1. NCDA 2012 Winter Legislative & Policy Meeting Ben Winter, Policy Development, PD&R, HUD Paul Joice, Office of Evaluation, 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. Census Long form to ACS 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 Introduction to Analysis 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 – Phoenix, AZ VariablePopulationPovertyOvercrowdingTotal Data FY 2011 (n)1,593,659205,32058,109 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n)1,445,632276,78433,552 Change (%)-9.3%34.8%-42.3% Share (%) FY 20110.61%0.72%1.02% Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data0.55%0.83%1.10% Change-10%16%8% Grant FY 2011 ($000s)3,0817,2215,16915,471 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s)2,7878,3455,54916,681 Change (%)-10%16%7%7.82%

8. Grantee Examples Formula B – Chicago, IL VariableGrowth LagPovertyPre 1940Total Data FY 2011 (n)2,484,926556,791438,095 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n)2,599,394576,344545,476 Change (%)4.6%3.5%24.5% Share (%) FY 20117.67%1.94%3.28% Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data7.98%1.73%3.79% Change4%-11%16% Grant FY 2011 ($000s)30,98411,74933,08475,816 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s)32,20710,42538,12880,761 Change (%)4%-11%15%6.52%

9. Grantee Examples Switch Formula – Madison, WI VariablePopulationGrowth LagPovertyOvercrowdingPre 1940Total Data FY 2011 (n)235,419029,2873,10315,626 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n)233,209042,2381,94716,991 Change (%)-1%44%-37%9% Share (%) FY 20110.09%0.00%0.10%0.05%0.12% Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data0.09%0.00%0.13%0.06%0.12% Change-1%24%17%1% Grant FY 2011 ($000s)0061801,1801,798 Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s)45001,27332102,044 Change (%) 14%

10. Change by Grantee Type Jurisdiction Type No. of Juris dicti ons Grant Amount (000,000’s) % Change Due To Formula Switch Percent Change by Variable Formula AFormula B FY 2011 New Data Total % Change PopulationPoverty Overcro wding Growth LagPoverty Pre- 1940 Principal city 6371,5231,5260.2– 0.40.00.1– 0.20.2– 0.91.3 Satellite city 347288279– 3.10.20.0– 1.1 – 0.80.0– 0.3 Urban county 1824965021.200.32.70.1– 0.50.0– 1.4 [1] Percent change by variable does not add up exactly to the total percent change due to rounding.

11. HUD Administrative Regions

12. Regional Shifts, Entitlement Grantees Region Num. Grantees FY 2011 New Data % Change of Funding New England775.0 1.3 New York/New Jersey10515.415.3– 0.6 Mid-Atlantic10211.410.8– 4.9 Southeast18911.2 – 0.2 Midwest20518.119.05.3 Southwest1209.610.03.5 Great Plains392.93.16.8 Rocky Mountain462.02.19.5 Pacific/Hawaii20419.218.6– 3.1 Northwest/Alaska522.82.92.2 Puerto Rico272.41.9– 22.6 Total1,166100.0 0.0

13. Regional Shifts, Entitlement Grantees Region Num ber Grant Amount (000,000’s) Due to Switching Formulas Formula AFormula B FY 2011New Data Total % Change Pop.Poverty Over- crowding Growth Lag Poverty Pre- 1940 Hsng New England771151161.30.00.00 – 1.10– 0.703.20 New York/New Jersey105354352– 0.60.10.00– 0.100.10– 0.40– 2.802.60 Mid-Atlantic102263250– 4.9– 0.10.10– 0.10– 0.40– 0.80– 0.90– 2.80 Southeast189259258– 0.2– 1.30.103.90– 3.300.60– 0.200.20 Midwest2054174395.30.10.101.800.200.500.602.00 Southwest1202222303.50.00.104.200.600.00– 0.70 Great Plains3968736.80.40.102.300.400.700.802.10 Rocky Mountain4645499.5—– 0.109.101.70– 0.300.40– 1.30 Pacific/Hawaii204442428– 3.10.00.00– 4.001.000.00– 0.200.00 Northwest/Alaska5266672.20.00.103.600.20– 0.600.10– 1.20 Puerto Rico275643– 22.6– 4.2– 0.50– 10.00– 7.90––– TOTAL 1,166 2,307 0.0– 0.20.000.50– 0.20– 0.10– 0.600.60

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Contact Ben Winter: Ben.J.Winter@hud.gov Formula Allocations Paul Joice: Paul.A.Joice@hud.gov Census data