NCDA 2012 Winter Legislative & Policy Meeting Ben Winter, Policy Development, PD&R, HUD Paul...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    01-Jan-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    214
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of NCDA 2012 Winter Legislative & Policy Meeting Ben Winter, Policy Development, PD&R, HUD Paul...

Slide 1

NCDA 2012 Winter Legislative & Policy Meeting

Ben Winter, Policy Development, PD&R, HUDPaul Joice, Office of Evaluation, 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 AnalysisNeeds StudyDistribution Effects of New Datahuduser.org

Introduction2Census Long form to ACSGoal: 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 AnalysisFactors FY 2011 Allocation FY 2012 AllocationFormula A FactorsPopulation2009 Population Estimates2010 CensusPoverty2000 Census20052009 ACSOvercrowding2000 Census20052009 ACSFormula B FactorsGrowth lag2009 Population Estimates and 1960 Census2010 Census and 1960 CensusPoverty2000 Census20052009 ACSPre-1940 housing2000 Census20052009 ACS3Formula Mechanics for Entitlements3 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)

4Mechanics for Non-entitlementsFormula 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)

5Overall Trends in VariablesCitiesBalance of Metro AreasMetro AreasPopulation2009 Population Estimates126,330,750134,795,096261,125,8462010 Census125,843,466136,008,672261,852,138Percent Change-0.4%0.9%0.3%PovertyCensus 200018,401,83310,308,18928,710,022ACS 05/0920,671,66412,724,84033,396,504Percent Change12.3%23.4%16.3%OvercrowdingCensus 20003,861,3101,813,6345,674,944ACS 05/092,002,1601,037,5383,039,698Percent Change-48.1%-42.8%-46.4%Pre-1940 HousingCensus 20008,338,1285,032,35313,370,481ACS 05/099,320,1695,084,31914,404,488Percent Change11.8%1.0%7.7%Entitlement JurisdictionsNonentilement AreasPopulation2009 Population Estimates201,180,773108,932,4892010 Census201,270,119110,340,632Percent Change0.0%1.3%PovertyCensus 200023,471,95011,978,807ACS 05/0927,014,04414,008,083Percent Change15.1%16.9%OvercrowdingCensus 20005,019,5821,232,717ACS 05/092,630,534778,680Percent Change-47.6%-36.8%Pre-1940 HousingCensus 200010,576,1856,825,438ACS 05/0911,578,4436,882,096Percent Change9.5%0.8%6Grantee ExamplesFormula A Phoenix, AZVariablePopulationPoverty OvercrowdingTotal DataFY 2011 (n)1,593,659205,32058,109Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n)1,445,632276,78433,552Change (%)-9.3%34.8%-42.3%Share (%)FY 2011 0.61%0.72%1.02%Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data 0.55%0.83%1.10%Change-10%16%8%GrantFY 2011 ($000s)3,0817,2215,16915,471Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s)2,7878,3455,54916,681Change (%)-10%16%7%7.82%7Grantee ExamplesFormula B Chicago, ILVariableGrowth LagPovertyPre 1940TotalDataFY 2011 (n)2,484,926556,791438,095Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n)2,599,394576,344545,476Change (%)4.6%3.5%24.5%Share (%)FY 2011 7.67%1.94%3.28%Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data 7.98%1.73%3.79%Change4%-11%16%GrantFY 2011 ($000s)30,98411,74933,08475,816Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s)32,20710,42538,12880,761Change (%)4%-11%15%6.52%Grantee ExamplesSwitch Formula Madison, WIVariablePopulationGrowth LagPoverty OvercrowdingPre 1940Total DataFY 2011 (n)235,419029,2873,10315,626Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data (n)233,209042,2381,94716,991Change (%)-1%44%-37%9%Share (%)FY 2011 0.09%0.00%0.10%0.05%0.12%Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data 0.09%0.00%0.13%0.06%0.12%Change-1%24%17%1%GrantFY 2011 ($000s)0061801,1801,798Census 2010 & ACS 05/09 data ($000s)45001,27332102,044Change (%)14%Change by Grantee TypeJurisdiction TypeNo. of JurisdictionsGrant Amount (000,000s)% Change Due To Formula SwitchPercent Change by VariableFormula AFormula BFY 2011New DataTotal % ChangePopulationPovertyOvercrowdingGrowth LagPovertyPre-1940Principal city6371,5231,5260.2 0.40.00.1 0.20.2 0.91.3Satellite city347288279 3.10.20.0 1.1 1.1 0.80.0 0.3Urban county1824965021.200.32.70.1 0.50.0 1.4

[1] Percent change by variable does not add up exactly to the total percent change due to rounding.HUD Administrative Regions

11Regional Shifts, Entitlement GranteesRegionNum. GranteesFY 2011New Data % Change of FundingNew England775.05.01.3New York/New Jersey10515.415.3 0.6Mid-Atlantic10211.410.8 4.9Southeast18911.211.2 0.2Midwest20518.119.05.3Southwest1209.610.03.5Great Plains392.93.16.8Rocky Mountain462.02.19.5Pacific/Hawaii20419.218.6 3.1Northwest/Alaska522.82.92.2Puerto Rico272.41.9 22.6Total1,166100.0100.00.0Regional Shifts, Entitlement GranteesRegion NumberGrant Amount (000,000s)Due to Switching FormulasFormula AFormula BFY 2011New DataTotal % ChangePop.PovertyOver-crowdingGrowth LagPovertyPre-1940 HsngNew England771151161.30.00.000.000.00 1.10 0.703.20New York/New Jersey105354352 0.60.10.00 0.100.10 0.40 2.802.60Mid-Atlantic102263250 4.9 0.10.10 0.10 0.40 0.80 0.90 2.80Southeast189259258 0.2 1.30.103.90 3.300.60 0.200.20Midwest2054174395.30.10.101.800.200.500.602.00Southwest1202222303.50.00.104.200.600.00 0.70 0.70Great Plains3968736.80.40.102.300.400.700.802.10Rocky Mountain4645499.5 0.109.101.70 0.300.40 1.30Pacific/Hawaii204442428 3.10.00.00 4.001.000.00 0.200.00Northwest/Alaska5266672.20.00.103.600.20 0.600.10 1.20Puerto Rico275643 22.6 4.2 0.50 10.00 7.90 TOTAL1,1662,3072,3070.0 0.20.000.50 0.20 0.10 0.600.60Census Long Form vs. ACSSimilarities: 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 dataConfirming Key TrendsOvercrowding (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 DataHOME 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.

ContactBen Winter: [email protected] Formula Allocations

Paul Joice: [email protected] data17