It looks like the City Council is on its way to resolving the
flap over this past year’s Community Development Block Grant
funding by deciding to keep the process for choosing the Citizens
Advisory Committee and clarifying the priorities for awards. Good
for them. Given the needs in our community, the priorities
– families, food and shelter – have long needed better
definition.
It looks like the City Council is on its way to resolving the flap over this past year’s Community Development Block Grant funding by deciding to keep the process for choosing the Citizens Advisory Committee and clarifying the priorities for awards. Good for them. Given the needs in our community, the priorities – families, food and shelter – have long needed better definition.
Gilroy gets a good bang for its CDBG buck – which amounts to about $125,000 annually. With smaller awards than elsewhere in the county, organizations that serve our residents leverage Gilroy funds to attract more money from other fenders. When it comes to the full budget of programs, Gilroy winds up paying pennies and dimes per Gilroy resident served per day. We’ve already lost the presence of five non-profits in Gilroy because of budget cuts. If “clarification” means the same funding priorities are given the narrowest definition, more agencies will leave.
The council made a wise decision in not taking over the CAC. The CAC, a necessary component to the CDBG approval process, is a valuable group made up of volunteers from the community who put in a lot of hours doing a tough job. With the least amount of CDBG money in the county to address the needs of a city that ranks highest in the county in most of the poverty indicators – teen births, child abuse reports, domestic violence incidents, homelessness and others – they work hard to know the details of the programs they’ll ultimately recommend to the council for funding, trying to do the best for our community.
The questions over funding tenant-landlord counseling services are valid, but the council was wrong to point the finger at the CAC for simply recommending it. City staffs all around the country use CDBG funding for tenant-landlord counseling because it provides an important complement to their code enforcement departments, keeping costs down. The council should direct their questions to city staff and iron it out before next winter.
Finally, when they clarify their guidelines, we hope they consider the best use of local CDBG funds. The preference for direct services is laudable, but direct services are those that are provided to the consumer. They don’t have to be limited to intervention services, filling a need when negative circumstances have taken over someone’s life. Prevention services – counseling, transportation support, assistance in keeping one’s housing – are also direct services, keeping someone from falling into a place of severe need in the first place.
