This article discusses how the Community Development Block grant targeting policy adopted in 1977 has changed to the disadvantage of needier communities as the result of continuing demographic changes, reflected in the 1980 census, and through expansion in the number of entitlement communities, many of them small, relatively well-off cities. We also present several options available to policymakers for altering the current block grant allocation system that results in a greater targeting of funds to distressed communities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BUNCE, H. L. and R. L. GOLDBERG (1979a) City Need and Community Development Funding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2.
BUNCE, H. L. and R. L. GOLDBERG (1979b) Age of Housing: A Controversial Indicator of Urban Problems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
3.
BUNCE, H. L. , S. G. NEAL, and J. L. GARDNER (1983) Effects of the 1980 Census on Community Development Funding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
4.
BURCHELL, R. W. , D. LISTOKIN, G. STERNLIEB, J. W. HUGHES, and S. C. CASEY (1981) "Measuring urban distress: a summary of the major urban hardship indices and resource allocation systems," pp. 159-229 in R. W. Burchell and D. Listokin (eds.) Cities Under Stress. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research.
5.
BUSS, T. F. (1986) "Unemployment rates and their implications for human resource planning."J. of Economic and Social Measurement14: 1-18.
6.
Congressional Record (1977) Vol. 123, Part 12 (May 10): 14114.
7.
DeLEON, R. and R. LeGATES (1978) "Beyond cybernetic federalism in community development."Urban Law Annual15: 17-52.
8.
DOMMEL, P. R. , R. P. NATHAN, S. F. LIEBSCHUTZ, and M. T. WRIGHTSON (1978) Decentralizing Community Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
9.
DOMMEL, P. R. and Associates (1982) Decentralizing Urban Policy: Case Studies in Community Development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
10.
DOMMEL, P. R. and M. J. RICH (1986) The Distributional Impacts of the Community Development Block Grant Program: Options for Increased Targeting on Community Need. Providence, RI: Brown University, A. Alfred Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions.
11.
Federal Register (1980) Vol. 45, no. 2 (January 3): 956-963.
12.
HERZIK, E. B. and J. P. PELISSERO (1986) "Decentralization, redistribution and community development: a reassessment of the small cities CDBG program."Public Administration Rev.46: 31-36.
13.
ISSERMAN, A. M. (1981) "The allocation of funds to small cities under the community development block grant program: an evaluation."Amer. Planning Assn. J.47: 3-24.
14.
MORGAN, D. R. and R. E. ENGLAND (1984) "The small cities block grant program: an assessment of programmatic change under state control."Public Administration Rev.44: 477-482.
15.
NATHAN, R. P. and C. F. ADAMS (1976) "Understanding central city hardship."Pol. Sci. Q.91: 47-62.
16.
NATHAN, R. P. and P. R. DOMMEL (1981) "Issues and techniques for federal grant-in-aid allocations to distressed cities."Urban Affairs Papers3: 21-34.
17.
NATHAN, R. P. , P. R. DOMMEL, S. F. LIEBSCHUTZ, and M. D. MORRIS (1977) Block Grants for Community Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18.
President's Urban and Regional Policy Group (1978) A New Partnership to Conserve America's Communities: A National Urban Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
19.
RAKOVE, M. L. (1975) Don't Make No Waves-Don't Back No Losers: An Insider's Analysis of the Daley Machine. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
20.
ROSS, J. P. (1980) "The urban impact of the anti-recession fiscal assistance program," pp. 574-594 in N. Glickman (ed.) The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
21.
STANFIELD, R. L. (1978) "Playing computer politics with local aid formulas."National J.10: 1977-1981.
22.
U.S. Congressional Budget Office (1978) City Need and the Responsiveness of Federal Programs. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
