Where Does the Bucket Leak? Sending Money to the Poor via the Community Development Block Grant Program

Brooks, Leah; Sinitsyn, Maxim

doi:10.1080/10511482.2013.862560

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ehrenfeucht and Nelson (2013, p.169) note that post-Katrina New Orleans provided a political environment supportive of strategic targeting where foundation funds went to externally endowed CDCs with demonstrated capacity rather than to less experienced indigenous organizations. Brooks and Sinitsyn (2014) observe that if Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the largest source of funding for CDCs, were allocated exclusively to the poorest parts of the poorest neighbourhoods without regard to community organizational capacity, the city's CDBG program would lose critically needed political support from the more politically powerful CDCs located in the less distressed poor neighbourhoods. Hence, future research should investigate the best ways to achieve a balance between strategic targeting and needsbased targeting.…”

Section: Targetingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of community entrepreneurship for neighbourhood revitalization in the United Kingdom and the United States

Varady¹,

Kleinhans²,

Ham³

2017

Entrepreneurial Neighbourhoods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The global economic crisis has had a major impact on government spending for urban regeneration. In the context of these austerity regimes, in many European countries, community entrepreneurship and active citizenship are increasingly considered as a means to continue small-scale urban revitalisation. This paper investigates recent literature on both British community enterprises (CEs) and American community development corporations (CDCs). The aim is to assess the current potential of community entrepreneurship in neighbourhood revitalization in the United States and the United Kingdom. Design/methodology/approach -Starting from a seminal article, this paper reviews literature focusing on the role of CEs and CDCs in neighbourhood revitalization. Differences and similarities are analysed, taking into account national context differences. Findings -While CDCs have a relatively successful record in affordable housing production in distressed areas, CDCs are fundamentally limited in terms of reversing processes of community decline. CEs in the UK have focused on non-housing issues. Research limitations/implications -This paper asks the question what CEs can learn fromCDCs in terms of scope, aims, strategies, accountability, assets and partnerships with public and private actors. However, a systematic literature review has not been conducted. Originality/value -Our comparison reveals similarities but also differences with regard to aims, organizational characteristics, co-operation on multiple scales, and community participation. Apart from lessons that can be learned, we provide recommendations for further research that should cover the lack of empirical evidence in this field.

show abstract

Section: Targetingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of community entrepreneurship for neighbourhood revitalization in the United Kingdom and the United States

Varady¹,

Kleinhans²,

Ham³

2017

Entrepreneurial Neighbourhoods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…metropolitan governments in their reports to Treasury, they must nevertheless pay careful attention to whether the allocation of funds is correlated, however crudely, to local needs (Brooks and Sinitsyn 2014).…”

Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, thoroughgoing policy evaluation studies may be both more valid and more practically useful when focused on a limited number of jurisdictions, or even a single jurisdiction (Nathan and Dommel 1978). While these studies might be able to employ performance metrics provided by large metropolitan governments in their reports to Treasury, they must nevertheless pay careful attention to whether the allocation of funds is correlated, however crudely, to local needs (Brooks and Sinitsyn 2014).…”

Section: Flexible Relief and The Decentralized Politics Of Accountabi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Aid in an Uncertain World: The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Program

Rocco

Kass²

2022

State and Local Government Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emergency fiscal transfers to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments have been at the core of the U.S. federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most extensive of these transfer programs is the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) program, contained in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The CSLFRF is not only larger than prior rounds of emergency aid, it was also designed to address a broader series of crises, address pre-existing inequities, and provide greater discretion to public officials in deciding how to allocate funds. In this article, we consider the extent to which this program represents a departure from what some have called “fend for yourself” federalism. We conclude that while the coordinated effort of intergovernmental organizations resulted in a greater measure of federal fiscal activism and flexibility than might have been anticipated, lingering political conflicts and legacies of austerity will continue to inflect the CSLFRF's implementation.

show abstract

“…where foundation funds went to externally endowed CDCs with demonstrated capacity rather than less experienced indigenous organizations. Brooks and Sinitsyn (2014) observe that if Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the largest source of funding for CDCs, were allocated exclusively to the poorest parts of the poorest neighbourhoods without regard to community organizational capacity, the city's CDBG program would lose critically needed political support from the more politically powerful CDCs located in the less distressed poor neighbourhoods. Hence, future research should investigate the best ways to achieve a balance between strategic targeting and needs-based targeting.…”

Section: Targetingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Entrepreneurship in Deprived Neighbourhoods: Comparing UK Community Enterprises with US Community Development Corporations

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Where Does the Bucket Leak? Sending Money to the Poor via the Community Development Block Grant Program

Cited by 11 publications

References 43 publications

The potential of community entrepreneurship for neighbourhood revitalization in the United Kingdom and the United States

The potential of community entrepreneurship for neighbourhood revitalization in the United Kingdom and the United States

Flexible Aid in an Uncertain World: The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Program

Community Entrepreneurship in Deprived Neighbourhoods: Comparing UK Community Enterprises with US Community Development Corporations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About