Civic infrastructure — a system of places of gathering like parks, libraries, main streets, trails, plazas, and community centers — is foundational for healthy, safe, and prosperous communities. Numerous studies have shown that these shared places spark local economic activity, foster human connection across differences, and build the trust that can support a flourishing democracy.
Yet despite ongoing and clear evidence of its impact, civic infrastructure has never been treated by the federal government as essential infrastructure. Unlike roads, bridges, or airports, it remains chronically underfunded, and funding for it is scattered across agencies. In addition, programs and policies are often governed by inflexible rules and procedures that make it difficult for local leaders to get the investment they need to deliver for their communities. Recent shifts in federal policy — from funding cuts to delays and our current shutdown — further elevate the critical role that federal support plays in creating the fabric of our communities.
Creating a flexible and supportive federal approach to civic infrastructure is why a number of organizations formed Percent for Place, a national coalition dedicated to elevating civic infrastructure as a public good. Incubated by Reimagining the Civic Commons and Main Street America in 2021, the coalition has since grown to more than 30 organizations, all of which have committed to asking the federal government to allocate a small, ongoing share of spending on civic infrastructure and to reform regulatory barriers and patchwork approaches to investment.
How Federal Support Falls Short
Percent for Place has identified three major obstacles to long-term, stable federal support for civic infrastructure projects in diverse American communities: fragmented federal programs, chronic underfunding, and inflexible rules and requirements. All of these obstacles make supporting local civic infrastructure projects difficult, especially given that local projects often rely on federal investment as a piece of the funding mix needed to actually deliver projects.
This scattered support and inflexible programmatic rules make accessing and applying for federal funding difficult in three ways:
Communities must apply for funding across different programs: There are at least 17 federal programs across seven agencies that can be used to fund civic infrastructure, but none of these programs have civic infrastructure as their primary focus. Local community leaders seeking to fund civic infrastructure have to adapt their project plans to fit into the goals of an eligible program, whether that program lies in agencies like HUD, the EPA, or USDOT. With funding siloed across different departments with different priorities, leaders must apply across multiple federal, state, and regional grants and loan programs just to support a single civic infrastructure initiative, leading to inefficiencies and delays.
There is not enough federal funding for civic infrastructure: In fiscal year 2025, the federal government spent less than 0.4% of all discretionary spending to support civic infrastructure. This amount pales in comparison to the unmet needs of civic infrastructure of local communities — a deficit that the Kinder Institute estimated was more than $12 billion nationwide in 2020, and that has likely grown since.
Inflexible rules and requirements drive inefficiency: Civic infrastructure takes many forms, and each local community tailors their civic infrastructure projects to meet local needs. Yet at the federal level, communities applying to agency funding programs often encounter rigid rules and narrow reporting requirements that make accessing that funding unnecessarily complex. In addition, federal programs typically prioritize outcomes that are far afield from what civic infrastructure can do, instead of the outcomes that civic infrastructure actually delivers (think greater trust or improved economic mobility). The result: inefficiency and red tape, and staff spending their scarce time navigating bureaucracy rather than delivering projects.
This system is particularly hard for small and rural communities, which have fewer staff to navigate the system, and often have to piece together multiple funding applications, reviews, and reporting requirements just to deliver a single park, library, or trail.