The Community Development Block Grant Program Turns 40: Proposals for Program Expansion and Reform

References

• Anti-Discrimination Center of Metropolitan New York. (2009). Westchester False Claims. Retrieved from www.antibiaslaw.com/westchester-false-claims-case.
   Google Scholar
• Bringing communities into the 21st century: A report on improving the Community Development Block Grant program. (January 31, Report 109–365). Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census of the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, 109th Cong. 2 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, L., & Phillips, J. (2010). The politics of inequality: Cities as agents of redistribution. Russell Sage Working Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.russellsage.org/research/reports/cities-as-agents.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., & Aber, L. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Center for Effective Government. (2005). House considers CDB6 but avoids attacking PART. Retrieved from http:www.foressechvegov.org/node/2453. 31 May.
   Google Scholar
• DeHaven, T. (2009). Community development. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Retrieved from http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/community-development.
   Google Scholar
• Dommel, P. R., Rich, M. J., & Rubinowitz, L. S. (1983). Deregulating community development: Report on the Cleveland State University field study of the Community Development Block Grant Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
   Google Scholar
• Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2004). Place matters: Metropolitics for the twenty-first century. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galster, G. (2002). An economic efficiency analysis of deconcentrating poverty populations. Journal of Housing Economics, 11, 303–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galster, G. (2007). Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy: A theoretical analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy, 7, 19–43.
   Google Scholar
• Galster, G., Cutsinger, J., & Malega, R. (2008). The costs of concentrated poverty: Neighborhood property markets and the dynamics of decline. In N.Retsinas & E.Belsky (Eds.), Revisiting rental housing: Policies, programs, and priorities (pp. 93–113). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galster, G., Tatian, P., & Accordino, J. (2006). Targeting investments for neighborhood revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 457–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galster, G. C., Walker, C., Hayes, C., Boxall, P., & Johnson, J. (2004). Measuring the impact of Community Development Block Grant spending on urban neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate, 15, 903–934.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadduri, J., & Rodda, D. (2004). Making the best use of your LIHTC dollars: A planning paper for state policy makers. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
   Google Scholar
• Malanga, S. (2010). Block grants forever: A deathless program and its long record of failure. City Journal, 20, 4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Misuse of HUD Community Development Block Grant funds: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Employment and Housing of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. 102d Cong. 1 and 2 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• National Committee on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. (2008). The future of fair housing.
   Google Scholar
• Office of Management and Budget. (2006). Program Assessment Rating Tool: Program summaries. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, G. (1996). Intergovernmental financial relations. In G.Galster (Ed.), Reality and research: Social science and U.S. urban policy since 1960 (pp. 205–226). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quercia, R., & Galster, G. (1997). Threshold effects and the expected benefits of attracting middle-income households to the central city. Housing Policy Debate, 8, 409–435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, M. J. (1993). Federal policymaking and the poor: National goals, local choices and distributional outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, T. (2005). CDBG formula targeting to community development need. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
   Google Scholar
• Taub, R., Taylor, D. G., & Dunham, J. (1984). Paths of neighborhood change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, D. (2008). Strategic, geographic targeting of housing and community development resources: A conceptual framework and critical review. Urban Affairs Review, 43, 629–662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2013). Selected accomplishments reported by CDBG grantees 2005–2008. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2006). Community Development Block Grants: Program offers recipients flexibility but oversight can be improved. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Housing and community development grants: HUD needs to enhance its requirements and oversight of jurisdiction's fair housing plans. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, C., Dommel, P., Hatry, H., Bogdon, A., Boxall, P., Abraham, A., & Silver, J. (1995). Federal funds, local choices: An evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, C., Hayes, C., Galster, G., Boxall, P., & Johnson, J. (2002). The impact of CDBG spending on urban neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar