< Back to Search

Fiscal Year 2007 Community Services Block Grant Program Report to Congress

Published: July 20, 2012
Audience:
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG)
Tags:
authority, eligibility, guidelines, participant, uses

Other Programs

In FY 2007, States reported spending approximately $14 million on CSBG-funded programs that could not be placed in any of the other nine statutory service categories.

Programs for Youth and Seniors

In FY 2007, as part of the aforementioned $566 million spent on direct delivery of local services, States reported spending approximately $61 million on programs serving youth, and approximately $56 million on programs serving seniors.  Services noted under these categories were targeted exclusively to children and youth from ages six to 17 or persons over 55 years of age.  Table 2 provides the expenditures made by each State for programs serving youth and seniors.

Youth programs supported include:

  • Recreational facilities and programs;
  • Educational services;
  • Health services and prevention of risky behavior;
  • Delinquency prevention; and/or
  • Employment and mentoring projects.

Seniors’ programs help seniors to avoid or ameliorate illness or incapacity; address absence of a caretaker or relative; prevent abuse and neglect; and promote wellness.  Services supported include:

  • Home-based services, including household or personal care activities that improve or maintain well-being;
  • Assistance in locating or obtaining alternative living arrangements;
  • In-home emergency services or day care;
  • Group meals and recreational activities;
  • Special arrangements for transportation and coordination with other resources;
  • Case management and family support coordination; and/or
  • Home delivery of meals to ensure adequate nutrition.

Table 1:  CSBG Funds Spent on Programs, by Categories
Table 2:  CSBG Funds Spent on Youth and Senior Programs

Definitions of Direct and Administrative Costs Used for the CSBG Program
The CSBG Act requires that HHS detail the CSBG expenditures by grantees on “direct” and “administrative” functions, along with the definitions of these terms used by the program.  OCS offers guidance regarding direct program costs and administrative costs to help ensure consistency among grantees in assigning costs to these categories.  The definitions are:

Direct Program Costs for CSBG Reporting:  Direct program costs can be identified with delivery of a particular project, service, or activity intended to achieve an objective of the grant award.  For the CSBG award, those purposes and eligible activities are specified in the authorizing statute and reflected in the national Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) performance measures.  Direct program costs are incurred for the service delivery and management components within a particular program or project.  Therefore, direct costs include expenditures on some activities with administrative qualities, including salaries and benefits of program staff and managers, equipment, training, conferences, travel, and contracts, as long as those expenses relate specifically to a particular program or activity, not to the general administration of the organization. 

Administrative Costs for CSBG Reporting:  In the context of CSBG statutory reporting requirements, administrative costs are equivalent to typical indirect costs or overhead.  As distinguished from program administration or management expenditures that qualify as direct costs, administrative costs refer to central executive functions that do not directly support a specific project or service.  Incurred for common objectives that benefit multiple programs administered by the grantee organization or the organization as a whole, administrative costs are not readily assignable to a particular program funding stream.  Rather, administrative costs relate to the general management of the grantee organization, such as strategic direction, Board development, Executive Director functions, accounting, budgeting, personnel, procurement, and legal services.

For States where no data is listed, no data was submitted.

Funds Spent on Grants to Eligible Entities and Administrative Costs
The CSBG statute requires that 90 percent of State block grant funds be allocated to local eligible entities.  Of the block grant distributions made to eligible entities in FY 2007, States allocated on average 92 percent of Community Services Block Grant funds to local eligible entities ($561,437,375).  Table 3 identifies the categories of State expenditures witha breakdown of funds spent on administrative costs.
States may use as much as five percent of their CSBG funds for their administrative costs.  In FY 2007, States used about four percent of their CSBG funds for administrative expenditures ($25,565,138).  This expenditure breakdown is the same as reported for FY 2006.

Funds Spent on Discretionary Projects
Any remaining funds, beyond grant and State administrative costs, may be used at the State’s discretion for programs that help accomplish the statutory purposes of the CSBG.  Discretionary projects can include Statewide capacity building programs, such as programs that address a particular need and involve State-level planning; research; training and technical assistance to eligible entities; and competitive or demonstration programs to eliminate one or more causes of poverty.   Funds also may be expended for a broad range of programs run by eligible entities and other organizations, such as youth crime prevention, disaster relief, employment training, and other programs to address needs identified by State agencies.  In FY 2007, States used almost four percent of their CSBG funds for discretionary projects ($22,585,574), the same as reported for FY 2006.

Table 3:  State Uses of CSBG Funds in FY 2007

Uses of Funds

Number of States*

Amount Expended

Percentage of Expenditures

Grants to Local Eligible Entities

52

$561,437,375***

92.1%

State Administrative Costs

52

  $25,565,138

4.2%

Discretionary Projects

    48**

  $22,585,574

3.7%

Total Used in FY 2007

-

$609,588,087

100%

 

 

* 50 States, DC, and Puerto Rico
** Four States did not reserve any of their CSBG funds for discretionary projects.
*** In addition to the $561,437,375, eligible entities had access to State discretionary funds; therefore, the total expenditures by eligible entities totaled approximately $566 million.

Funds Spent on Direct Delivery of Local Services by Eligible Entities
The eligible entities that receive CSBG funds via their State categorize their expenditures of CSBG funds according to the statutory list of program purposes:

  • 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.

In FY 2007, eligible entities in 52 States expended funds totaling $566 million on direct delivery of local services.  The sources of funds included State discretionary funds that were channeled directly to the eligible entities to provide services and carryover monies from the FY 2006 CSBG allocation to States where the fiscal cycle differed from that of the Federal government, in addition to the FY 2007 CSBG allocation.  As previously mentioned, States reported spending 92 percent (approximately $561 million) of their State’s FY 2007 CSBG allocation for grants to local eligible entities.  Figure 1 identifies the proportion of CSBG local expenditures devoted to each program services category.  This proportion breakdown is relatively consistent with the proportions reported by eligible entities in FY 2006.  However, expenditures for employment, education, and emergency services activities increased slightly between FY 2006 and FY 2007, while funding spent on income management, nutrition, linkages, and self-sufficiency activities decreased slightly.

FIGURE 1

ELIGIBLE ENTITIES' USES OF CSBG FUNDS IN FY 2007

 $566 Million in 52 States

Number of Entities Eligible for CSBG Funds
The CSBG statute requires States to allocate block grant funds to “eligible entities” that provide services to individuals.  Eligible entities are primarily community-based organizations, of which the majority is Community Action Agencies, serving nearly 99 percent of the counties in the nation.  Tables 4 and 5 show a breakdown of the types of eligible entities that served communities with CSBG funds. 

Table 4:  Types of Eligible Entities

Number

Community Action Agencies

933

Limited Purpose Agencies

25

Migrant and/or Seasonal Farmworker Agencies*

60

Local Government Agencies*

198

Tribal Organizations

22

 

 

*Migrant and/or Seasonal Farmworker Agencies and Local Government Agencies also may be
counted in the Community Action Agencies row if they serve both functions.

Table 5:  Number and Type of Eligible Entities

Number and Demographic Characteristics of Clients Served by the CSBG Program
Eligible entities that received CSBG funds from States reported serving nearly 16.3 million individuals in FY 2007.  These individuals were often members of the same households.  More than half of the families receiving CSBG-funded assistance included children younger than 18 years old.  Just over a third of these families had both parents present.  Single mothers headed most of the families with children receiving CSBG-funded assistance.  Full demographic data for the fiscal year is identified in Tables 7 through 14.

Table 6:  Scope of the FY 2007 Demographic Survey

Number of States Reporting*

52

Number of Eligible Entities Reporting

1,075

Individuals Assisted

16,264,400

Families Assisted

6,455,900

 

 

*50 States, DC, and Puerto Rico

The State-by-State tables on the following pages identify each State’s report for the National Information System on the number and characteristics of individuals and families served by the Community Services Block Grant program, as required by the CSBG Act.  These data provide information on age, family income, housing status, sources of household income, family structure, education level, and race/ethnicity.