New map tool shows state-by-state differences in how states define 'disadvantaged community' for drinking water funding
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information Contact:
Jessica Lamb, Assistant Director of Water Communications and Operations, Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), jlamb@policyinnovation.org
Gordon Mayer, Communications Consultant, Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), gmayer@cnt.org, 312-307-0133
Webinar on 5/29 previews dacmappingtool.cnt.org one day before launch
The need for drinking water infrastructure upgrades throughout the country is huge, but funding to help communities keep drinking water safe and affordable is limited.
An influx of federal funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is rolling out to states over 2023- 2027. Meanwhile, the current administration has proposed dramatic cuts to future federal support for water infrastructure.
A new tool created by the Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) will help advocates and policymakers target funding to communities with the greatest need and to push back on cuts.
The free-to-all DAC Mapping Tool for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds launches Friday, May 30, at https://dacmappingtool.cnt.org. It will allow advocates, SRF program staff and other policymakers, and others to evaluate how Great Lakes states characterize “disadvantaged communities,” or “DACs,” when it comes to subsidizing construction of drinking water infrastructure.
A free preview of the tool and insights from the research that went into producing it will be offered at a webinar from 1 to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time Thursday, May 29. More details and free registration for the webinar are here: Registration Link.
On the webinar, Paul Esling and Janet Pritchard will share insights from their research and demonstrate the working of the tool. Advisors Becky Hammer with Natural Resources Defense Council and Joe Fitzgerald with Milwaukee Water Commons will also be at the webinar. They were among a group of individuals who provided feedback to help refine the tool over the past year and will be on hand to share their thoughts on how users can benefit from the tool. Nina Idemudia, AICP, Chief Executive Officer of CNT, will moderate the webinar.
“We created the DAC Mapping Tool to help users understand how the Great Lakes states define disadvantaged communities, in order to allocate federal Drinking Water State Revolving Fund benefits,” says Paul Esling, Senior Analyst, Urban Analytics at CNT.
“It’s one thing to read the text of DAC criteria for each state,” adds Janet Pritchard, Director of Water Infrastructure Policy at EPIC. “But now with the DAC Mapping Tool, users can actually see which communities are included in state disadvantaged communities definitions and compare different choices states make when prioritizing communities for the most favorable assistance.”
Insights from the research
The DAC Mapping Tool created by CNT is based on EPIC’s expertise, data, and research for an accompanying report that explains how each state defines DACs and contextualizes these DAC definitions in the context of other state policies that determine which communities receive the most favorable terms of assistance from SRF programs. Input from an advisory committee on what features and data would make the tool most useful to them also informed the development of the tool.
While the DAC Mapping Tool and report focus on Great Lakes states, EPIC has examined DAC definitions from all 50 states. The three most common criteria used to define disadvantaged communities, they found, were median household income, water rate burden, and unemployment.
A handful of states, including some Great Lakes states, also factor in environmental justice areas and health-related factors when calculating the need for water infrastructure improvements. Poverty indicators are increasingly being added to state DAC criteria over recent years, including in the Great Lakes states.
As an added feature, the DAC Mapping Tool enables users to not only map different combinations of DAC criteria, but also to alter the thresholds used for factors such as MHI and poverty rates, to see how this affects the type and scope of communities captured. Unemployment is another criteria often used, and a handful of states, including some Great Lakes states, also factor in environmental justice areas, and health-related factors when calculating the need for water infrastructure improvements.
Researchers stressed that criteria do not equate to investment: “State-level policy decisions, such as the amount of funding available for principal forgiveness, caps on the amount of principal forgiveness per project or community, and project prioritization criteria, determine which disadvantaged communities receive benefits, and how much,” Pritchard noted.
The report helps readers understand the interplay between DAC definitions and other relevant policies and links to state policy documents and other resources for further exploration. How states define DACs remains a central policy determination, however, and the DAC Mapping Tool allows officials, advocates, and researchers to identify which communities are included—or excluded—by state DAC definitions, evaluate overall fairness and effectiveness of existing policies, and explore how they might be improved.
What’s included in the tool
Different states define “disadvantaged communities” for the purpose of subsidizing water infrastructure projects needed to ensure safe drinking water. Drawing from demographic and socioeconomic data, mapping tools, and statistical analyses, the tool helps answer questions such as:
How do the Great Lakes states structure their DAC definitions?
What factors do they use in their definitions? What thresholds and weights are used for these factors? How are the factors assessed?
To what extent are states’ current DAC definitions capturing historically underserved communities and other communities that would struggle to afford needed water infrastructure upgrades without additional subsidies?
Are states’ DAC definitions too broad or too narrow?
If a state were to change a threshold, weight, or even a factor in its definition, how many more or less communities would qualify as DACs?
What is the role and impact of DAC definitions in relation to other state policies that determine which communities benefit from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund?
The tool covers seven Great Lakes states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin—Pennsylvania was not included because some key factors used by that state to prioritize DACs are not publicly available. The SRF DAC Mapping Tool was created with support from the Joyce Foundation, Kresge Foundation, and Water Foundation.
A collaborative product of CNT and EPIC, the SRF DAC Mapping Tool builds on the core competencies of each nonprofit:
Among other innovations, CNT is known for creating the Housing + Transportation Affordability mapping tool, visited by 70,000 planners, students, advocates, and others each year to understand the concept of “location efficiency”—how access to transit or nearby amenities renders communities more affordable and healthier.
EPIC is a recognized thought leader on state SRF programs and policies. EPIC has published reports explaining how federal funds flow through state SRF programs to finance local water infrastructure projects and analyzing which kinds of communities benefit most from Drinking Water and Clean Water SRFs, as well as a set of policy briefs providing analysis and guidance on key state SRF policies.
About Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT):
Founded in 1978, Center for Neighborhood Technology delivers innovative analysis and solutions that support community-based organizations and local governments to create neighborhoods that are equitable, sustainable, and resilient. More at www.cnt.org.
About Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC):
The Environmental Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) is a nonprofit working to accelerate better environmental and public health outcomes, by building policies that spectacularly improve the speed of progress. Learn more at https://www.policyinnovation.org/.
###
