Individual Development Account program. Minasoon developed a workable plan and a significant savings account, and, in 2003, she became theproprietor of the Papillon Grill, Lincoln’s first Afghani restaurant.

Nebraska

Another mother in Montana was able to change her financial profile, pay for night school and

save for a down payment on a home.

Financial Literacy and Determination Lead to Financial Assets

Carol, a single mother, had written some bad checks and had longstanding debts that wereturned over to a collections agency. Due to her financial history, Carol was unable to open achecking or savings account. As a result she had to use payday check-cashing services, whosesubstantial fees worsened her financial situation.

Carol was one of the first clients to enroll in the local CAA, District VII Human ResourceDevelopment Council’s (HRDC) Families Saving for Tomorrow Individual Development Accountprogram. An Individual Development Account (IDA) is a matched savings account used byparticipants to purchase one of several specific assets. Every dollar a participant saves is matchedby two dollars from the program.

When Carol enrolled, her goal was to increase her earning potential by increasing her job skills.To meet this goal she used her income tax refund to settle all her debts. Then, she opened asavings account and, eventually, was able to use her matched savings to pay for night school.Carol earned certification as a nursing assistant and began a new full-time job with benefits.Carol also obtained an automobile loan through HRDC’s Transportation program. Since thenshe has opened a new IDA to save for a down payment on a house. The program was establishedwith CSBG funds, which still support some services for participants and matching funds. TheFirst Interstate Bank of Billings has agreed to provide savings accounts that require a minimaldeposit and that have no service fees for program participants. Financial education classes andcase management are required parts of the program.

Montana


50 • Section V

The reports in Section IV corroborate the fact that HHS asset-development grants and

Department of Treasury funds were received by many local agencies. This category also includes

energy efficiency investments and education, which typically are coordinated with delivery of the

Weatherization or LIHEAP programs run by more than 800 CAAs.

CSBG Housing Programs

Affordable housing and related community development programs made up 8% of CSBG

expenditures, or $47 million, in 50 states. The modest CSBG contribution indicates that it is used as

“soft money” to develop programs and substantial investments, as in the examples of the Berlin/

Gorham project described previously or the transitional shelter project in Massachusetts on the next

page. The major funding generated by, or coordinated with, CSBG is reflected in the Section IV

reports of nearly $1 billion of federal and state housing and community development funding combined.

Typically, CSBG-coordinated housing programs use a number of approaches to improve the

shelter and living environment of their participants. They can include:

• Home ownership counseling and loan assistance;

• Affordable housing development and construction;

• Counseling and advocacy about landlord/tenant relations and fair housing concerns;

• Assistance in locating affordable housing and applying for rent subsidies and other housing

assistance;

• Transitional shelters and services for the homeless;

• Home repair and rehabilitation services;

• Support for management of group homes; and

• Rural housing and infrastructure development.

Many CAAs are deeply involved in providing transitional services to the homeless as well as having

programs to respond immediately when eviction or dangerous conditions threaten families with

imminent homelessness. The Massachusetts transitional housing example illustrates how CSBG is

used. It is a typical CAA housing program that involves CSBG investment in CAA leadership’s

participation in interagency or statewide planning and community organizing to meet local housing needs.


Section V • 51

Investing in the Transition From Homelessness to Stability

The Tri-City Community Action Program, Inc. (Tri-CAP, Malden, MA) operated a mobileoutreach team to serve the homeless. It then identified the need for stable transitional housingfor people coming out of detoxification centers. After eight years of organization and planning,Tri-Cap opened a newly constructed 11-room transitional house in May of 2003. Using CSBGfunds for development activities, including grant writing, Tri-CAP leveraged a total ofapproximately $1.3 million. In addition to a HUD McKinney grant, federal HOME funds,Massachusetts Housing Innovation and Facilities Consolidation funds, Tri-CAP obtained grantsfrom the Clipper Ship Foundation and the Charlesbank Homes Foundation.

The transitional house, the only resource of its kind in Tri-CAP’s service area, is a secure andsafe environment for homeless men and women not yet able to manage or afford independentliving. Completely handicapped-accessible, the home offers private bedrooms, sevenbathrooms a common kitchen and living room, and is equipped with a computer and DSLInternet access for job searches and resume preparation. Residents are coached on jobapplications and self-advocacy support. The transitional house provides a place where theycan solidify and maintain their recovery.

The first 24 residents of the transitional house faced a variety of difficult challenges relating toalcohol, drugs or mental health. (Staff is able to assist clients who suffer from mental illnessbecause of support from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health.) Eleven residentswere physically disabled. All residents actively participated in developing a personal planwithin one month of enrollment, including written goals in the areas of housing, income andhealth. A majority has reported to the program coordinator that they felt more able to achievepersonal goals as a result of their participation in the transitional house program. In fact, halfof the FY 2003 residents were able to increase their income while staying at the house.

Massachusetts

One example of dramatic collaboration with and among the residents of the community is the

Oregon self-help housing project described below.

“Self-Help” and Neighbors’ Help Means Affordable Home Construction

In response to the pressing local need for affordable housing, the Community Action Team, Inc.established a Mutual Self-Help Housing Program. In partnership with USDA Rural Development,five lots were obtained and families were recruited to form teams that helped build each other’shouses. CAT helped families qualify for Rural Housing Services mortgages. Materials for the houseswere donated by building supply retailers. Each family contributed 1,600 hours of sweat equityover approximately eight months of construction. In October of 2003, all five homes were completed.



52 • Section V

CAAs try to respond immediately when eviction or dangerous conditions threaten families with

imminent homelessness. One such program, The Right Stuff About Renting, has been

designed to prevent such emergencies as well as to respond to them.

“Self-Help” and Neighbors’ Help Means Affordable Home Construction (continued)

Each of the three-bedroom, bath-and-a-half houses had an estimated value of $130,000, but thesweat equity, along with the donated materials and a grant from Rural Development, loweredmonthly mortgage payments to $350. Four of the five houses are owned by low-income singlemothers. Not only do the families have adequate housing, they have built each other a lasting asset.

CSBG funds helped pay for the staff person who recruited and trained project participants and fortraining and organizational expenses. Without CSBG funds, the Community Action Team wouldnot have had the capacity to support and assist the families adequately during the constructionphase. All five participants’ families stayed with the project until completion, a factor that wascritical for its success, since the families relied on one another to help complete each home.

Oregon

Preventing Eviction By Involving All Sectors

The Right Stuff about Renting is one part of Community Action Financial Services of theCommunity Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley. The goal of the initiative is to provide a“one-stop” continuum of services to build the financial literacy and assets of low-income LehighValley residents.

The program provides educational seminars for tenants and landlords as well as individualcounseling, information and referrals in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. Education outreachmeetings (mini-seminars) with a similar curriculum are held twice a month at area agencies. Amajority of those attendees are shelter residents who are homeless.

Led by volunteer experts in rental housing, seminars for tenants include: how to find a rentalunit, reading a lease, budgeting and living in an apartment as well as legal aspects, settlingdisputes and fostering a positive, professional relationship with a landlord. Seminars offered tolandlords cover: managing and maintaining rental property, finding reliable tenants, leaseessentials, Fair Housing Laws and the eviction process. Participants of all seminars are invitedto take a pre-test and post-test to measure their gain in renting-related knowledge, and mostshowed a gain in knowledge.



Section V • 53

Preventing Eviction By Involving All Sectors (continued)

In FY 2003, the Right Stuff About Renting program provided individual counseling in personor by telephone along with information and referrals to more than 435 people, both tenantsand landlords, who needed information about Landlord-Tenant Rights. It also publishedmore than 600 handbooks entitled A Friendly Guide to Rental Housing. CSBG funding paidfor the staff time needed for planning and development and for continuing work onenhancement of the programs.

Pennsylvania

CSBG Emergency Services Programs

CAAs in 50 states reported spending about $100 million on CSBG-funded emergency services.

Emergency programs typically combat the many kinds of crises that disproportionately endanger

the poor. Families in desperate circumstances often come first to their local CAA. Crisis

management services, together with information about opportunities or prompt referral, can help

them stabilize their situation and avoid major setbacks on the road to self-sufficiency.

While some funding sources listed in Section IV, such as LIHEAP, TANF or HUD’s Homeless

Assistance Program, provide individual emergency assistance for specific groups, CSBG’s

flexibility means that it is uniquely suited to meeting whatever short-term needs will stabilize

low-income workers and newly poor families. CAAs also reinforce other local emergency

service providers. They may support collection, storage and distribution of community donations

of food, clothing and fuel for many other community organizations.

Their staff also ensures that hospitals, schools and local governments, as well as organizations

like the United Way, are aware of urgent needs and that all establish systems for working together

when emergencies strike. (CSBG agencies usually offer follow-up support and case management

services to ensure stabilization of families in crisis, as in the examples of the Maryland and

Nebraska families on page 54 and 55)


The Right Emergency Interventions at the Right Time Can Prevent Poverty

When Francesca, a mother of three teenage children, separated from her husband she was earningnearly $25,000 a year as an accountant. When her husband stopped paying rent on the family’shome, an eviction notice quickly followed. Francesca applied to Anne Arundel County EconomicOpportunity Committee, Inc.’s (AACEOC) Empowerment Services (which includes HousingAssistance), seeking emergency rent assistance. A case manager helped her identify her threemost urgent needs. Then, the housing counselor helped Francesca marshal emergency funds toavoid eviction. One-third came from CSBG; the balance was provided by three faith-basedpartners. AACEOC referred Francesca to a Legal Services attorney who was able to obtain acourt order for child support, which has stabilized the family’s housing and other living conditions.The AACEOC Employment Services case manager helped Francesca obtain a reliable vehicleso she could continue in her job. Francesca and her children remain in safe housing and areself-sufficient again thanks to the help they received.

Maryland

Crisis management services typically include one or more of the following:

• Linkages with other services and organizations to assemble a combination of short-term

resources and longer-term support;

• Emergency temporary housing;

• Rental or mortgage assistance, intervention with landlords;

• Cash assistance/short term loans;

• Energy crisis assistance and utility shut-off prevention;

• Emergency food, clothing and furniture;

• Crisis intervention in response to child or spousal abuse;

• Emergency heating system repair;

• Crisis intervention telephone hotlines; and/or

• Natural disaster response and assistance.

54 • Section V


Stabilizing Families in Crisis Before Supporting Family Development

When she received an eviction notice, Monique, a single mother with two children under the ageof 6, went to her local CAA. The Community Services coordinator mobilized funds from partners—the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services, and the Jubilee Center—to pay back rent and utilities.She also arranged for the family to receive two weeks worth of food from one food pantry.

With her imminent crisis averted, Monique worked on becoming self-sufficient with the help ofthe agency’s family development team. She enrolled in the Commodities and WIC programsand in SHARE, a food program in which participants get a monthly food package at a deeplydiscounted price in return for two hours of volunteer service. She participated in parentingclasses, found a part-time job and enrolled in two college classes. In addition, the FamilyDevelopment program has given her financial literacy training and nutrition/cooking education.Monique was assisted by a single CAA, which was able to assist her in a variety of ways andhelp her on the road to independence.

CSBG funds paid for the Community Services coordinator’s time to assess the situation andorganize resources. CSBG also paid for the Family Development coordinator’s time helpingMonique set goals, learn about budgeting, find a job and develop a volunteer schedule. Theprogram will continue to follow up and support Monique as she works towards self-sufficiency.

Nebraska

Section V • 55

CSBG Nutrition Programs

The CSBG network in 50 states reported that it used almost $49 million of CSBG funds to

support and expand the nutrition programs identified in Section IV, such as HHS Community

Food and Nutrition, USDA programs, summer food programs for Head Start, day care and youth

programs, and meals for the elderly.


56 • Section V

CAA nutrition programs typically rely heavily on private donations and volunteers and involve

one or more of the following:

• Organizing and operating food banks;

• Supporting food banks of faith-based and civic organization partners with food supplies

and/or management support;

• Counseling about family and children’s nutrition, and food preparation;

• Distributing surplus USDA commodities and other food supplies;

• Administering the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program;

• Preparing and delivering meals, especially to the homebound elderly;

• Providing food in group settings; and/or

• Initiating self-help projects, such as community gardens and canneries, and food buying groups.

The Wisconsin Community Gardening Projects, shown below, indicates the role that CSBG-

funded staff and facilities can play in responding to unique community needs or opportunities.

Community-Building Bears Fruit

By the beginning of FY 2004, the Community Action Coalition for South Central WI, (CAC)Community Gardens Division supported 16 community gardens on 11 acres, which produced anestimated 32,000 pounds of nutritious food for 611 households. This was the result of decades ofcommunity garden programming followed by significant expansion in FY 2002 and FY 2003. Thegarden projects met a wide range of community needs that had been identified in the CAC needsassessments, including: high quality nutritional supplements for gardeners and for food pantries,senior citizen recreation and intergenerational programs, accessible activities for disabled residents,education and recreation for youth, and community organizing and linkage opportunities. CSBGfunds nearly half of the costs of the many programs involved, including staff and gardening equipmentand the office supplies, printing and occupancy costs associated with its Community Gardens Division.

• Food and nutrition for the hungry: CAC manages multiple projects to link fresh produce tolocal food pantries, including the Madison Area Food Pantry Garden Project (through whichvolunteers grow over 8,000 pounds of vegetables on five acres for distribution to local foodpantries), and the local Plant-A-Row-for-the-Hungry shared crops project, as well as severalannual fresh produce drives at community gardens.



Section V • 57

Community-Building Bears Fruit (continued)

• Accessible gardening for children and their elders: In 2003, 10% of the gardeners CACserved were over age 55, and 8% had declared disabilities. For many of these gardeners,traditional ground gardening can be difficult. In addition, children under the age of 18 madeup over 38% of the gardeners, and children often have more success using raised beds. A2002 CAC project had demonstrated methods for adapting gardens for people of variousages. In 2003, CAC devoted two VISTA volunteers to building raised beds at existinggardens throughout the city.

• Young Gardeners: CAC assists four youth programs at community gardens. CAC providessite analysis and planning, technical support, free plants and seeds, and help with gardenpreparation. Children at these sites grow flowers and vegetables; they not only bring producehome to their own families, they also share with others through donating to food pantries,and giving produce and bouquets to neighbors. Gardens teach children the joys of growingtheir own food and contributing to the family as a provider along with responsibility fortaking care of something living.

• Older Gardeners and their Young Neighbors Together: CAC continues to facilitate a successfulGarden Club at Romnes residential facility for low-income seniors. CAC initiated anIntergenerational Program at the facility in which students from the neighborhood schoolcome to participate in gardening projects. In an article about the project in the WisconsinState Journal, a staff member of the South Madison Coalition of the Elderly commented onthe gardening project there, “It’s really brought a lot of people out.”

• CAC facilitates the Community Food and Garden Network (CFGN), which has over 30member organizations that serve a wide spectrum of seniors, youth, and persons withdisabilities. Individuals from professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to residentsfrom area senior facilities and community members with disabilities take part; all incomegroups connect through the network, which collaborates on matters related to gardens. Thenetwork embodies the spirit of CAC’s programming. In the words of one staff member,“Community gardeners take care of their gardens, and they also take care of each other.”

• Future Expansion: In 2003, 1,263 individuals participated in CAC garden programs. Allplots were full, and many gardens had waiting lists. As a result, CAC and communitygardeners citywide are launching the New Garden Fund. CSBG will support part of thiscommunity-wide effort to develop local leadership, food systems and access to green spacesthrough community gardens. Its three components will require CAC organizational supportfor: (1) a Gardener Panel to assess need and review applications for assistance, (2) GardenDevelopment Help Sessions to assist community groups in organizing themselves andestablishing a core group of gardeners and (3) a fund for garden creation or expansion.

Wisconsin


CSBG Linkage Programs

CAAs in 50 states spent over $97 million, or 17% of their CSBG funds, on Linkage initiatives.

Linkage programs can involve any or all of a variety of local activities which CSBG alone

supports because of the block grant’s statutory mandate to mobilize and coordinate community

responses to poverty. These include:

• Coordination among programs, facilities and shared resources through information

systems, communications systems and shared procedures;

• Community needs assessments, followed by community planning, organization and

advocacy to meet these needs;

• Creation of community coalitions for community changes, for example, reducing crime or bringing

businesses into partnership with low-income neighborhoods to plan long-term development; and

• Tangible efforts to link resources physically, such as transportation to medical care or other

needed services, programs that bring the services to the participants, such as mobile clinics

or recreational programs, and management of continuum of care initiatives.

The CAA in Alaska used the CSBG in combination with many different kinds of resources in an

initiative that maintains links among multiple services and organizations to put the long-time

“inebriate homeless” back into sobriety and their community. The project is described below.

58 • Section V

Linked Programs Are A Safety Net During Recovery

Having been homeless in Anchorage for seven years, Jacob, a 47-year-old Inupiat, came to Home-ward Bound after he lost his family to alcoholism. Jacob had tried many times over the years toquit drinking but even in-patient and outpatient treatment programs didn’t help. Jacob eventuallyfound his way to Rural Alaska Community Action Program’s Homeward Bound, an award-win-ning 25-bed transitional housing facility and community reintegration program for those strug-gling with alcoholism. Nearly all Homeward Bound program participants are Alaska Nativeswho have spent the majority of their adult lives living on the streets, struggling with alcoholaddiction, totally dependent upon others to meet their basic needs. The typical participant is 50years of age, has a 29-year drinking history and has been homeless for 12 years. HomewardBound has demonstrated remarkable success in enabling residents to become productive mem-bers of society. Residents progress at their own pace in the areas of alcohol management, basicliving, social skills, money management and self-advocacy. Self-determination, respect and choiceare the guiding principles that ensure program activities that are client-centered and effective.



Section V • 59

Linked Programs Are A Safety Net During Recovery (continued)

In 2003, Jacob turned his life around. He applied for a grant to help him complete a course as aComputer Electronics Assistant and has maintained his sobriety for more than two years. He’sheld a job for more than a year, has moved into his own apartment and started to rebuild a relation-ship with his daughter–all despite the deaths of two brothers. Once an accomplished carving artist,Jacob has supplemented the income from his job by carving jewelry from ivory, bone and baleen.

The Rural Alaska Community Action Program linked the resources for this program. CSBG fundspaid for the agency staff time needed to establish and maintain many partnerships. The Commu-nity Service Patrol, which refers people who are chronically intoxicated in public, are employeesof the Municipality of Anchorage. The Salvation Army provides detoxification beds under con-tract. The Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. leases the program facility. Funds from HUD are providedthrough the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act funds are provided through the Cook Inlet Housing Authority. An annual Home-less Spiritual Retreat has been held in collaboration with the Holy Family Spirit Retreat Center andthe Brother Francis Shelter. In short, by managing the coordination of various resources, CSBGopened the way for effective support to individuals whom many had thought were hopeless.

Alaska

Another type of Linkage initiative removes transportation problems and other barriers to access

that keep the poor from jobs or from vital everyday activities. The anecdote below describes one

such project in Tennessee and catalogues the resources coordinated with CSBG.

Rural Transportation is the Lifeline to Work and Errands

In its annual needs assessments, employment services and transportation consistently were cited as top-priority needs; but, for years, the Knoxville-Knox County Community Action Committee (CAC) wasonly able to provide limited job-related transportation services. Then the Federal Transit Administration(FTA) developed the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program to link welfare recipients and low-income individuals to jobs. The CAC Transportation Unit used CSBG funds for staff that planned andprepared the winning grant application for FTA funds to create the Job Ride program.



60 • Section V

Rural Transportation is the Lifeline to Work and Errands (continued)

The Job Ride fleet–48 mini-buses equipped with wheel-chair lifts and two-way radios–providesmore than 700 trips a day for medical appointments and essential errands as well as almost 210trips related to employment. By operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Job Ride accommodatesevery possible work schedule. Job Ride offers a guaranteed ride home to get passengers home inthe event of an illness or other family emergency. Additionally the service allows passengers todrop off and pick up their children at day care sites on their way to and from work. In Job Ride’sfirst three years, more than 1,084 low-income passengers took 85,681 trips.

CAC’s many partners include: CAC’s Workforce Connections, Knoxville Area Transit, KnoxCounty, the City of Knoxville, the Knoxville Area Urban League, the Tennessee Department ofHuman Services, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, Knoxville Commuter Pool, theKnoxville Community Development Corporation and the Tennessee Department ofTransportation.

In addition to the FTA grant, support for JOB RIDE comes from the Tennessee Department ofTransportation, Knox County, and from contracts with local non-profit agencies and businesses.CSBG funds are used for JOB RIDE services that are not covered by the other funding sources.

A summary of the role of each funding source follows. It illustrates the ways CSBG-fundedactivities are coordinated by CAAs with other resources.

• CSBG funded the needs assessment, and the staff that mobilized partners and planning,grant applications and managed the project financial system and reporting. CSBG is usedfor some passengers’ service, as well.

• Federal funds support Workforce Connections (DOL) and Job Access/ Reverse Commute (FTA);• State funds support part of the transportation system and part or all of the social services

and medical programs that reimburse CAC for some passengers. Some of those programsalso have federal funding;

• County, regional and local agencies are responsible for coordinating, planning andinformation, as well as for direct support of the services;

• Private entities, including local employers, contract for transportation. Several private non-profitpartners, particularly Knoxville Urban League, offer direct assistance to some JOB-RIDE users.

Tennessee


Section V • 61

CSBG Self-Sufficiency Programs

All activities funded by the CSBG encourage self-sufficiency, but CAAs in nearly all states have

created a formal program for a limited number of participants. This section provides data on

those formal programs, which now absorb 15% of CSBG, which matches funding from many

other federal and state programs supporting employment and skill development.

These Family Development or Self-Sufficiency programs offer a continuum of services to assist

families in becoming more financially independent. They generally include a comprehensive,

case management approach to selecting and offering supportive services that promote, empower

and nurture the individuals and families seeking economic self-sufficiency. At a minimum, they

include the following elements:

• A comprehensive assessment of the issues facing the family or family members and of the

resources the family brings to address these issues;

• A written plan for becoming more financially independent and self-supporting;

• A comprehensive mix of services that are selected to help the participant implement the plan;

• Professional staff members who are flexible and can establish trusting, long-term

relationships with program participants; and

• A formal methodology used to track and evaluate progress as well as to adjust the plan as needed.

In the typical program, trained case managers help families analyze their economic, social,

medical and educational needs and goals. Families develop a formal plan, usually written,

containing the activities they will undertake and the services the CAA will provide or coordinate

with other providers to help them attain their goals. Typically, a family receives one or more

kinds of support for at least several months. Several of the case studies above show that other

CSBG program categories also exhibit these features of CAAs’ approach to supporting

individuals through an extended period of planned development. Monique, one of the recipients

of emergency services profiled previously, moved into a family development program and

worked toward acquiring the resources she needed to be able to support herself to avoid a cycle

of repeated financial crisis.


62 • Section V

From Prison to Self-Sufficiency: An Uncertain Journey

While still incarcerated, participants in the Lynchburg Community Action Group (LynCAG) programfor ex-offenders attend a 17-session Pre-Release Life Skills workshop, developed by the VADepartment of Corrections and facilitated by LynCAG staff. Workshop topics include employmentmotivation, anger management, money management, family relationships and parenting.

After their release, program participants work with the same LynCAG staff members to developa long-range plan for self-sufficiency. Participants get help with securing and retainingemployment. In addition to support groups that address employment, substance abuse, healthyrelationships and adjusting to life outside of a correctional institution, the LynCAG programprovides emergency support services such as shelter, food, clothing, transportation andappropriate referrals. The ex-offenders are provided with the supportive services during theperiod they are implementing their new start toward law-abiding sufficiency.

During the FY 2003 program year, the ex-offender program served 579 participants. They wereprovided with clothing, bus passes, emergency food assistance, career counseling, family-guidance counseling, referrals to the Social Security Administration for disability benefits,assistance with locating possible jobs and assistance in finding long-term housing. CSBGfunds were critically important for maintaining the staff and resources necessary to effectivelyand efficiently run this challenging program.

In addition to CSBG funds, the ex-offender program receives funding and technical assistancefrom Virginia’s Community Action Re-Entry System (VaCARES), a statewide Community Actionorganization. VaCARES is itself partially funded by the state’s CSBG discretionary dollars.

Virginia

In addition, CAAs are among those few community networks that work with the most challenged

populations, such as ex-offenders and the disabled homeless. Virginia’s ex-offender transitional

program, below, is one program that helps ex-offenders achieve independence and become self-sufficient.

CAAs in 50 states reported that they spent more than $83 million from CSBG on self-sufficiency

programs. This figure is 21% higher than in FY 2003 and continues a pattern of annual growth

in the CSBG programs that began in FY 1997.


Section V • 63

CSBG Health Programs

CAAs in 48 states spent nearly $23 million on CSBG-funded health initiatives. The local agency

programs typically are designed to identify and combat the variety of health problems that can

begin a cycle of poverty or to fill gaps in the care and coverage available in the community.

Typically the CSBG is used to get a program started and to provide non-medical services, like

income verification or translation, to administer and enhance the project. Therefore, they can include:

• Recruitment of uninsured children to a state insurance group or CHIP;

• Recruitment of volunteer medical personnel to assist uninsured low-income families;

• Prenatal care, maternal health and infant health screening;

• Assistance with pharmaceutical donation programs;

• Health-related information for all ages, including Medicare/Medicaid enrollment and

claims filing;

• Immunization;

• Periodic screening for serious health problems, such as tuberculosis, breast cancer and HIV

infection, and for mental health disorders;

• Health screening of all children participating in agency programs;

• Treatment for substance abuse;

• Other health services including dental care, health insurance advocacy, CPR training, and

education about wellness, obesity and first-aid; and/or

• Transportation to health care facilities and medical appointments.

North Dakota’s Medications Access Program, included on page 64, is one way the CSBG has

been used to fill gaps in services to provide access to important benefits.


64 • Section V

CSBG Workers Bridge the Gap Between Corporate Donors and Needy Patients

Sarah, a 28-year-old college student who lives on $640 a month, needed to take medicationsthat cost $135 a month. Her part-time job did not provide health insurance benefits.

Although ineligible for Medicaid, Sarah was one of many people in the state who qualified forthe low-cost or free medication programs established by pharmaceutical companies.Nevertheless, the North Dakota Community Action Partnership’s needs assessment showedthat low-income area residents were not enrolling in the pharmaceutical company programs.The only two medical clinics serving low-income patients had stopped helping with applicationsto the programs because of the extensive paperwork.

Using CSBG discretionary funds, NDCAP developed a partnership with a local alliance ofservice agencies––the Medications Access Program. When physicians from the two clinicsrecommend medication to patients, they refer them to the program. Program staff verifiespatients’ eligibility for pharmaceutical company programs and complete the paperwork. In thefirst month of this pilot project alone, 43 people who were referred to the program for informationor assistance saved more than $1,000 in medication costs. One of them was Sarah.

Sarah is now enrolled in three pharmaceutical assistance programs and pays only a $5 co-payment for medications each month. She no longer faces a choice between paying for hermedications and buying groceries.

NDCAP hopes to make the Medications Access Program self-sustaining. However, the firstfunding priority is to secure funds with which to extend program services to people with incomeshigher than 125% of the federal poverty level, the income limit for CSBG services. Our workingpoor and elderly patients with slightly higher incomes are still eligible for the pharmaceuticalcompany programs.

North Dakota

Other CSBG Programs

As shown in Figure 14, about $16 million, or 2%, was used for programs that did not fall neatly

into the nine statutory service categories.

Notes provided with these data suggest that youth and seniors’ recreational programs, community

organizing, and crime prevention initiatives are most often reported in this catchall category.


Section V • 65

CSBG-Supported Programs for Youth and Seniors

Local reports on programs serving youth and seniors provided the following data on initiatives

that exclusively assisted children from ages 6–17 and persons over 55 years of age. They do not

include FY 2003 services or facilities that support any other family members or community

segments not part of these specific age groups. Therefore, these data understate the range of

CAA activities that affect school-age youth and seniors.

As Section III indicated, there were more than 2.1 million participants 6–17 years old, or 24% of

CAA program participants, as well as 1.7 million participants 55 years of age or older. Forty-

seven states reported that their network spent more than $42 million of CSBG on youth programs

and nearly the same amount on programs for their community’s older residents.

For example, Waterville, Maine’s CAA used the CSBG to establish a teen center, highlighted below,

and in the process created partnerships and supported the direct services of other community groups.

Recognizing and Meeting the Needs of At-Risk Teenagers

In a neighborhood meeting, residents of Waterville, Maine identified the problem of unsupervisedand bored youth who lacked a safe and interesting place to hang out. The neighborhood is hometo 176 adolescents.

In response, Kennebec Valley Community Action Program (KVCAP) organized a partnershipwith the Waterville Boys’ and Girls’ Club, the YMCA, Greater Waterville Communities forChildren and Youth, and the South End Neighborhood Association to create the South End TeenCenter. By the end of FY 2003, the center had enrolled 114 members. A core group of 25 to 30young people attend the SETC two or more times a week, with many more participating whenone of the programs and activities appeals to them. Programs are continually being tested inareas of interest to adolescents, including communication, family life, self-esteem, peerrelationships, health preservation and vocational preparation, Torch Club and Keystone Club.The South End police officer reports that neighborhood crimes by teens have decreased sincethe teen center opened.

CSBG funds paid for the planning and operation of the programs and the administrativesupervision provided by KVCAP staff. The YMCA and Boys and Girls Club jointly fund a full-time director.

Maine


66 • Section V

It is also possible to estimate some of the coordinated resources for seniors’ programs from

Section IV’s data. Not only did CAAs report $101 million in Older American Act projects, they

also provided the USDA nutrition programs to the elderly as well as the housing, medical

transportation and energy assistance programs for which vulnerable older individuals are given

priority. In this area as in others, CSBG is used to initiate and coordinate direct services and

volunteers or to provide support not available using only funds from other sources.

The Massachusetts program described below relies primarily on volunteers and secondarily on

CSBG, another example of relationships at work.

Supporting Seniors United to Protect Their Vulnerable Neighbors

The members of Cape United Elders (CUE), a program of the Community Action Committeeof Cape Cod and Islands, Inc., (CACCI), are senior citizen activists who volunteer to improveconditions for Cape Cod’s many senior citizens. They are trained and certified in Nursing HomeAdvocacy by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Elders Affairs. These skilled advocatesmonitor the quality of care in nursing homes through unannounced and unescorted visits. Ifthey find problems with the care or the facility, they may file formal complaints with theMassachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH). CUE works closely with the state’s ElderServices Ombudsman program and closely monitors nursing home “Transfers of Ownership”which may require a public hearing to determine suitability of proposed owners.

In FY 2003 CUE focused on evidence of abuse and neglect of seniors at Cape Cod Centernursing home and rehabilitation center. It petitioned and won a state Department of PublicHealth (DPH) public hearing on the pending Transfer of Ownership application. CUE mobilizedcenter residents and their families to support a complaint to the DPH, based on numerous instancesof poor care.

Soon after, a few of the center’s staffers also began quietly working with CUE to documentserious cases of verbal, emotional and physical abuse, as well as cases in which resident’s rightswere violated and lack of staff resulted in falls, weight loss, poor hygiene and even someuncontrolled infections. CUE helped verify allegations of destruction of resident’s charts inanticipation of the DPH investigation; the group filed additional complaints with the DPH andmotions with the state Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office of Consumer Protection to initiatecriminal proceedings.



Section V • 67

Supporting Seniors United to Protect Their Vulnerable Neighbors (continued)

CUE’s advocacy prompted DPH to speed up a full investigation at the center; DPH investigatorsvalidated seven out of eight CUE-reported cases of abuse and cited 26 other numerous “seriousdeficiencies,” which had caused “actual harm” to residents. The center’s administration was orderedto implement a “Plan of Correction” immediately or face severe sanctions. CUE members continuedmonitoring gradual implementation of the corrections through the fiscal year. The AG’s investigatorsmet with CUE’s members for assistance in moving forward with the prosecutions.

CUE addresses other senior citizens’ issues through public advocacy and by networking withlocal, state and national seniors’ organizations. CUE also manages several programs that offermany older Cape Cod residents educational and social events and activities throughout the year.CSBG funded all the cost of CUE, including programming and communications.

Massachusetts


VI. Trends in Network Resources and

Expenditures, FY 1999–FY 2003

Introduction

This section describes the five-year trends in the local network’s resources and includes data

from the 47 states that reported fully in all five years. First, it tracks the inflation-adjusted levels

of the resources other than CSBG; next, it presents an analysis of the real value of block grant

appropriations from FY 1999 through FY 2003. The data that follow are adjusted to reflect real

values over 5 years; i.e., 1999 dollar values.

Network Resources Other than CSBG 1999-2003

Figure 15 shows the network’s funding from all federal, state, local and private sources other

than the CSBG itself. The inflation-adjusted purchasing power of those resources was 29%

greater than in 1999, while federal funds were 26% higher. All non-federal funds combined had

grown more and were 36% above the level five years earlier; state funding had grown 8%, but

local government and private sector contributions had grown 37% and 92% respectively after

adjusting for inflation.

On the other hand, the total of non-federal funds in FY 2003 was fractionally lower than the FY

2002 total. When compared to the real value of the previous year’s resources, both federal and

state funding had dropped 4%. Local government funding, however, was 2% above FY 2002

levels. Private donations of funds and goods to the network were 2% higher than the FY 2002

total. (The private resources described here do not include a monetized value for volunteer

hours.) The stability in state funding in the network is noteworthy because of the revenue losses

and a reduction of expenditures described in the introduction to this report.

68 • Section VI


Section VI • 69

CSBG Appropriations

CSBG Appropriations had increased each year following FY 1998 through FY 2002. As Figure

16 illustrates, the FY 2003 block grant was slightly lower, in both nominal and inflation-adjusted

dollars, for the first time in over half a decade. In FY 2003, it was still $146 million higher than

in 1999 or $133 million, after inflation adjustment; this represented 27% real growth. Because

appropriations were .005% lower in FY 2003 than in FY 2002 CSBG had 2.5% less inflation-

adjusted purchasing power. The data suggest that from 1998 forward CAAs used the increase to

attract new non-federal resources. The drop in FY 2003 CSBG funds coincided with even

steeper reductions in federal and state, funding. The growth trend in local government and private

leveraging persisted, but at a slower rate.

Figure 15

Trends in Leveraged Resources, FY 1999–FY 2003

(in 1999 Dollars)

Private(not volunteer hours)

Local

State

Federal

$8,000

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

0

Fun

ding

in M

illio

ns

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003


70 • Section VI

The CSBG’s own growth rate had been outpaced by expansion of the network’s non-federal

funding as early as FY 1998. The changed proportion of non-federal funds in the expanding

network, 30% in FY 2003 versus 28% in 1999, suggests that CAA leadership had invested

heavily in local development activities.

By FY 2003, the 47 states’ CSBG expenditures, adjusted for inflation, were matched by $4.81 in

non-federal funding, a ratio 6% greater than five years earlier. These figures are shown in Table 16.

Trends in CSBG Funding, FY 1999–FY 2003

(in 1999 Dollars)

Figure 16

$700,000,000

$600,000,000

$500,000,000

$400,000,000

$300,000,000

$200,000,000

$100,000,000

$01999 2000 2001 2002 2003


Section VI • 71

Table 16

CSBG Leveraging Trends: Value of the Network’s State, Local and Private

Resources v. CSBG Funds, FY 1999, FY 2002 and FY 2003

1999† Funds 2002†† Funds 2003 FundsNon-Federal Funds Sources Leveraged per Leveraged per Leveraged per

$1.00 of CSBG $1.00 of CSBG $1.00 of CSBG

State $2.19 $1.92 $1.84

Local $0.99 $1.16 $0.96

Private (including volunteer hours) $1.35 $1.90 $2.01

All Non-Federal* $4.54 $4.98 $4.81

* In Section IV, a similar annual analysis includes all states reporting in one year’s survey; those ratios will varyslightly from these because this table includes only the 47 states that reported in each of the three years shown.

† CSBG/IS Statistical Report, 1999, NASCSP, p. 26.†† CSBG/IS Statistical Report, 2002, NASCSP, p. 30.


72 • Conclusion

Conclusion

In FY 2003, the CSBG network reported slight real growth in local and private funds, but its

funding from federal and state governments stagnated and caused a reduction in its real

resources. Nevertheless, the ranks of the poor and near-poor in need of CAA services grew; there

were over 1.3 million newly-poor individuals in 2003. Altogether, the CAAs reached more than

13 million people in almost 6 million families and served almost a fifth of all those living in

poverty along with another million near-poor families, but they had to allocate shrinking

resources among the growing needs in their communities.

The continuing FY 2003 economic uncertainty and loss of public funding, especially from state

budgets, could be expected to dramatically affect FY 2004 programs for the poor. The

sustainability of CAAs’ resources, amassed over the previous 5 years to help low-income

communities and families achieve self-sufficiency, appeared uncertain at best.


Endnotes • 73

Endnotes

1 Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor and Robert J. Mills, Income, Poverty, and HealthInsurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of theCensus (Washington, DC: GPO, 2004), 9.

2 “Long-term unemployed” are people who have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer.United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Employment Situation:September 2003 (Washington, DC, October 3, 2003), 1. For long-term unemployment statistics,see Table A-9.

3 Heather Boushey and David Rosnick, For Welfare Reform to Work, Jobs Must Be Available,Center for Economic and Policy Research (Washington, DC, April 1, 2004), 1-3, http://www.cepr.net. Average hourly wages, categorized by industry, are available at ftp:/ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb15.txt.

4 People who “worked part-time for economic reasons” are people who “would like to work full-time but worked part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable tofind a full-time job.” The Employment Situation: September 2003, 3. For part-time work statistics,see Table A-5.

5 The National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers, TheFiscal Survey of States (Washington, DC, December 2003), ix. For revenue figures, see Table A-10 in the November 2002 and December 2003 editions of The Fiscal Survey of States.

6 DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Mills, 10.

7 Ibid.

8 Data from NC were not submitted in the standard format and, as a result, were not included inanalyses of individual characteristics.

9 Economic Opportunity Studies, Head Start and Community Action (Washington, DC, November2000, rev. June 2001), http://www.opportunitystudies.org. In 2001, CAAs provided Head Startservices to approximately 351,000 children, slightly more than a quarter of all the young childrenthey reported serving, but 40% of all enrollees in Head Start classrooms nationwide.

10 DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Mills, 10.

11 Ibid., 9.

12 Data from NC were not submitted in the standard format and were not included in the analysis offamily income levels, but do appear in the analysis of the proportion of the state’s povertypopulation served.

13 Data from LA and RI were not submitted in the standard format and were not included in theanalysis of the proportion of families in poverty served by CAAs.


74 • Endnotes

14 The Federal Poverty Guideline for 2003 is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/03poverty.htm.

15 The U.S. Census Bureau records the number of individuals living in poverty in each state, butthe CSBG/IS records the number of households with incomes below the poverty guideline ineach state. The number of individuals in poverty served by each state’s CAAs can be reasonablywell estimated by multiplying the number of participant families by the average family size toobtain a count of individuals, and then multiplying all individuals by the percentage of CAAfamilies with incomes at or below the poverty threshold in the state.

16 Family totals and the network’s share are based on comparisons to the average monthly caseloadshown by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children andFamilies, TANF: Total Number of Families and Recipients, Percent Change from March 2003 toJune 2003 (Washington, DC, 2004), http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2003/mar03_jun03.htm.VT was omitted from calculations of the proportion of TANF recipients served because data forVT are missing from the HHS table. LA and RI also were not included, as the data from thosestates were not comparable to the reports of other states.

17 Heather Boushey, Staying Employed After Welfare: Work Supports and Job Quality Vital toEmployment Tenure and Wage Growth, EPI Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute(Washington, DC, June 2002), http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp128.

18 Data from NC and OH were not submitted in the standard format and, as a result, were notincluded in analyses of educational attainment.

19 Data from AR, MD, MN, MT, and UT were not submitted in the standard format and, as a result,were not included in the analyses of the proportions of CAA participants surveyed who lackedhealth insurance or who had a physical or mental disability.

20 Boushey, Table 4.

21 Independent Sector, Dollar Value of a Volunteer Hour: 1980-2003 (Washington, DC, 2004),http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/volunteer_time.html#value.

22 ROMA reports are available at www.nascsp.org/ROMA/roma_pubs.htm.

State-by-State Detailed Tables

Appendix A

FY 2003

Appendix B

FY 2003

CSBG Information System Survey

The National CSBG/IS Data

Collection Task Force

Appendix C

FY 2003

The National CSBG/IS

Data Collection Task Force

Chairs:

Bill BrownExecutive DirectorOffice of Human ConcernP.O. Box 778/506 E. Spruce St.Rogers, AR 72757

Denny NaughtonManaging Director, Community ServicesDepartment of Community, Trade and

Economic Development906 Columbia Street, SW, P.O. Box 48300Olympia, WA 98504-8300

David BradleyExecutive DirectorNational Community Action Foundation810 First St., NE – Suite 530Washington, DC 20002

Charles BraithwaitChair, NCAF BoardRoute 1, Box 242Lowry City, MO 64763

Jacqueline ByersDirector of ResearchNational Association of Counties440 First St., NWWashington, DC 20001

Lois CarsonExecutive DirectorCommunity Action Partnership of Riverside County2038 Iowa Ave., Suite B-102Riverside, CA 92507

Jeannie ChaffinCSBG Program ManagerDSS/DFS/CSBG Unit615 Howerton Ct., P.O. Box 88Jefferson City, MO 65103

Dennis DarlingDirector, Office of Community ServicesDepartment of Community and

Economic DevelopmentKeystone Building, 400 North St., 4th FloorHarrisburg, PA 17120

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Appendix C • 1

Chuck EmmonsQuin Rivers Agency for Community Action, Inc.104 Roxbury Industrial Dr.Charles City, VA 23030

Susan GolonkaProgram Director for Welfare ReformNational Governors’ AssociationCenter for Best Practices444 N. Capitol St., Suite 267Washington, DC 20001

Akm RahmanInformation and Contracts CoordinatorBureau of NeighborhoodsMassachusetts Department of Housing & Community

DevelopmentOne Congress St.Boston, MA 02114

Ann RichardsonCAC for Lexington-Fayette, Bourbon,

Harrison and Nicholas CountiesP.O. Box 11610/913 Georgetown St.Lexington, KY 40576

Maureen TuckerCSBG Program ManagerOffice of Community ServicesDebnam Building, Holloway Campus1901 N. Dupont Hwy.New Castle, DE 19720

Derrick Len SpanNational PresidentCommunity Action Partnership1100 17th St., NW – Suite 500Washington, DC 2003

National Association for StateCommunity Services Programs

400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 395, Washington, DC 20001(202) 624-5866 • [email protected]

Documents

Community Services Block Grant Statistical Report. FY 2003.pdf