Bill Overview
Title: CDBG Modernization Act of 2022
Description: This bill sets out a process to revise the formulas used to allocate certain funding through the Community Development Block Grant, which supports states and local governments with neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and community economic development efforts.
Sponsors: Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals benefiting from CDBG-funded neighborhood revitalization, housing, and economicdevelopment efforts
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program impacts local communities through neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, and economic development.
- CDBG funding typically benefits low- and moderate-income individuals by providing housing and community improvements.
- Local governments and states are direct recipients of these grants, which are assumed to be used for public benefit.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets low- to moderate-income individuals and communities, suggesting that many of the interviewees should come from these backgrounds.
- The budget constraints imply that not everyone will be affected or that the impacts will be uneven, with more significant effects in strategically chosen areas.
- A mix of individuals who will experience different levels of impact (high, medium, low, none) will help illustrate the spectrum of potential effects.
- Individuals from various occupational and demographic backgrounds can show how the policy might affect different sectors and groups.
Simulated Interviews
Community Organizer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The CDBG funds could help our neighborhood a lot, especially with housing improvements.
- I hope the local government uses the funds for tangible benefits that improve our living standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Real Estate Developer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- CDBG could open new opportunities for collaboration in revitalizing underserved parts of the city.
- It might create incentives for further private investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If CDBG funds improve housing, it could have a positive impact on my students' lives.
- Better neighborhoods could mean safer environments for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired (Oakland, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m skeptical if the funds will truly help residents like me or just boost property values and push us out.
- If used wisely, it could drastically improve local amenities and services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Small Business Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant could help sustain local businesses if leveraged properly.
- I'm worried about unintended consequences like increased rents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Urban Planner (Houston, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This additional funding could allow us to pilot innovative projects that benefit the community.
- It's crucial to monitor the projects to ensure equitable use of resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
City Council Member (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The CDBG modernization can empower local governments to address pressing infrastructure issues.
- Hope to see a significant improvement in certain neighborhoods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Community Health Worker (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving housing can directly affect health outcomes, which align with my work objectives.
- I'm optimistic about these funds making a measurable difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Jackson, MS)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants might lead to more job opportunities which is good for people in my line of work.
- I hope projects focus on using local labor resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Non-profit Executive (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our organization stands to benefit substantially from increased CDBG funding.
- These reforms could scale our initiatives and outreach significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily impacts how funds are allocated rather than the total budget, maintaining existing program costs with initial administrative adjustments.
- Changes seek to address equity and impact across diverse community needs which might require ongoing assessment and optimization.
- Impact on local economies can vary widely depending on regional economic conditions, priorities, and project selection, which may affect overall program outcomes.