Congressional Justifications for 1998 Budget Estimates

Community Planning and Development
Community Development Block Grants

Program Highlights

NA = Not Applicable

NOTE: Obligations, appropriations (budget authority) and outlays in 1996 and 1997 include amounts for Youthbuild. Youthbuild is requested as a separate program in 1998.

a/ Pursuant to P.L. 104-134 for Presidentally declared flood disasters. Details are provided later in this justification.

b/ Funds requested in September 1996 for assistance in the aftermath of Hurricanes Fran and Hortense were not enacted by Congress.

Summary of Budget Estimates

1. Summary of Budget Request

The Budget proposes $4.6 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) in 1998, the same level provided since 1995. CDBG funds are provided to entitlement cities, urban counties and States based on one of two formulae, and may be used for community and economic development activities, thereby increasing State and local capacity for economic revitalization, job creation, community development and renewal of distressed communities, and for leveraging of non-Federal sources.

This Budget holds the line on CDBG funding, both the total of $4.6 billion as well as the amount available for entitlement communities and States. In addition, the following important initiatives are proposed as set-asides within CDBG:

• $67 million for Native Americans (the Native American CDBG program will continue to be funded under the overall CDBG account);
• $50 million for Economic Development Initiative (EDI) grants;
• $50 million for Homeownership Zones;
• $60 million for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program;
• $10 million for a grant to Habitat for Humanity International;
• $10 million for the Bridges to Work program;
• $10 million for the Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing program; and
• $32.6 million for Section 107 Grants, including funding for Insular areas, University programs and technical assistance.

The Budget also proposes a $1.26 billion loan guarantee commitment level for the Section 108 program in 1998. This commitment level will support Section 108 loan guarantees made in conjunction with EDI grants and the Brownfields Redevelopment program (see separate justification), as well as all other loan guarantee applications received under the regular CDBG program. The focus of the 1998 EDI grants will be the need to create employment opportunities for former welfare recipients. As required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, credit subsidy budget authority and administrative costs totaling $30 million is also requested. The request for the administrative costs of the Section 108 program reflects an increase to $1 million in 1998. This amount will be transferred to the HUD Salaries and Expenses appropriation. A portion of these funds will be used to contract for certain credit extension functions. Financial and legal services are required to handle the increased volume of projects and the increasing complexity of structuring loan arrangements, particularly security requirements, in order to provide financing of loans under approved commitments.

2. Changes from 1996 Estimates Included in 1997 Budget

The 1997 Budget assumed that the full amount available in 1996 would be obligated in that year. Actual obligations for CDBG of $4,415 million were approximately 87 percent of the estimated obligations, and 86 percent of the total available, including carryover of prior year funds. Carryover reflects the fact that some CDBG communities begin their program years on October 1, which would result in an obligation of 1 program year's grant funds in the subsequent fiscal year. In addition, disaster funding appropriated during 1996 (P.L. 103-134) for flood damage was not obligated by the end of the fiscal year, but was fully obligated by the end of December 1996. Section 108 loan guarantee commitments made during 1996 were $434 million, significantly less than the $1.5 billion originally anticipated. This was partially due to the absence of EDI grants which many communities use as collateral instead of their CDBG funds.

Outlays of $4,545 million in 1996 were $548 million, or approximately 11 percent lower than projected in the 1997 Budget, reflecting the lower obligation level and slightly lower expenditure of funds by grantees.

3. Changes from Original 1997 Budget Estimates

The 1997 Current Estimate reflects the following major changes from the original 1997 Budget Estimate:

• A Budget Amendment was proposed to increase CDBG by $30 million to fund Supportive Services grants. Funds for these grants were to be transferred from unobligated HOPE balances, and were to be administered by the Office of Housing. This was not enacted by the Congress.
• A Budget Amendment was proposed to shift $20 million from the Distressed Areas set-aside to Youthbuild, bringing Youthbuild funding to $40 million. The Congress approved $30 million for this program in 1997.
• The following set-asides were included in the enacted CDBG appropriation that were not in the original request: Housing Assistance Council ($2.1 million); National American Indian Housing Council ($1.5 million); Supportive Services Grants, Moving to Work and Tenant Opportunity ($60 million); Lead-Based Paint Abatement ($60 million); and Grants to Reimburse Law Enforcement Agencies ($20 million).
• The proposed Challenge Grant, which included $100 million for the Economic Development Initiative, was not authorized or funded.
• The Current Estimate of 1997 obligations is $725 million higher than originally estimated when estimated obligations for the CDBG Challenge Grant are not included. This assumes that all available funds, including the 1996 disaster appropriation (P.L. 104-134) and carryover from prior years, will be obligated in the current year.
• The Current Estimate of 1997 outlays is slightly lower than the original estimate due to a recalculation of spend-out rates. An analysis of expenditures over several years showed spend-out was slower in the first 2 years after obligation than had been previously estimated. The 1997, 1998 and outyear estimates reflect the revised spend-out rates.

Explanation of Increases and Decreases

The Budget proposes $4.6 billion for CDBG in 1998. This is the same overall funding level as was enacted in 1995, 1996 and 1997, excluding disaster assistance. The overall request is reduced by $300 million from the 1997 Budget request, since the Department is no longer requesting funding for a CDBG Challenge Grant. The proposal maintains set-asides at the same proportion of overall funding as it was in the enacted 1997 Budget.

Obligations are projected to decrease by 14 percent from 1997 to 1998. Outlays are also projected to decrease, by about 4 percent, reflecting the slower spend-out rates utilized in developing these budget estimates.

Finally, the 1998 Budget reflects a slight decrease from $1.4 billion to $1.3 billion for Section 108 Loan Guarantee commitments. The 1998 commitment level is supported by the $29 million request for credit subsidy budget authority, a slight reduction from the enacted 1997 level.

Program Description and Activity

1. Legislative Authority. CDBG is authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
2. Program Area Organization. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program reflects HUD's commitment to maintaining this flexible funding vehicle for communities across the Nation for community development which benefits low- and moderate-income individuals. It is the primary vehicle for the revitalization of our Nation's cities and neighborhoods, thereby providing opportunities for self-sufficiency to millions of Americans.

Grantees access their funding through the Consolidated Plan process, under which States and localities establish their local priorities and specify how they will measure their performance. A locality's Consolidated Plan serves as the planning, application and reporting mechanism for CDBG funds. The Consolidated Plan will continue to serve as the vehicle by which the community identifies community and neighborhood development needs, actions to address those needs (including specific activities on which CDBG dollars will be spent), and the measures against which its performance will be judged. The Consolidated Plan also provides the community a means for identifying key low-income neighborhoods for targeted multiyear investment strategies. Communities establish a performance measurement system to evaluate progress toward meeting locally established priorities and objectives. HUD will work with States and localities to facilitate comparison of performance among jurisdictions.

a. Program Purpose. Title I of the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to make grants to units of general local government and States for the funding of local community development programs. The program's primary objective is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. This objective is achieved by limiting activities to those which carry out one of the following broad national objectives: (1) benefit low- and moderate-income persons; (2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight; or (3) meet other particularly urgent community development needs. At least 70 percent of all CDBG funds received by a grantee must be used for activities that benefit persons of low- and moderate-income over a period of up to 3 years. Historically, communities have actually used more than 90 percent of their CDBG funds for such activities.

The program is based on the principle that recipients have the knowledge and responsibility for selecting eligible activities most appropriate to their local circumstances. In addition, instead of competing for categorical project dollars each year, the entitlement communities and States have a basic grant allocation so they know in advance the approximate amount of Federal funds they will receive annually.

b. Eligible Recipients and Activities

Eligible Recipients. Eligible CDBG grant recipient include States, units of general local government (city, county, town, township, parish, village or other general purpose political subdivision determined to be eligible for assistance by the Secretary), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau) (through 1998 only), recognized Native American tribes, and Alaskan Native Villages.

Eligible Activities. Section 105 of the HCD Act of 1974, as amended, permits a broad range of activities to be undertaken by communities assisted under the program, ranging from the provision of public facilities or services to economic development or residential rehabilitation and, in some cases, substantial reconstruction of housing.

c. Fund Distribution. CDBG funds are allocated to States and localities based on the formulae described below. After deducting designated amounts for set-asides, 70 percent of funds go to entitlement communities and 30 percent go to States for nonentitlement communities (small cities).

The following table shows the distribution of the 1996 appropriation, and the projected distributions of proposed appropriations for 1997 and 1998:

a/ Includes funding for Bridges to Work Demonstration.

b/ A Budget Amendment proposing that $30 million in unobligated HOPE funds be transferred to CDBG for Supportive Services Grants was not approved. However, the $60 million enacted includes $5 million for Moving to Work and $5 million for the Tenant Opportunity Program.

c/ A Budget Amendment proposed to shift $20 million from Distressed Areas to Youthbuild. Funding of $30 million was enacted for Youthbuild in 1997. The Distressed Areas initiative was not funded.

d/ Funding for Youthbuild requested as a separate appropriation in 1998.

e/ In 1996, a portion of the $50 million EDI funds was used for homeownership activities allowed under the EDI authorization (Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended). In 1997, $20 million in recaptured Nehemiah Housing Opportunity Program funds were authorized to be used for targeted homeownership activities.

d. Explanation of Funds Allocated by Recipient Category

1. Formula Entitlement. The HCD Act of 1974, as amended, provides for the distribution of funds to eligible recipients (metropolitan cities and urban counties) for community purposes utilizing the higher of two formulas, as shown:

"Age of housing stock" means the number of existing year-round housing units constructed before 1940, based on Census data. "Population growth lag" means the extent to which the current population of a metropolitan city or urban county is less than the population it would have had if its population growth rate between 1960 and the date of the most recent population count had been equal to the growth rate of all metropolitan cities over the same period.

Metropolitan Cities. Cities in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with a population of 50,000 and over and central cities of MSAs are entitled to funding on the basis of one of the formulas. A total of 834 metropolitan cities are eligible to receive grants from 1997 funds thes hese, 22 have elected to enter into joint grant agreements with their urban counties.

Urban Counties. The statute also entitles urban counties to formula grants. Of counties meeting the required population threshold, 141 counties are eligible for funding in 1997. These urban counties include over 3,300 cooperating local incorporated units receiving funding under the program. A test for designation as an urban county requires that the county be authorized under State law to undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities in its unincorporated areas which are not units of general local government.

The urban county must have authority to perform such functions in its participating incorporated communities either under State law or through cooperative agreements. These agreements must express the intention of the urban county and its incorporated jurisdictions to cooperate in essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing. Participation by any included unit of government is voluntary. An urban county's qualification is valid for a 3-year period.

2. Nonentitlement (States and Small Cities Program). Nonentitlement funds are allocated among the States according to a dual formula, with the allocation being the higher of amounts determined under the original formula or a second formula which is identical to that used for entitlement communities except that population is substituted for growth lag.

Presently, States have the option of administering the program and awarding grants to nonentitled units of government. Where the State does not so elect, HUD distributes the funds. However, under the HCD Act of 1974, as amended, any State that elects to administer the Small Cities program in fiscal year 1985 or thereafter shall be considered to have assumed this responsibility permanently and, if it fails to provide an annual submission, funds will be reallocated among all States in the succeeding year. Only two States (New York and Hawaii) have not elected to administer the program.

3. Youthbuild. The Youthbuild program, which was funded within CDBG in 1996 and 1997, is authorized by Section 164 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) which amended Title IV of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act by adding subtitle D, "HOPE for Youth: Youthbuild." Youthbuild provides education and employment skills to disadvantaged young adults through the rehabilitation and building of housing for low-income and homeless people. The program includes both on-site construction work and off-site academic and jobs skills training. A separate appropriation is requested for Youthbuild in 1998. A more detailed description of the Youthbuild program and funding requirements can be found in its justification.

4. Section 107 Grants. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) expanded Section 107 to include Community Outreach Partnership Act funding, Community Adjustment Planning, assistance to joint State/local government/university programs, and Regulatory Barrier Removal Act funding. Section 107 grants have also included five program categories providing assistance for Insular Areas; Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Community Development Work Study; funding to States and units of general local government to correct any miscalculation of their share of funds under section 106; and technical assistance in planning, developing and administering programs under Title I.

A total of $32.6 million is requested for Section 107 grants in 1998. The proposed distribution of Section 107 Grants follows. These amounts are subtracted from the total appropriation prior to allocating funds that are provided directly to States and units of local government.

• $19 million for three University programs: $6.5 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), $5 million (with a $2 million set-aside for Hispanic-serving institutions) for Community Development Work Study, and $7.5 million for the Community Outreach Partnerships program;
• $6.6 million for Technical Assistance; and
• $7 million for Insular Areas.

University Programs. University grant programs have assisted institutions of higher education in forming partnerships with the communities in which they are located to undertake a range of activities to foster and achieve neighborhood revitalization. The HBCU and Community Outreach Partnerships programs have received funding for these purposes. Another program, Community Development Work Study, provides assistance to economically disadvantaged and minority students earning degrees in community building disciplines. This Budget proposes to fund the HBCU, CD Work Study and Community Outreach Partnerships within CDBG; however, the COPS and CD Work Study programs are administered by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research.

Technical Assistance. Technical assistance projects have assisted States, communities and Native American tribes in planning, developing and administering Title I assistance. The technical assistance program enables the Department to provide assistance both directly and through contractors in the following areas:

• increasing grantee effectiveness to plan and implement Title I assistance;
• improving the economic development potential of governmental units and increasing the participation of the private sector in community and economic development assisted under Title I; and
• leveraging non-Title I funding sources in the use of Title I assistance.

This will provide for community development and job creation training for localities and capacity building (including operating and project costs) of neighborhood-based and community development organizations that wish to participate in local community development. The existing eligible uses of technical assistance would be maintained and expanded to incorporate assistance to nonprofits.

Insular Areas. Section 107 Grants have been the source of funding for community development activities in the Insular areas. Insular areas that have been funded include the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific (Palau). (NOTE: On October 1, 1994, Palau became an independent Nation, and funding will be terminated after 1998.) Typical projects include construction or reconstruction of public works and facilities; housing rehabilitation; economic development; and public services.

5. Economic Development Initiative. EDI grants are authorized by Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. The Budget proposes to use $50 million in 1998 for an enhanced EDI program which will build upon the success of the existing program by expanding funding available for job creation projects, and providing more flexibility in meeting community and economic development needs. The focus of the 1998 EDI grants will be the need to create employment opportunities for former welfare recipients.

6. Homeownership Zones. In 1997, $20 million in recaptured Nehemiah Housing Opportunity Grants funds was authorized to be used for targeted homeownership activities. The Budget proposes to use $50 million of 1998 CDBG funds for this purpose. The Homeownership Zones program will provide flexible grants to States and CDBG entitlement units of general local government for large-scale redevelopment of abandoned neighborhoods to create viable communities of mixed income homebuyers. Targeted homeownership activities are intended to have a major impact in distressed neighborhoods by converting vacant, abandoned land and buildings into thriving, vibrant neighborhoods by using single-family homeownership as a catalyst for revitalization. Offering these homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate-income residents in designated neighborhoods will provide the foundation for needed commercial and economic development. These funds are expected to be used in conjunction with existing programs, such as CDBG and HOME, but will enable communities to create successful projects while minimizing the constraints of limited eligible activities and competing demands on resources that those programs face.

7. Lead Hazard Control Program. Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) authorizes a Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program to address lead-hazard reduction activities in privately owned housing. This program is discussed in greater detail in a separate justification.

8. Bridges to Work. The Bridges to Work program will provide assistance to low-income, work-ready, but unemployed or underemployed, city residents in finding and maintaining employment. This would particularly include persons moving from welfare to work. These grants will support planning, coordination and the delivery of critical services to increase access to jobs throughout a metropolitan area. Funds may be used for, but not limited to identifying job needs and employment opportunities; creating service collaboratives; coordinating services; providing time-limited job search, transportion, child care, or other key services otherwise unavailable; and monitoring results. The program will build on the existing demonstration program by expanding collaborative efforts by private businesses, non-profit organizations and public agencies, including the Federal Government. The Bridges to Work program would be available on a competitive basis, and would be targeted, but not limited to, Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.

9. Habitat for Humanity. The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-120) authorized the Secretary to make a $25 million grant to Habitat for Humanity International during 1996. This Budget proposes to provide an additional $10 million to Habitat in 1998. Habitat would use this grant to undertake innovative homeownership opportunities through the provision of self-help housing, under which a homeowner would contribute a significant amount of sweat equity toward the construction of the new dwelling. These decent, safe and sanitary nonluxury dwellings must be made available to eligible homeowners at prices below prevailing market prices. Eligible activities include land acquisition (including financing and closing costs) and infrastructure improvement (installing, extending, constructing, rehabilitating or otherwise improving utilities and other infrastructure).

10. Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing. The Housing Opportuniro P o ram Extension Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-120) also authorized the Secretary to make a $10 million grant to the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI) for the Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing program during 1996. This Budget proposes to provide an additional $10 million to NCDI in 1998. The Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing program provides funding to NCDI to build the capacity of community-based development corporations and housing development organizations, and to assist such entities to carry out community development and affordable housing activities.

11. Disaster Assistance. The 1996 appropriation provided $50 million for expenses and repairs related to Presidentially declared flood disasters which occurred between October 1995 and April 1996. As of December 1996, all of these funds were obligated. Grants were made to 24 States and entitlement communities in the following 13 States: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, North Dakota, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

e. Reallocation of Entitlement Funds. CDBG amounts allocated to a metropolitan city or urban county in a fiscal year which become available for reallocation as a result of a grant reduction are first reallocated in the succeeding fiscal year to other metropolitan cities and urban counties in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). These communities must follow a simple certification process to qualify for receipt of these funds.

f. Reallocation of Nonentitlement Funds. Existing law requires that amounts allocated for use in a State in a fiscal year which become available for reallocation must be reallocated according to the following criteria:

• in the case of actions against small cities, amounts that become available for reallocation are to be added to amounts available for distribution in the State in the fiscal year in which the amounts become available; or
• in the case of actions against a State, these amounts will be allocated among all States in the succeeding fiscal year.

g. Loan Guarantee Authority. Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities (the latter beginning in 1991 pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act) to cover the costs of acquiring real property, rehabilitating publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and certain economic development activities. In addition, guaranteed loan funds have been used to finance construction of housing by nonprofit organizations when undertaken as part of a project that is also financed under the Rental Housing Development Grants or Nehemiah Housing Opportunity Grants programs.

A 1994 amendment makes the acquisition, construction or reconstruction of public facilities an eligible use of these loan funds. The 1994 amendments also authorized the "Economic Revitalization Grants" program to assist the financing of economic development projects in conjunction with loans under the Section 108 program. Since 1994, more than $400 million has been awarded for Economic Development Initiative (EDI) grants under this authority. In 1998, $50 million is requested within CDBG for the EDI program, which will be used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantees to leverage private investment in urban economic development projects.

Beginning in 1996, budget authority for credit subsidy and administrative costs were requested to comply with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. For 1998, $29 million is requested for a credit subsidy and $1 million is requested for administrative costs of operating the Section 108 loan guarantee program. These amounts are required to be scored, in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, to measure more accurately the cost of this loan guarantee program. It is anticipated that a portion of these funds will be used to contract out for certain credit extension functions.

h. Consolidated Plan Requirement. In order to receive CDBG entitlement funds, a grantee must develop and submit to HUD its Consolidated Plan, which is a jurisdiction's comprehensive planning document and application for funding under the following Community Planning and Development formula grant programs: CDBG, HOME, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG). In its Consolidated Plan, the jurisdiction must identify its goals for these community planning and development programs, as well as for housing programs. In addition, the Consolidated Plan must include the jurisdiction's projected use of funds and required certifications. These certifications include that the grantee is following a current HUD-approved Consolidated Plan, that not less than 70 percent of the CDBG funds received over a 1-, 2- or 3-year period specified by the grantee, will be used for activities that benefit persons of low- and moderate-income, and that the grantee is following other applicable laws, regulations, and OMB circulars. A Consolidated Plan submission will be approved by HUD unless the Plan (or a portion of it) is inconsistent with the purposes of the National Affordable Housing Act or it is substantially incomplete.

States participating in the State CDBG program must also develop and submit to HUD a Consolidated Plan similar to those required of entitlement communities. However, in place of a listing of proposed funded activities, each State must merely describe its funding priorities and the criteria for selecting projects that are proposed by units of general local government. It must describe the method it intends to use to distribute funds among communities in nonentitlement areas. Each participating State must submit certifications that it will: follow the Act's citizen participation requirements and require assisted local governments to follow citizen participation; conduct its program in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and affirmatively further fair housing; set forth and follow a method of distribution that ensures that each of the funded activities will meet one or more of the three broad national objectives of the program; consult with affected local governments in determining the method of distribution and identifying community development needs; and comply with Title I of the HCD Act and all other applicable laws. It must also certify that each housing activity funded will be consistent with the State's Consolidated Plan.

HUD-administered Small Cities in the State of New York are required to submit an application to HUD in response to the annual Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) published by the Department. Such application also requires the submission of an abbreviated Consolidated Plan. The applications are subject to a competitive review and selection process described in the NOFA.

i. Performance Review. CDBG grantees (entitlement communities and states) that have approved Consolidated Plans must annually review and report to HUD on its progress in carrying out its strategic and action plans for community development. This includes a description of CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA funds made available to the grantee, the activities funded, the geographic distribution and location of the activities and the types of families or persons assisted (beneficiaries), and a report of the actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing. The report is an assessment by the grantee of the relationship of its use of funds to the specific objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan.

HUD is required to review grantees' performance, at least annually, to determine whether activities have been carried out in a timely manner; whether activities and certifications have been carried out in accordance with all applicable laws and whether the grantee has continuing capacity to carry out the program. In the case of states, HUD performs reviews to determine if the state has distributed funds in a timely manner, consistent with its method of distribution, is in compliance with CDBG requirements and other applicable laws and

whether appropriate reviews of grants awarded to local governments have been conducted by the state. HUD is authorized to terminate, reduce or limit the availability of the funds of a grantee according to review findings following the opportunity for an administrative hearing. For nonentitlement grants made by HUD to small cities, HUD may adjust, reduce, or withdraw such funds, or take other action as appropriate according to review findings.

The Department is completing development of an integrated reporting system under which performance information for all programs covered in the Consolidated Plan would be collected by HUD as program expenditures occur. This new system is currently operational on a limited basis, and will be expanded as resources and development activities permit.

3. Performance Indicators.

a. Mission. To empower communities and to expand the supply of decent and affordable housing.

b. Objectives and Benchmarks. The objectives of the CDBG program are to provide decent, safe and affordable housing; to revitalize distressed neighborhoods and communities; to promote self-sufficiency and economic opportunities; to expand opportunities principally for low- and moderate-income persons; and to eliminate impediments to fair housing choice. Benchmarks are estimates of expected activity. Actual accomplishments depend on local decisions on the use of CDBG funds, as well as the use of funds from other sources. Benchmarks which may be used to measure performance include the percentage of funds used for housing activities; the number of jobs created in general and for target populations; and the extent to which communities integrate their use of various programs to address local priorities for low- and moderate-income persons.

Status of Funds

Balances Available

a. Unobligated balances. The following table compares program obligations with funds available for distribution by year:

	Actual 1996	Estimate 1997	Estimate 1998
	(Dollars in Thousands)
Obligated balance, start of year	$8,645,368	$8,511,196	$8,999,846
Obligations, gross	4,415,145	5,325,619	4,600,000
Orders on hand from Federal sources	-391	...	...
Subtotal	13,060,122	13,836,815	13,599,846
Outlays (Gross)	-4,544,739	-4,836,969	-4,641,078
Adjustment in expired accounts	-809	...	...
Adjustment in unexpired accounts	-3,378	...	...
Obligated balance, end of year	8,511,196	8,999,846	8,958,768

Note: Actual outlays are governed by the rate at which communities expend funds which have been made available to them.

Distribution of Funds by State

The following table shows combined entitlement and nonentitlement allocations, by State, for 1996, 1997 and 1998 appropriations. The 1998 amounts represent preliminary estimates which are subject to change.

Note: Columns may not add due to rounding.