6. What program weakness stands out in your CDBG program? --One had no comment. Four cited the lag in implementation at the municipal Two cited inadequate up front input and TA from HUD Two cited not enough concentration of program dollars, although one added that this is much less true as the CDBG program continues. Others given included the absence of new housing units being produced due to lack of HUD funds for this, ineffective county management, unwillingness of towns to get involved in solving housing questions whether rehab or new units. 7. How many municipalities participate in your urban county application? --0 in one county that failed to meet application The rest ranged from as few as 9 to as many as 63 for HOUSING ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES AND THE A SUMMARY OF THE TWELVE NEW JERSEY NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION CITIES The Division of Housing and Urban Renewal of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs has completed a recent survey of the two years experience with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in the State's twelve neighborhood preservation (NP) cities. These cities--Atlantic City, Burlington, Camden, East Orange, Hackensack, Hoboken, Irvington, Jersey City, Newark, New Brunswick, Phillipsburg, and Trenton--are the recipients of state grants and loans which are directed to neighborhood preservation and revitalization activities in addition to their CDBG funding. To date, $2.1 million has been obligated to this program by the New Jersey State Legislature under the authority of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Demonstration Grant Law, P.L. 1967, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-59 et seq. to serve as a catalyst and a coordinating mechanism in the overall effort for neighborhood preservation. A questionnaire was developed by the Division of Housing and Urban Renewal and circulated by four volunteer students from Ramapo College. This questionnaire was designed to elicit the NP cities' actual experiences' with the housing assistance section of the CDBG Program. All municipal officials were cooperative in their response to the survey and their suggestions, if implemented, would aid in better delivery of housing services to city residents and more effective cooperation between the grant recipients and State reviewing agencies. Two years of experience with the CDBG Program demonstrates the difficulties of translating desired goals into realities. Following are highlights of the responses received: 1. Of the $107.2 million allocated to the twelve NP cities in FY 1975-77, $17.6 million (16%) went to direct housingrelated activities. These activities are broken down as follows: 2. a) $1.2 million went to code enforcement; b) $6.6 million went for site clearing and building c) $9.9 million went to rehabilitation loans and grants. While reports on the implementation of the program are sketchy, to date there are: a) 719 structures rehabilitated (containing 3,365 units); b) 446 loans and 54 grants made for rehabilitation; c) 858 homes were subject to code enforcement; and d) approximately 2,500 families received housing counseling. 3. While the above accomplishments fall short of the cities' Housing Assistance Plan goals, indications are that housing assistance performance will improve in the third year of the program. However, if the present formula remains in effect, these twelve NP cities will be faced with the unfortunate choice of aborting their programs. NP cities stand to lose $64.7 million by FY 1980 under the existing formula: 4. a) the majority of the cities reported that pro- b) several cities stressed increased emphasis on c) all twelve NP cities stated that in the event While all NP cities agreed that their housing assistance goals were not being met, there is a reason for one bright spot in the housing picture-- the increase in rehabilitation loans and grants: a) the average NP city devotes 14.3% of its CDBG budget to code enforcement, site clearing and building demolition, and rehabilitation loans and grants; but b) three NP cities apply greater resources to these programs: New Brunswick- 42.6% of its budget; Trenton- 34.4%; and Plainfield- 28.7%; and c) some cities felt that they would like to see housing subsidies more directly applied. Plainfield and Camden reported that funding for housing programs cannot keep up with the physical deterioration of the cities' structures. 5. With regard to how the NP cities developed their criteria for their housing assistance goals: a) some cities reported that they used HUD-supplied b) other cities reported that they utilized 701 plan- c) the remaining cities stated that they reported the 6. In surveying the cities' technical assistance needs, all twelve requested more complete and more recent data, noting that while they used 1970 census material for the past two years, updated information is becoming more critical for the preparation of meaningful Housing Assistance Plans. Nearly all of the cities expressed the need for assistance in completing the environmental review process, and many felt that workshops, forums and technical assistance furnished by the State would be of great help. 7. One salient fact emerges from this survey. There is a real need for an on-going statewide evaluation of the CDBG Program, beyond the requirements of the HUD reports. Such an evaluation would assist municipalities by being a "mirror" by which they could measure their own performance and aid them in setting and implementing realistic goals. The State's role in this regard would be to monitor community performance and be prepared to render assistance when called upon. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you for your testimony. It is particularly valuable to us, not only in the background of your present work, but as a former mayor of a community, you can rest assured we have great respect for what you had to say. Ms. SHEEHAN. Thank you very much. And I can just assure you again, particularly as a former mayor, that I don't see this as a competition, where the State is trying to beat out its cities. I think there is a time-or it was a time in our history where that did in fact occur perhaps, but I think we have long since passed that. And the States through the departments of community affairs and other vehicles are working with their city halls and want to continue to do so. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Mr. Brown? Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sheehan I know that you were here this morning, and I don't want to go back and repeat all the things we discussed. I think you know I substantially concur in your view and that of others who have voiced similar concern. What about the suggestion that was made by Mr. Walker, and I think was made before, that there are States that really don't begin to have the capacity to be able to act as the grant approving authority with respect to the funding of smaller communities in the discretionary balances? Do you think that is a valid point? MS. SHEEHAN. Well, what I would say to that is that while all 50 States are hardly uniform in terms of their capability, whether it is fiscal or technical or whatever, certainly the framework is there for them to be more involved and more technically competent, if you will, to deliver the kinds of services you are suggesting. And that in comparison to 5,000 or 50,000 local communities across the State or across the country, rather, in and among various States, the framework should be encouraged at the State level, and in fact, I don't want to leave the idea that we are suggesting that we should do it instead of our communities, but what I am saying is that we can do it with our communities. And 50 infrastructures Congress can keep a better eye on than they can on 5,000 or 55,000, and it might be a better lever for you. as well. Mr. BROWN. But don't you agree that to the extent there is greater sophistication in your communities, you have greater sophistication at the State level also? MS. SHEEHAN. Yes. But even in the most sophisticated of those States, you are talking about a handful of cities. The balance of the State is generally part-time government and the mayors are generally overwhelmed. And I used to say it was the only 80-hour-week, parttime job that I had. And I think the State is in a position to provide help and assistance on the EIS, on interpreting the guideline in the new regulations that came out yesterday or tomorrow, or have changed from the week that they finally got used to using them. And it is much easier for one group of people to do that and then fan out across the State than ask 50 or 60 or 100 or 1,000 separate people to do that, and hope they have figured out the right interpretation and learn by misadventure. Mr. BROWN. What I was saying, is that those States where you have communities that have more complicated, more complex, and more |