coscda program manager’s and legislative training conference march 12, 2012
DESCRIPTION
COSCDA Program Manager’s and Legislative Training Conference March 12, 2012 Ben Winter, Policy Development, PD&R, HUD. Redistribution Effects of Introducing ACS and Census 2010 Data Into the CDBG Formula. Policy Development & Research (PD&R) & Community Planning and Development (CPD) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
COSCDA Program Manager’s and Legislative Training Conference
March 12, 2012
Ben Winter, Policy Development, PD&R, HUD
Redistribution Effects of Introducing ACS and Census 2010 Data
Into the CDBG Formula
• Policy Development & Research (PD&R) & Community Planning and Development (CPD)
• CDBG Analysis
• Needs Study• Distribution Effects of New Data• huduser.org
Introduction
• Goal: Isolate and examine the effects of introducing new data into the CDBG formula
• Holds constant FY 2011 appropriation amount and grantee universe
• Examines changes in variables
Design of Study
Factors FY 2011 Allocation FY 2012 Allocation
Formula A Factors
Population 2009 Population Estimates 2010 CensusPoverty 2000 Census 2005–2009 ACSOvercrowding 2000 Census 2005–2009 ACS
Formula B Factors
Growth lag 2009 Population Estimates and 1960 Census 2010 Census and 1960 CensusPoverty 2000 Census 2005–2009 ACSPre-1940 housing 2000 Census 2005–2009 ACS
Formula Mechanics for Entitlements
• 3 Grantees: metropolitan cities, urban counties, & states (non-entitlement communities)
• Formula A: {0.25 x Pop (a) + 0.50 x Pov (a) + 0.25 x Ocrowd (a) } x {0.7 x Appropriation}
Pop (MA) Pov (MA) Ocrowd (MA)
• Formula B (cities):{0.20 x Glag (a) + 0.30 x Pov (a) + 0.50 x Age (a) } x {0.7 x Appropriation}
Glag (MC) Pov (MA) Age (MA)
• Formula B (urban counties):{0.20 x Glag (a) + 0.30 x Pov (a) + 0.50 x Age (a) } x {0.7 x Appropriation}
Glag (ENT) Pov (MA) Age (MA)
Mechanics for Non-entitlements
• Formula A: {0.25 x Pop (a) + 0.50 x Pov (a) + 0.25 x Ocrowd (a) } x {0.3 x Appropriation}
Pop (Nent) Pov (Nent) Ocrowd (Nent)
• Formula B:{0.20 x Pop (a) + 0.30 x Pov (a) + 0.50 x Age (a) } x {0.3 x Appropriation}
Pop (Nent) Pov (Nent) Age (Nent)
Overall Trends in Variables
CitiesBalance of
Metro Areas Metro Areas
Population2009 Population Estimates 126,330,750 134,795,096 261,125,8462010 Census 125,843,466 136,008,672 261,852,138Percent Change -0.4% 0.9% 0.3%PovertyCensus 2000 18,401,833 10,308,189 28,710,022ACS 05/09 20,671,664 12,724,840 33,396,504Percent Change 12.3% 23.4% 16.3%OvercrowdingCensus 2000 3,861,310 1,813,634 5,674,944ACS 05/09 2,002,160 1,037,538 3,039,698Percent Change -48.1% -42.8% -46.4%Pre-1940 HousingCensus 2000 8,338,128 5,032,353 13,370,481ACS 05/09 9,320,169 5,084,319 14,404,488Percent Change 11.8% 1.0% 7.7%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Nonentilement Areas
Population2009 Population Estimates 201,180,773 108,932,4892010 Census 201,270,119 110,340,632Percent Change 0.0% 1.3%Poverty Census 2000 23,471,950 11,978,807ACS 05/09 27,014,044 14,008,083Percent Change 15.1% 16.9%OvercrowdingCensus 2000 5,019,582 1,232,717ACS 05/09 2,630,534 778,680Percent Change -47.6% -36.8%Pre-1940 HousingCensus 2000 10,576,185 6,825,438ACS 05/09 11,578,443 6,882,096Percent Change 9.5% 0.8%
Grantee Examples
Formula A – Louisiana
Variable Population Poverty Overcrowding Total
Data FY 2011 (n) 2,355,556 431,278 40,126 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n) 2,404,611 414,221 25,283 Change (%) 2.08% -3.95% -36.99% Share (%) FY 2011 2.16% 3.60% 3.26% Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data 2.18% 2.96% 3.25% Change 0.78% -17.87% -0.25% Grant FY 2011 ($000s) 4,399 14,649 6,622 25,670
Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s) 4,492 12,191 6,693 23,377
Change (%) 2.12% -16.78% 1.07% -8.93%
Grantee Examples
Formula B – Indiana
Variable Population PovertyPre 1940 Housing Total
Data FY 2011 (n) 3,694,652 246,814 301,927 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n) 3,741,785 365,071 306,521 Change (%) 1.28% 47.91% 1.52% Share (%) FY 2011 3.39% 2.06% 4.42% Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data 3.39% 2.61% 4.45% Change -0.02% 26.49% 0.69% Grant FY 2011 ($000s) 5,520 5,030 17,998 28,548
Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s) 5,592 6,447 18,362 30,402
Change (%) 1.31% 28.17% 2.02% 6.49%
Variable Population PovertyPre 1940 Housing Total
Data FY 2011 (n) 5,081,348 415,193 458,656 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n) 5,139,355 547,059 459,838 Change (%) 1.14% 31.76% 0.26% Share (%) FY 2011 4.66% 3.47% 6.72% Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data 4.66% 3.91% 6.68% Change -0.15% 12.67% -0.57% Grant FY 2011 ($000s) 7,592 8,462 27,341 43,395
Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s) 7,681 9,660 27,547 44,889
Change (%) 1.18% 14.17% 0.75% 3.44%
Grantee Examples
Formula B – Ohio
Change in $ per Formula Variable
[1] Percent change by variable does not add up exactly to the total percent change due to rounding.
FY 2011
VariableGrant
($000s)
Implicit Weight
(%)
Per Capita
($)
Dollars per formula variable
Formula A Population 104,120 10.5 1.8 1.9 Poverty 258,148 26.1 4.6 34.0
Overcrow-ding 149,329 15.1 2.6 165.0
Subtotal 511,596 51.7 9.0 NA
Formula B Population 79,455 8.0 1.5 1.5 Poverty 89,237 9.0 1.7 20.4
Pre-1940 Housing 308,522 31.2 5.7 59.6
Subtotal 477,214 48.3 8.9 NA
Total 988,810 100.0 9.0 NA
New Data
VariableGrant
($000s)
Implicit Weight
(%)
Per Capita
($)
Dollars per formula variable
Formula A Population 116,853 11.8 1.9 1.9 Poverty 277,466 28.1 4.4 29.4
Overcrow-ding 149,514 15.1 2.4 264.7
Subtotal 543,833 55.0 8.7 NA
Formula B Population 71,429 7.2 1.5 1.5 Poverty 80,887 8.2 1.7 17.7
Pre-1940 Housing 292,661 29.6 6.1 59.9
Subtotal 444,978 45.0 9.3 NA
Total 988,810 100.0 9.0 NA
HUD Administrative Regions
States by RegionStates
Formula Type
FY 2011 Grant ($000)
New Data Grant
Change (%)
Population (%)
Poverty (%)
Overcrowding (%)
Pre-1940 Housing
(%)
New England CT B 12,319 12,495 1.4 0.2 0.4 - 0.9 MA B 30,463 31,113 2.1 -0.1 -0.4 - 2.6 ME B 11,497 11,868 3.2 0.0 0.0 - 3.2 NH B 8,394 8,682 3.4 -0.1 1.3 - 2.3 RI B 4,753 5,142 8.2 0.0 -1.6 - 9.8 VT B 6,743 6,966 3.3 0.0 0.4 - 2.9New York/New Jersey NJ B 6,279 6,369 1.4 0.0 -0.2 - 1.7 NY B 44,032 45,004 2.2 0.1 -0.5 - 2.6Midwest IL B 29,385 29,509 0.4 0.2 1.8 - -1.5 IN B 28,548 30,402 6.5 0.3 5.0 - 1.3 MI B 32,656 34,028 4.2 0.1 5.7 - -1.6 MN B 18,513 18,769 1.4 0.2 1.6 - -0.4 OH B 43,395 44,889 3.4 0.2 2.8 - 0.5 WI B 25,705 26,359 2.5 0.2 2.7 - -0.4Southeast AL A 23,605 23,277 -1.4 0.6 -3.6 1.5 - FL A 24,841 25,804 3.9 0.6 2.8 0.5 - GA A 36,631 39,521 7.9 0.3 6.8 0.7 - KY A 24,941 25,876 3.7 0.0 -1.7 5.4 - MS A 27,635 26,701 -3.4 0.2 -2.4 -1.2 - NC A 41,132 45,975 11.8 0.5 8.0 3.2 - SC A 20,113 20,243 0.6 0.3 2.5 -2.1 - TN A 24,450 27,666 13.2 0.3 7.1 5.7 -Southwest AR A 17,627 18,299 3.8 0.4 -0.1 3.5 - LA A 25,670 23,377 -8.9 0.4 -9.6 0.3 - NM A 13,018 9,453 -27.4 0.4 -8.0 -19.7 - OK A 14,578 14,579 0.0 0.4 -0.9 0.5 - TX A 66,605 65,939 -1.0 0.6 -1.4 -0.2 -Puerto Rico PR A 43,699 31,750 -27.3 -0.3 -8.6 -18.4 -
Census Long Form vs. ACS
Similarities:
• Common questions
• Response rate (97%+)
• Sampling frame (all addresses in the US)
Differences:
• Sample size (18 million vs. 15 million)
• Point-in-time vs. period estimates
• Precision and accuracy of data
Confirming Key Trends
Overcrowding (more than 1 person per room): 5.7% 3%
• Moves closer to AHS estimates (around 2.2% to 2.5% during 2001-2009)
• Results from fewer small units; not change in household size
Pre-1940 housing (structure built before 1940): 20.4% 3%
• AHS: net decrease in pre-1940 units from 2001 to 2007• Non-response problem, particularly in older rental buildings• ACS estimates are closer to administrative data
HOME Formula and LMI Data
HOME Formula affected by similar issues to CDBG. Overcrowding not a factor. Pre-1950 housing instead of pre-1940.
Low & Moderate Income (LMI) Data for CDBG Area Benefit:
• Will be based on census tracts instead of block groups• Produced by Census Bureau along with CHAS data and other
custom tabulations of ACS. Delivery of 2005-2009 LMI Data delayed, but expected by February 2012.
Contact
Ben Winter: [email protected]
Formula Allocations
Paul Joice: [email protected]
Census data
Abu Zuberi: [email protected]
CDBG/HOME Allocations & Census Data