1. CDBG Program Efficiencies
Marcy esbjerg, MPA
Burlington, VT
Community and Economic Development Office

2. Problem: grants get smaller
Public Services Grantees continue to want CDBG funds but funding is diminishing. Result: smaller and smaller grants but the same amount of work!
Year
# PS Grants
Total PS $$
Smallest Grant
Largest Grant
Average Grant
2009 22
$133,798
$1712
$14,500
$6077
2010 24
$144,729
$2000
$15,000
$6030
2011
$121,258
$2183
$12,223
$5052
2012 20
$94,003
$10,516
$4700
2013* 14
$99,000
$5000
$12,000
$7071

3. Solution: reduce # of grantees
Step 1: Minimum grant amount for Public Services = $5,000; Create a new application/train advisory board members in scoring applications;
Step 2: Take a hard look at compliance; be an enforcer; eg. back up documentation for reimbursement
Results:
Reduced number of grantees to 14
Several (5) grantee programs not funded
Public outcry
Committed to change and efficiency of smaller grantees
Need grantee buy in
Need process that Mayor supports and has little fall out
Grantees see CDBG funds as indicative of City support, no matter amount.
Grantees did not see process as competitive, funding expected

4. Reduce # of Grantees – Part 2
Step 1: Create a more inclusive process with grantees and advisory board members
Implement survey, focus groups, discussions
Stress efficiencies, appropriate use of funding source, bang for buck
Get buy in politically from Mayor, City Councilors
Step 2: Announce changes and roll out in time for next Action Plan cycle

5. Final steps to reducing # of Grantees
Submit only 1 Public Service application per agency
Created groupings for funding based on Con Plan goals and strategies.
Housing, Homeless & Hunger programs
Childcare, Early Childhood Education & Youth
Small % (minimum of $5K) – Health and Equal Access
Funding goes to multiple years

6. Solution: Multiple year funding
Funding in 2 year cycles based on cluster of goals;
Agencies can not reapply until ‘cluster’ opens;
$10K minimum for 2 year grant;
Use current CDBG allocation for both years;
Agencies liked certainty of funding for 2 years and decreased applications.
Using 5 year Con Plan cycle:
Year 1 – Housing/Homeless/Hunger programs
Year 2 – Early Childhood/Preschool/Youth programs
Year 3 - Housing/Homeless/Hunger programs
Year 4 - Early Childhood/Preschool/Youth programs
Year 5 – One year grants for all – review outcomes of goals

7. results Year 75% reduction in number of grantees
3.5 times average grant amount
Congratulatory Mayor and City Council
Year
# PS Grants
Total PS $$
Smallest Grant
Largest Grant
Average Grant
2011 24
$121,258
$2183
$12,223
$5052
2012 20
$94,003
$2000
$10,516
$4700
2013 14
$99,000
$5000
$12,000
$7071
2014 8
$111,964
$5721
$22,333-2yr
$13,995
2015 6
$109,882
$ 8775
$42,570 – 2yr
$18,314
2016
$108,732
$30,740
$18,122

8. Solution: combine like activities for employee responsibilities
Opportunity to reimagine a position
Grouped similar activities to train across grants
Environmental reviews, monitoring, administrative tasks
Challenges
Benefits
Managing different ‘assigners’
Using a variety of funding sources
Organization of time and deadlines
Using similar skillsets for different grants
Understanding different components of programs
Breaking down silos
We’ve always done it that way!
See/implement efficiencies

9. Reflections on efficiencies
Change is not easy, especially when it involves funding or program control
Keep the process transparent and involve others along the way
Don’t surprise your elected officials
Stay the course and allow for incremental change
Compromise as needed
Be an example to other grant programs and to your sub-recipients