Summary: The Community Development Block Grant Program was designed to provide grantees with flexibility in operating their own programs. The proper degree of local flexibility as opposed to Federal limitations is subject to considerable debate. Clearly, there are tradeoffs involved. There is a delicate balance between the proper degree of local discretion and Federal controls. While greater local discretion or autonomy enables local governments to define and to set priorities for their use of Federal funds based on the particular needs of each community, such discretion could inhibit the achievement of the national objective of revitalizing the Nations's urban communities. The GAO review of the Block Grant Program raised questions about the degree of flexibility grantees should have in operating their block grant programs. GAO does not suggest that there be excessive Federal intervention in the Program's day-to-day operations, but it does raise issues in specific areas which it believes Congress may wish to consider. Specifically, these issues involve: (1) the desirability of having all grantees concentrate their block grant funds in distressed geographic areas small enough so that visible improvements can be achieved in a reasonable time period; (2) retaining the broad list of activities on the cities' most urgent revitalization needs; (3) continuing to allow grantees to decide who can receive block grant-supported rehabilitation or specifying income eligibility requirements programwide; and (4) whether there is a need to limit eligible rehabilitation work to that which is essential to restore a housing unit to a safe, decent, and sanitary condition, or whether other items of lesser priority should continue to be eligible. Any changes along these lines could be imposed by legislative mandate. However, in doing so, Congress would need to make a tradeoff between the objective of flexibility for local officials to set local priorities and the objective of assuring that funds are used to meet national priorities.
