HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobacxrj0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DCCUERWT RESUBI
06853 - (B21672051 (Restricted)
(Cleveland, Ohio's , toaanit- Development Block Grant
Applications]. march 19, 1978. 4 pp.
Report to Robert C. Embry, Department of Housing and Urbe
Development: Assistant Secretary for Comsunity Planning L I
Development; by Richard J. Woods, Assciate Director, 7oanity
and Economic Development Div.
Contact: Community and Economic Development Div.
Orqanization Concerned: Cleveland, Oh.
Authority: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
A review of Cleveland, Ohio's, Community Develcssent
Block Grant applicaticns for 1975 through 1S77 indicated that
Cleveland's application for 1977 funds did not describe the
activities to be undertaken to meet cessunity developmeat needs
and objectives. Instead, the applicaticas listed general classes
of activities, the total dollar amount requested for each class
of activity, and referenced the locatica to large blocks of
census tracts. These class descriptions lid not appear tc be
sfficient for the Department of Housing and Urban Dsielopment
(HUD) to determine whether the activities were eligible under
the requirements of the Bousing and Community Development Act of
1974. Vithout specific activity descriptions, 80D could not
adequately fulfill its responsibilities concerning the
application and review requirements of the act. There was no
evidence tha the :ity had officially committed itself to a
complete prog&.m of specific activities at any time tefcre the
application was trinsaitted to HUD fcr review. The city's
commitment to specific activities was apparently made some time
after BUD's approval of the application. Concern was expressed
over the apparent lack of management ccatrol by BUD in approving
the 1977 application and the potential for unnecesarily tying up
block qrant funds because of a lack of timely ccamitsent by the
city. (US)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobacxrj0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)