In order to aid in communities’ planning processes, HUD is announcing the Changes in Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Recipient Funding Status
to identify the ESG recipients that will, and will not, receive ESG funds in FY 2014 and FY 2015. Although the dollar amounts of the ESG allocations for FY 2014 are not yet available, it is possible to publish the communities that will/will not receive ESG funding from HUD for FY 2014 and 2015 because the allocations are based on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) formula for the prior year. That is, the FY 2014 ESG allocations are based on the formula used for CDBG in FY 2013, the FY 2015 data is based on the CDBG allocations for FY 2014, etc.
Partly due to the transition to using American Community Survey (ACS) data for the FY 2012 CDBG formula, 17 new jurisdictions became eligible for a direct ESG grant and 12 jurisdictions became ineligible in FY 2013. This is a higher number transitioning in and out of funding status than in prior years, and the pattern continues for FY 2014 and FY 2015. HUD has prepared this chart with the Changes in ESG Recipient Funding Status
to make it easy to see the changes in communities that are receiving ESG funding in each of FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015. If your city, county, or state is not listed on the chart, then its status remains the same as in prior years – either it will continue to receive a direct allocation of ESG funding from HUD or it will continue not to. View a list of all ESG recipients in FY 2013 and prior years
on the OneCPD Resource Exchange
If your community or non-profit organization will not be receiving an ESG allocation this year, you should contact your state ESG recipient to see if you can apply for funding under the state program.
This chart is also being released to help communities make decisions about whether to accept the ESG funding in a given year or whether to decline the funds and reallocate them to the state. For example, if a county did not receive ESG funding in FY 2012 and FY 2013, will receive it in FY 2014, but not in FY 2015, that county might decide not to accept the FY 2014 funds. The ESG Interim Rule
, at 24 CFR 576.301, requires states to distribute reallocated funds first to subrecipients in the geographic area in which the metropolitan city or urban county is located. This aspect of the rule is designed to provide some relief to local communities that might not have the capacity to administer the program while ensuring that private non-profit providers in that area still have a chance to receive ESG funds as subrecipients.
Please contact your local HUD field office
for any questions about this topic.
Below is more information about the move to ACS:
- Following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau began transitioning to an annual survey called the ACS. The ACS is generally the same as the long form used for the decennial Census and now provides the most comprehensive, nationwide source of data for demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics.
- The law implementing the CDBG program requires the use of “the most recent data compiled by the United States Bureau of Census” for allocating CDBG funds (42 U.S.C. 5302 (b)). For this reason, the CDBG formula, which accounts for population, poverty, overcrowded housing, pre-1940 housing, and growth lag, began using ACS data in FY 2012.
- The transition from Census to ACS data has caused significant changes in grant amounts for some CDBG grantees. Because the percentage of ESG funds allocated to ESG recipients is determined by the percentage of the total allocation of CDBG funds for the prior fiscal year, the use of ACS data affects ESG recipients’ grant amounts.
- HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research prepared a report examining the possible effects of using new data from the ACS and 2010 Census for the CDBG formula. The analysis is only a simulation since the FY 2011 CDBG allocation amount and grantee universe were used to measure the impact of the transition from Census to ACS data on grantees’ FY 2012 grant amounts. However, the report helps explain how the differences between the Census and ACS estimates reflect differences in the methods used by the two surveys in addition to differences in conditions between the two time periods. Review the report for a more comprehensive explanation about the transition from Census to ACS data and the implications on CDBG and ESG grant amounts. The report found:
- “The ACS estimates of overcrowding and pre-1940 housing are particularly noteworthy. At a national level, the estimated number of overcrowded housing units in metropolitan areas in the 2005–2009 ACS is 46.4 percent lower than in the 2000 Census. Because the CDBG formula is allocated based on a grantee’s share of each variable, any entitlement community that experiences a decrease in overcrowding of less than 46.4 percent (or an increase) receives additional CDBG funding allocated by that variable. Even more puzzling, the estimated number of pre-1940 housing units in all metropolitan areas, as of 2005–2009, is 7.7 percent higher than the estimate in the 2000 Census. Any entitlement community that experiences an increase of less than 7.7 percent in pre-1940 housing (or a decrease) loses CDBG funding allocated by that variable.”
For additional information and resources, visit the ESG Program
page on the OneCPD Resource Exchange.