COSCDA Program Manager’s and Legislative Training Conference March 12, 2012

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: Ben.J.Winter@hud.gov

Formula Allocations

Paul Joice: Paul.A.Joice@hud.gov

Census data

Abu Zuberi: Abubakari.D.Zuberi@hud.gov

CDBG/HOME Allocations & Census Data