At a hearing of the House Local Government Committee, state and local officials reviewed Pennsylvania’s Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program and described how the flexible federal funding is used to help low‑income families move toward self‑sufficiency.

Rick Vallejo, Deputy Secretary for Community Affairs and Development at the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), told the committee that Pennsylvania receives about $32,000,000 in CSBG funds annually and distributes roughly $29,200,000 directly to 42 community action agencies that cover all 67 counties. “CDBG is infrastructure, sewer and water and handicap ramps and community assets that can't be physically moved, and CSBG is people,” Vallejo said, contrasting the Community Development Block Grant program with CSBG.

Vallejo and Kelsey McMurless, Director for the Center for Community Services at DCED, said CSBG allocations are formula driven, monitored by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS/DHHS), and used for a range of locally determined services including employment and workforce programs, housing supports, financial counseling, nutrition and behavioral‑health education. DCED representatives told the committee that community action agencies leverage other public and private funding and volunteer resources; Vallejo reported that agencies “leverage $17.84 for every federal dollar” to expand services.

Beck Moore, chief executive officer of the Community Action Association of Pennsylvania (CAPServes), described the state association’s training and technical assistance role, the PA Navigate closed‑loop referral platform, and statewide pilots such as a diaper distribution demonstration and disaster case management after Tropical Storm Debbie. “CSBG is what makes the local responsiveness possible,” Moore said, and CAPServes highlighted examples in which modest CSBG investments helped agencies secure substantially larger grants and contracts.

Local agency leaders described service scale and local needs. Dawn Godshall, executive director of Community Action Lehigh Valley, said her agency served more than 20,000 people across six counties and reported an annual operating budget of about $42,000,000, with CSBG comprising roughly 7 percent of that budget. Godshall told the committee the agency distributed about $16,000,000 in food last year through its Second Harvest program, that staffing had been reduced after funding cuts, and that major local challenges include housing shortages, food insecurity, childcare availability and mental‑health access.

Jen Wintemeyer, chief executive officer of Tri County Community Action, described a smaller agency model (approximately $3.5 million annual budget, CSBG about $1 million) serving Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry counties and gave client examples of emergency interventions and multi‑service supports, from restoring utilities for medically dependent residents to helping survivors of domestic violence secure housing and connect to education and employment. Wintemeyer said those outcomes depend on flexible funding and strong local partnerships.

Committee members asked about program eligibility, auditing, data collection and technical assistance. DCED and CAPServes said agencies perform community needs assessments (formal assessments every three years with ongoing data review), undergo federal fiscal and programmatic monitoring and site visits, and receive state risk assessments and targeted technical assistance. DCED noted ongoing uncertainty caused by federal continuing resolutions, and CAPServes described temporary and tailored supports it provides, including interim leadership, expert contracts and board training.

Several members emphasized housing and food security as the most acute service pressures identified by panelists; transportation and childcare also emerged repeatedly as barriers to employment and stable housing. DCED said congressional reauthorization efforts (sponsored in part by Congressman G.T. Thompson, as mentioned during the hearing) could offer additional flexibility, and panels urged predictable federal funding to allow better planning.

The committee did not take formal votes; witnesses provided written testimony to supplement oral remarks and committee chairs said they would circulate additional submitted materials. The hearing closed with thanks to the panelists and an announcement that written testimony from other regional agencies would be distributed to members.