Bill Overview
Title: Public Service Expenditure Cap Modification Act
Description: This bill waives for FY2023 a cap on the amount that recipients of Community Development Block Grant funds may spend on public service activities (e.g., those concerned with employment, crime prevention, childcare, and health). Current law prohibits recipients from expending more than 15% of funds on such activities. The bill also directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to allow recipients to provide emergency grant payments on behalf of eligible families for up to six months. Currently, these payments, which provide assistance with housing, utilities, or other subsistence support, are limited to three months.
Sponsors: Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]
Target Audience
Population: People benefiting from Community Development Block Grant-funded public services
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill impacts recipients of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which are allocated to cities, counties, and states for community development projects, including those for public service activities. The change removes a cap on spending, allowing more resources to be dedicated to these activities.
- Public service activities may involve employment, crime prevention, childcare, and health services. Therefore, all individuals in communities benefiting from these services will be impacted.
- By allowing emergency grant payments for up to six months, the bill impacts families facing housing and utility insecurities, as they can receive more extended assistance.
- Community Development Block Grant funds are crucial for many socio-economically disadvantaged communities in urban and rural areas, implying that low-income individuals and families will be significant beneficiaries.
- The bill specifically refers to fiscal year 2023, indicating that the impact is time-bound but could significantly alter the allocation and influence of funds on local community services.
Reasoning
- The bill increases the amount of funding that can be allocated to public services, which will be significant for low-income communities relying on these services.
- The act will also allow for longer emergency grant payments, crucial for families struggling with housing and utility bills, hence improving their short-term wellbeing.
- Although the budget is limited to $150 million, the policy would potentially enhance public service capacity, especially for childcare and health services, having a wide-reaching impact.
- Populations in urban areas with significant socio-economic challenges but access to Community Development Block Grants will likely derive the most benefit.
- Given the scale of the policy, individual impacts might range from medium to high depending on existing service reliance and location. Therefore, it's critical to include a mix of rural and urban, diverse occupations, and varied socio-economic statuses in the interviews.
Simulated Interviews
Single Mother (Detroit, MI)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely heavily on community childcare services which currently have limited resources.
- Expanding the cap would mean more childcare options and support for my kids.
- Additional support for housing payments would alleviate monthly financial stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Part-time Construction Worker (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finding work in my area is tough, and crime prevention programs help keep our community safe.
- With more funding, we might see more job opportunities through community projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Health Worker at Community Clinic (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our clinic is currently underfunded, impacting our ability to serve clients adequately.
- Increased funding can allow us to expand our health programs and outreach, ultimately serving the community better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Austin, TX)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- On a fixed income, I rely on city services for senior activities and healthcare advice.
- Increasing funding to these services would improve the quality of these programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our family might have been on the streets without the current grant support.
- Extending the grant period could provide a buffer while my family establishes stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Unemployed (Rural Alabama)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our town relies on these funds for essential services.
- An increase in the cap could improve local infrastructure and potentially create jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Social Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With more funding, we could help expand our program to reach more individuals on the brink of homelessness.
- There's always a need for more services than we can currently provide.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our projects help employ local young people and improve community facilities.
- Increased funding would mean more successful projects and community benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- CDBG-funded programs include critical after-school activities that keep kids safe and engaged.
- Increased funding would mean more resources and opportunities for students.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Organizations like ours can vastly benefit from increased activity and reach with these additional funds.
- Community development projects often lack adequate resources, so this policy change is welcome.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $175000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy removes the cap on public service spending for one fiscal year, which increases flexibility but could strain other areas funded by CDBG if not balanced correctly.
- The policy is a one-time change applicable only for FY2023, so long-term impacts are limited.
- The expansion of emergency grant payments might lead to increased demand from eligible families, potentially outpacing available funds.
- Estimating the exact increase in expenditures or shifts in local budget priorities is challenging due to diverse regional needs and management decisions.