Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Csbg Neighborhood Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City staff report CSBG spending, food distribution and eviction-prevention numbers at March 11 CDC meeting

2555902 · March 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Neighborhood Services Unit staff outlined Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) performance and neighborhood center activities, reporting near-full expenditure of last year’s contract extension and program outcomes including rent assistance, transitional case management, and food distributions.

City staff updated the Austin Community Development Commission March 11 on monthly Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) activity, neighborhood-center services and program outcomes handled by the Neighborhood Services Unit.

Ankit, speaking for the Neighborhood Services Unit, said the CSBG funds services across Travis County and support local neighborhood centers that deliver basic needs assistance, preventive public-health services and employment supports. Staff reported the 2024 contract budget had an extension through March 31 and is approximately 91% expended; staff expect to fully expend remaining funds before the end of the extension.

Staff highlighted several performance datapoints tied to CSBG and related programs. The state’s annual transition-out-of-poverty goal for the city is 43 households; staff said the program had five recorded transitions so far this calendar year and met the full 43-goal in the previous reporting year. The Neighborhood Services Unit tracks transitions through a self-sufficiency case-management program that enrolls people under 125% of the federal poverty guideline and works with social workers on needs assessments, job-search support and training referrals.

On rental assistance, staff reported roughly $218,382 in rent-assistance payments processed for January–February, helping 160 people across 74 households avoid eviction. Staff said available local rent-assistance funding is limited — about $775,000 annually from city general-fund sources — and that the City had moved to process funds in-house rather than contract through Catholic Charities to improve efficiency.

Food support activities served 8,108 people so far this year through a combination of food pantries, smaller distributions and ongoing programs (including Fresh Food for Families and partnerships with the Central Texas Food Bank). Staff said lower totals compared with the prior year reflected center closures tied to HVAC renovations and related disruptions to larger mass distributions.

Staff provided local program context and administrative notes: CSBG supports personnel costs and funds 13 positions out of an NSU staff of roughly 40, the CSBG-funded services include public-health nursing hubs (blood-pressure and blood-sugar screenings at community locations such as the Consulate of Mexico, Garcia Rec Center and Colin Guerrero Senior Activity Center), and the unit has conducted outreach and service programming at neighborhood food distributions.

Staff also gave an update on commission-related elections and membership: recent neighborhood-seat elections filled seats for St. John’s (Valerie Menard), Colony Park (Ebony Trice), South Austin (Cassandra Medrano) and East Austin (Sonia Martinez). The commission has formed a work group to create a process for future CDC elections and plans presentations on the proposed process later this spring.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about program thresholds, the definition of a “transition” out of poverty (three months of sustained employment at a living wage after case-management), funding origins and eligibility rules. Staff confirmed the CSBG grant is federal pass-through funding administered by the state and that the city’s approximately $775,000 annual allocation comes primarily from the city’s general fund supplement; staff said increasing that local allocation would require Council action.

Commissioners requested more details on waiting-list sizes and itemized unit counts for specific projects; staff agreed to follow up with those numbers in later reports.