|Title:||Assessment of Urban County Performance: Community Development Block Grant Program.|
|Sponsoring Organization(s):||U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
|Performing Organization(s):||MKGK, Inc.
San Francisco, CA
|Availability:||HUD USER, P.O. Box 23268, Washington, DC 20026-3268; phone (800) 245-2691; fax (202) 708-9981; or TDD (800) 927-7589|
|Descriptors:||Community Development Block Grants. Local government. Intergovernmental relations. County government. Program evaluation.|
|Abstract:||This report contains findings from a performance evaluation of urban counties participating in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The research project assessed the performance of urban counties during their first 3 program years (1975 - 77) and involved onsite data collection in all 76 counties. In addition, an update study assessed urban county performance in the next 3 program years (1978 - 80). The original study resulted in these major thematic findings (1) the intergovernmental context of the urban county CDBG program presented major challenges and required substantial intergovernmental cooperation, (2) urban counties served primarily as a funding mechanism for nonentitlement cities, (3) urban counties were unable to develop and implement programs through a comprehensive planning process, (4) urban counties initially restrained their institutional commitments to the CDBG program, and (5) certain conditions which constrained urban county performance appeared to be changing so that continued improvement could be expected. The update analysis found that broad - based improvement was achieved by the 10 sampled counties in their performance levels, although performance remained modest in certain program aspects; and that most of the improvement in urban county performance can be traced to the increased CDBG experience of county and municipal program administrators coupled with new HUD regulations and policy directives. The report recommends that the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) be strengthened by including provisions for cooperating jurisdictions' certification of acceptance and responsibility for Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) existing and new unit programs, certification of compliance with various Federal standards, and assurance of maximum feasible priority given to projects which will benefit low - income and moderate - income persons. Tables, figures, and appendices containing a description of project methodology, supporting data, and the service area method for calculating benefit to low - income and moderate - income areas are supplied.|