1. 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 Redistribution Effects of Introducing ACS and Census 2010 Data Into the CDBG Formula

2. Policy Development & Research (PD&R) & Community Planning and Development (CPD) CDBG Analysis Needs Study Distribution Effects of New Data huduser.org Introduction

3. 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 FactorsFY 2011 AllocationFY 2012 Allocation Formula A Factors Population2009 Population Estimates2010 Census Poverty2000 Census2005–2009 ACS Overcrowding2000 Census2005–2009 ACS Formula B Factors Growth lag2009 Population Estimates and 1960 Census2010 Census and 1960 Census Poverty2000 Census2005–2009 ACS Pre-1940 housing2000 Census2005–2009 ACS

4. 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) 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)

5. 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)

6. Overall Trends in Variables Cities Balance of Metro Areas Metro Areas Population 2009 Population Estimates 126,330,750134,795,096261,125,846 2010 Census 125,843,466136,008,672261,852,138 Percent Change -0.4%0.9%0.3% Poverty Census 2000 18,401,83310,308,18928,710,022 ACS 05/09 20,671,66412,724,84033,396,504 Percent Change 12.3%23.4%16.3% Overcrowding Census 2000 3,861,3101,813,6345,674,944 ACS 05/09 2,002,1601,037,5383,039,698 Percent Change -48.1%-42.8%-46.4% Pre-1940 Housing Census 2000 8,338,1285,032,35313,370,481 ACS 05/09 9,320,1695,084,31914,404,488 Percent Change 11.8%1.0%7.7% Entitlement Jurisdictions Nonentilement Areas Population 2009 Population Estimates 201,180,773108,932,489 2010 Census201,270,119110,340,632 Percent Change0.0%1.3% Poverty Census 200023,471,95011,978,807 ACS 05/0927,014,04414,008,083 Percent Change15.1%16.9% Overcrowding Census 20005,019,5821,232,717 ACS 05/092,630,534778,680 Percent Change-47.6%-36.8% Pre-1940 Housing Census 200010,576,1856,825,438 ACS 05/0911,578,4436,882,096 Percent Change9.5%0.8%

7. Grantee Examples Formula A – Louisiana VariablePopulationPovertyOvercrowdingTotal Data FY 2011 (n)2,355,556431,27840,126 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n) 2,404,611414,22125,283 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) 4,39914,6496,62225,670 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s) 4,49212,1916,69323,377 Change (%)2.12%-16.78%1.07%-8.93%

8. Grantee Examples Formula B – Indiana VariablePopulationPoverty Pre 1940 HousingTotal Data FY 2011 (n)3,694,652246,814301,927 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n) 3,741,785365,071306,521 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) 5,5205,03017,99828,548 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s) 5,5926,44718,36230,402 Change (%)1.31%28.17%2.02%6.49%

9. VariablePopulationPoverty Pre 1940 HousingTotal Data FY 2011 (n)5,081,348415,193458,656 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n) 5,139,355547,059459,838 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) 7,5928,46227,34143,395 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s) 7,6819,66027,54744,889 Change (%)1.18%14.17%0.75%3.44% Grantee Examples Formula B – Ohio

10. 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 Variable Grant ($000s) Implicit Weight (%) Per Capita ($) Dollars per formula variable Formula A Population104,12010.51.81.9 Poverty258,14826.14.634.0 Overcrow- ding149,32915.12.6165.0 Subtotal511,59651.7 9.0 NA Formula B Population79,4558.01.5 Poverty89,2379.01.720.4 Pre-1940 Housing308,52231.25.759.6 Subtotal477,21448.3 8.9 NA Total 988,810100.09.0 NA New Data Variable Grant ($000s) Implicit Weight (%) Per Capita ($) Dollars per formula variable Formula A Population116,85311.81.9 Poverty277,46628.14.429.4 Overcrow- ding149,51415.12.4264.7 Subtotal543,83355.0 8.7 NA Formula B Population71,4297.21.5 Poverty80,8878.21.717.7 Pre-1940 Housing292,66129.66.159.9 Subtotal444,97845.0 9.3 NA Total 988,810100.09.0 NA

11. HUD Administrative Regions

12. States by Region States Formula Type FY 2011 Grant ($000) New Data Grant Change (%) Populatio n (%) Poverty (%) Overcrowdin g (%) Pre-1940 Housing (%) New England CTB12,31912,4951.40.20.4-0.9 MAB30,46331,1132.1-0.1-0.4-2.6 MEB11,49711,8683.20.0 -3.2 NHB8,3948,6823.4-0.11.3-2.3 RIB4,7535,1428.20.0-1.6-9.8 VTB6,7436,9663.30.00.4-2.9 New York/New Jersey NJB6,2796,3691.40.0-0.2-1.7 NYB44,03245,0042.20.1-0.5-2.6 Midwest ILB29,38529,5090.40.21.8--1.5 INB28,54830,4026.50.35.0-1.3 MIB32,65634,0284.20.15.7--1.6 MNB18,51318,7691.40.21.6--0.4 OHB43,39544,8893.40.22.8-0.5 WIB25,70526,3592.50.22.7--0.4 Southeast ALA23,60523,277-1.40.6-3.61.5- FLA24,84125,8043.90.62.80.5- GAA36,63139,5217.90.36.80.7- KYA24,94125,8763.70.0-1.75.4- MSA27,63526,701-3.40.2-2.4-1.2- NCA41,13245,97511.80.58.03.2- SCA20,11320,2430.60.32.5-2.1- TNA24,45027,66613.20.37.15.7- Southwest ARA17,62718,2993.80.4-0.13.5- LAA25,67023,377-8.90.4-9.60.3- NMA13,0189,453-27.40.4-8.0-19.7- OKA14,57814,5790.00.4-0.90.5- TXA66,60565,9390.6-1.4-0.2- Puerto Rico PRA43,69931,750-27.3-0.3-8.6-18.4-

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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