Community Development Metrics Every Code Enforcement Director Should Track in 2026

Budgets are tight, and the requests for service just keep growing. Somewhere in a spreadsheet (or worse, a filing cabinet) your department is sitting on data that could be unlocking serious funding.

Here's the uncomfortable truth: most code enforcement and neighborhood services departments are already doing grant-eligible work. Documenting blight, surveying housing conditions, and identifying vacant lots are precisely the activities federal agencies, state housing programs, and private funders are designed to support. The gap isn't effort. It's documentation.

Departments that can quantify what they're seeing, where they're seeing it, and how conditions are changing over time are the ones winning grants, making compelling budget cases, and demonstrating to city leadership that their work produces measurable outcomes for residents. The ones that can't are leaving money on the table — sometimes a lot of it.

This post is about closing that gap.

The Funding Landscape Is Bigger Than You Think

When most municipal departments think about community development funding, CDBG is the first thing that comes to mind, and for good reason. The Community Development Block Grant program remains one of the most flexible federal funding instruments available, directing significant dollars to communities that can demonstrate they're improving conditions for low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents. Blight remediation, housing code enforcement, and vacant lot inventories are all explicitly eligible activities. FEMA’s new guidelines for their BRIC program also explicitly include Virtual Inspection Technology as an eligible activity. 

But federal funding is just one lane on a much wider road.

States are increasingly stepping up with their own housing mandates and funding programs. Colorado's SB24-174 requires municipalities to complete Housing Needs Assessments and Housing Action Plans. The program funds that work through dedicated planning grants. Similarly, Arizona's Department of Housing funds Local Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Plans with grants that require municipalities to document housing conditions, identify undeveloped lots, and track progress against state reporting mandates. Similar initiatives are taking shape across the country as states grapple with housing affordability crises that federal programs alone can't solve.

See how City Detect supported Prescott Valley in its grant reporting requirements. 

Grants are not only a top-down activity flowing from federal to state to local government. Philanthropic organizations with deep ties to housing and community stability, like the Rocket Community Fund, which focuses on homeownership, home repair, and neighborhood revitalization, are actively funding municipal pilots and partnerships. These aren't long-shot applications. There are opportunities that resource-constrained departments are increasingly competitive for, provided they can speak the language funders care about: data, outcomes, and equity. 

Learn how Cleveland used a Rocket Community Fund grant to acquire City Detect PASS AI™

There's also a longer-term, indirect opportunity for support worth understanding in the private banking sector. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires federally insured banks to help meet the credit needs of the communities where they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. In practice, CRA drives significant private capital into Low- and Middle-Income (LMI) communities. While CRA isn't a direct municipal funding mechanism, it supports neighborhood revitalization through affordable housing development, homeownership loans to LMI residents, small business lending in disinvested corridors, and investments in community development organizations. Municipalities with well-documented blight inventories and housing assessments make their communities more attractive targets for this kind of private investment; your data makes the case that banks need to act. 

The common thread across all these funding sources is that each requires you to prove what's happening on the ground, and what your intervention is doing about it.

Data Doesn't Just Support Grants — It Powers the Whole Cycle

For most municipalities, code enforcement and neighborhood services data and reporting are treated as administrative obligations: track what is required to track, file what is required to file, and move on to “real work.” The connection between daily documentation and actual dollars flowing back to the city rarely feels concrete. But there's a straightforward shift that changes everything: the same data the department already collects to meet municipal compliance requirements is exactly what funders need in order to cut a check.

Before the Grant: Making the Case 

Every competitive application starts with a demonstrated need. Funders, whether federal agencies, state housing programs, or private foundations, want to see quantified, place-specific evidence that a problem exists and that your department is positioned to address it. A blight inventory showing 340 deteriorating properties concentrated in a census tract with 72% LMI households is a fundable narrative. "Our neighborhood has seen better days" is not. Baseline data is what separates a compelling application from a rejected one.

During the Grant: Proving Progress 

Once funding is awarded, the work of documentation doesn't stop; it intensifies. Most programs require regular reporting on activities and outcomes, and many involve subawards in which your data defines the scope of work for vendors and partners. Grantees who can show measurable progress against a documented baseline mid-cycle are better positioned to maintain funder relationships, request supplemental funding, and avoid compliance headaches at closeout.

After the Grant: Closing the Loop — and Opening the Next One

Post-award reporting is where many departments breathe a sigh of relief and move on. But funding sources can often be laddered to support the next and larger funding opportunity. By treating regular department outcomes as data points, small awards become achievable. Then the outcomes of these smaller grants become the inputs for a larger opportunity. A well-documented before-and-after becomes the baseline narrative for your next application. For example, 400 blighted properties were identified, 310 were remediated, and housing quality improved across three census tracts. Funders want to back municipalities with a track record, and each grant cycle builds the evidentiary foundation for the next.

The Metrics That Matter

Not all data is created equal. The metrics that matter for community development funding are the ones that directly answer the questions funders are asking: What are the conditions on the ground? Who is being affected? And how is that changing over time? Here are the four that show up most consistently across federal, state, and private funding requirements for neighborhood physical asset improvements.

1. Blight inventory 

A blight inventory is the foundation of almost every community development funding narrative. Here are some questions to consider:
How many properties show visible signs of deterioration?
Where are they concentrated?
How severe are the conditions?

For federal CDBG funding, documenting that at least 25% of properties in a target area meet the definition of deteriorated is a specific threshold required to qualify individual activities under the "Prevention or Elimination of Slums or Blight" national objective. It's worth noting that CDBG is a formula grant — meaning your jurisdiction likely already receives an annual allocation. But every specific activity funded with those dollars must independently qualify under one of HUD's national objectives. If you don't have a systematic, documented blight inventory — one that's comprehensive, standardized, and defensible — you can't prove you hit that 25% threshold. And if you can't prove it, you can't direct your existing CDBG allocation toward that specific blight remediation work.

2. Housing condition assessments 

A housing condition assessment goes deeper than a blight inventory, evaluating the overall quality of housing stock across a defined area. Some questions to consider are
Which units show structural deterioration?
Which are at risk of becoming uninhabitable?

For LMI households in particular, this data is critical. It documents the need for intervention before displacement occurs and establishes the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Longitudinal tracking here is especially powerful: a documented improvement in housing quality over time is one of the most compelling narratives in any grant application.

3. Vacant and undeveloped lot inventory 

Vacant and undeveloped lots are often the most actionable data point in a municipal housing strategy. They represent potential sites for infill development, affordable housing, and community green space, but only if they're systematically identified and mapped. Prescott Valley, Arizona, used exactly this data to meet the requirements of a $200,000 state housing grant, deploying City Detect’s AI-powered street-level imagery to assess 17,108 parcels, identify 712 undeveloped lots, and document 4,158 blight indicators in under a week. That's the kind of comprehensive, defensible inventory that turns a funding opportunity into an awarded grant.

4. LMI service area demographics 

All of the above data only becomes fundable when it's tied to the people it affects. HUD requires that at least 70% of CDBG funds benefit low- and moderate-income persons, and that this requirement be documented at the census tract level, not just citywide. Knowing which neighborhoods you're serving, and being able to demonstrate that your interventions are reaching the populations funders intend to support, is non-negotiable for federal compliance and increasingly expected by state and private funders as well.

The good news: this data is freely available and doesn't require a survey or a consultant. Here are the primary sources:

• HUD LMI Summary Data — The most important resource for CDBG compliance. HUD publishes pre-calculated LMI percentages at the block group and census tract level, derived from the American Community Survey. This is the data CDBG grantees are expected to use. Available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/279eca0222754f8a954bbf8cf995a1a3

• U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) — The underlying source for HUD's LMI calculations. Five-year estimates at the census tract level are the standard for federal reporting. Available at: census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

• FFIEC Census Data — Used for CRA compliance and community development purposes; includes income levels and demographic data by census tract. Available at: https://www.ffiec.gov/data/cra/distressed

LMI area boundaries aren't included in City Detect's PASS AI™ by default, but any custom area can be overlaid on the map using shapefiles from the free sources listed above. Want to see your city's blighted properties within a specific LMI area? Contact us today to see how it works.

Building Your Data Foundation

The metrics outlined above are only valuable if you have a system to collect, organize, and report them consistently. For many departments, that's the gap, not effort, not intent, but infrastructure. Here's where to start.

Audit what you already have 

Before investing in anything new, take stock of what exists. Start with these questions: 

• What violation data are you already collecting? 

• Is it standardized across your team, or does it vary by officer? 

• Do you have geographic data tied to your records, or just addresses? 

• Can you produce a report showing conditions in a specific census tract without spending hours compiling spreadsheets? 

The answers tell you where your gaps are.

Standardize before you scale 

Inconsistent data may be worse than no data at all. It creates compliance risk and makes trend analysis impossible. Before adding new collection methods, establish clear taxonomies for violation types, condition categories, and geographic identifiers. Make sure every member of your team is applying them the same way. This is unglamorous work, but it's the foundation on which everything else is built.

Build for longitudinal tracking 

One-time snapshots don't demonstrate change, and change is what funders pay for. Your systems need to track the same metrics over time, ideally with timestamped photo documentation that provides before-and-after visual evidence. This is the difference between telling a funder "conditions improved" and showing them.

Let technology do the heavy lifting 

Manual data collection at scale is slow, inconsistent, and staff-intensive. AI-powered tools like City Detect's PASS AI™ can assess thousands of parcels in days rather than months — capturing street-level imagery, scoring blight conditions, mapping vacant lots, and generating the kind of standardized, geolocated documentation that federal and state funders require. For Prescott Valley, that meant 17,108 parcels assessed, 712 undeveloped lots identified, and 4,158 blight indicators documented in under a week, data that directly met the reporting requirements of their $200,000 state housing grant.

The urgency is real 

State mandates are accelerating the timeline. Arizona now requires annual housing progress reports. Colorado's SB24-174 mandates Housing Needs Assessments by December 2026. Similar legislation is moving in states across the country. Departments that don't have data infrastructure in place are going to find themselves scrambling to meet compliance requirements — and missing funding opportunities in the process. The municipalities building their data foundation now are the ones that will be grant-ready when the next cycle opens.

Sources:

1. CDBG Entitlement Program Eligibility Requirements - HUD Exchange, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg-entitlement/cdbg-entitlement-program-eligibility-requirements/

2. Community Development Block Grant Program | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hud.gov/hud-partners/community-cdbg

3. CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligibile ... - HUD Exchange, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hudexchange.info/sites/onecpd/assets/File/CDBG-National-Objectives-Eligible-Activities-Chapter-3.pdf

4. 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart C -- Eligible Activities - eCFR, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-24/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-C/part-570/subpart-C

5. 24 CFR Part 570 -- Community Development Block Grants - eCFR, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-24/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-C/part-570

6. CDBG Reports, Program Data, and Income Limits - HUD Exchange, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/cdbg-reports-program-data-and-income-limits/

7. Unlocking the power of local housing data, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/analyze/local-data-for-housing/

8. Instructions for Completion of Activity Description - PA Department of Community & Economic Development, accessed March 24, 2026, https://dced.pa.gov/download/activitydescriptioninstructions_cdbg-007_2025/?wpdmdl=127611

9. Playing by the Rules: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements - HUD Exchange, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hudexchange.info/sites/onecpd/assets/File/Playing-by-the-Rules-Handbook-CDBG-Subrecipients-Administrative-Systems-Chapter-5.pdf

10. Use of CDBG Funds for Code Enforcement Activities - HUD, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/14-16cpdn.pdf

11. CDBG REQUIREMENTS FOR AREA-WIDE SLUM AND BLIGHT DESIGNATION - Maine.gov, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.maine.gov/decd/sites/maine.gov.decd/files/inline-files/Area-Wide%20Slum%20Blight%20Designation.pdf

12. Blight sample resolution - California Department of Housing and Community Development, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/cdbg/gmm/docs/2-3-hcd-blight-sample-resolution-definitions.pdf

13. Choice Neighborhoods | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hud.gov/helping-americans/public-indian-housing-cn

14. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Office of Public and Indian Housing Choice Neighborhoods PROGRAM PURPOSE BUDGET OVER - HUD Archives, accessed March 24, 2026, https://archives.hud.gov/budget/fy25/2025_CJ_Program_-_Choice_Neighborhoods.pdf

15. Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants - HUD, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/CN-Planning-Handout-for-Print.pdf

16. Choice Neighborhoods Evaluation | HUD USER, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/choice_neighborhood_eval.html

17. HUD 53230 Application Checklist - Norfolk.gov, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/45238

18. Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants Resources - HUD Exchange, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/choice-neighborhoods/planning-grants-resources/

19. Housing and Comprehensive Plans - Colorado Division of Local Government, accessed March 24, 2026, https://dlg.colorado.gov/housing-plans

20. Using ARPA Funds to Fight Urban Blight | Blog | City Detect, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.citydetect.com/blog/using-arpa-funds-to-fight-urban-blight

21. Federal Grants - ICC, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.iccsafe.org/advocacy/federalgrants/

22. Instructions for Completing the CDBG Small Cities Performance Assessment Report (PAR) - HUD, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/4052.pdf

23. Developing Performance Measures for the Community Development Block Grant Program, accessed March 24, 2026, https://napawash.org/academy-studies/developing-performance-measures-for-the-community-development-block-grant-p

24. HUD Has Identified Performance Measures for Its Block Grant Programs, but Information on Impact Is Limited - GAO.gov, accessed March 24, 2026, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-575r