Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (FCSM) Equitable Data Toolkit

Federal agencies are building on a legacy of past efforts as they strive to better understand and address issues of equitable access. Persistent poverty indicators have been relied upon to target, implement, and monitor federal grants and programs designed to support educational and employment opportunities, health care services and healthy food access, transit service and community facilities improvements, housing assistance and land development loans, fiscal health and administrative capacity of local governments, energy savings and climate change resilience, and aid to underserved groups (see Appendix Tables 1 and 2 for links to related legislation and federal agency examples).

Goals of this section of the FCSM Equitable Data Toolkit

Poverty is a long-standing and fundamental measure of economic well-being and inequality in the United States. Its measurement occurs initially at the levels of families and individuals. The emergence of spatial poverty measures, which characterize the extent and nature of poverty for geographic areas, reflects the recognition that the geographic concentration of poverty has its own socioeconomic dynamic (see for example Understanding Neighborhood Effects of Concentrated Poverty). The concept of "persistent poverty" introduces a temporal dimension. It reflects the recognition that the persistent concentration of poverty in a geographic area over multiple decades also has its own socioeconomic dynamic, which differs from that associated with concentrated poverty that is intermittent or that exists for just a short time.

Though well established in federal program design, persistent poverty area measurement in the federal government is not uniform in its methodology or application. The purpose of this section of the FCSM Equitable Data Toolkit is to provide federal agencies with information on existing persistent poverty area indicators and on the underlying constructs of persistent poverty area measurement. With this information, federal agencies will know of their options when seeking a persistent poverty area measure that can meet their research or programmatic needs. For consistency with other agencies, an agency may elect to adopt an existing measure.

Discussion of tools to measure persistent poverty areas consists of three main sections:

1. A conceptual and methodological history of persistent poverty's emergence in federal policy.
2. Guidance on navigating the existing landscape of federal persistent poverty area indicators, their methodologies and uses, and alternative concepts and measures.
3. Discussion and guidance to help users make decisions about and locate resources for generating their own persistent poverty area indicator and related demographic, social, and economic statistics.

What is persistent poverty?

In most countries around the world, the term persistent poverty refers to a form of chronic poverty that is defined by a person or household with relatively low income (e.g., below 60 percent of median area disposable income) for several consecutive years (see for example, Persistent Poverty in the UK and EU). Given that it is a relative measure, this definition of persistent poverty doesn’t imply abject despair or even a necessarily low standard of living, but rather is understood as a measure of being at risk of poverty. Persistent poverty typically has a very different definition and meaning when used in reference to economic well-being in the United States.

The term persistent poverty in the United States generally refers to a spatial concept of poverty defined by long-standing geographic concentrations of the poor. It is commonly defined by a high rate of poverty (usually 20 percent or more) in a given geographic area over a number of consecutive decades (most often three or four, as indicated in the data years and sources column in Appendix Table 1 and in details available from links in Appendix Table 2). As an indicator of spatial well-being, such a measure effectively captures the interwovenness of localized private sector disinvestment, deficiency of community resources, and limited economic opportunities.²⁵ The long-term entrenchment of these conditions is often characterized by a lack of multiple baseline necessities for area residents, such as access to health care facilities, grocery stores that offer affordable and nutritious food, an adequate housing market, a sufficient educational system, jobs that pay a living wage, and essential public services. Likewise, relative material deprivation (the inability to consume goods and activities that are the norm in society) may be prevalent given lack of access to things like public transportation, parks and recreation, and civic services.

The geographic concentration of poverty can exacerbate the income poverty of individual residents by limiting the availability of services and employment prospects.²⁶ In conjunction, persistent poverty areas (PPAs) tend to have disproportionate numbers of people with characteristics that make them prone to disadvantage, such as low educational attainment and chronic health issues.²⁷ They also tend to have higher than average proportions of underserved racial and ethnic populations and other groups that historically have had trouble gaining access to economic opportunities. However, while PPAs often share similar challenges and characteristics, they are not socially, culturally, economically, and environmentally homogeneous. PPAs represent a complex form of poverty that manifests across unique contexts.

Meeting earlier demand for poverty area measurement

Persistent poverty area measurement is rooted in federal research and policy initiatives dating back to the early 1960s, namely the Johnson Administration’s Great Society programs, which sought to address issues such as inequities in education and access to medical care, as well as racial discrimination and poverty. With respect to the latter, the President famously declared a War on Poverty (WOP) in 1964.²⁸ While poverty was the focus, there was no universal concept or measure of poverty to serve as a target or by which to determine success. Federal researchers and other social scientists "were enlisted to help define and measure poverty, to plan programs, and later to evaluate them and measure the progress achieved."²⁹

Poverty definition and measurement subsequently followed two distinct paths. The better-known path is the development of the official poverty measure for families and individuals. In 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)³⁰ developed a working definition of poverty constructed from a basic income needs approach for determining the poverty status of families and for counting the poor among them.³¹ Four years later the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum establishing an ‘official’ poverty measure (OPM) and assigned the Census Bureau the task of collecting and reporting poverty statistics. Widespread use of the OPM did not come about until nearly a decade later when OMB issued a statistical policy directive (#14, May 1978) specifying the OPM as the definition of poverty to be used by all executive departments and establishments for statistical purposes.³²

Persistent poverty area indicators are embedded in recent federal policy

Since the 1990’s, other federal agencies have widely adopted ERS’s measure of persistent poverty, or some variation of it. A measure akin to ERS’s appeared in federal legislation in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). The ARRA addressed how USDA was to allocate appropriated funds to three rural development programs. The legislation required USDA to allocate at least 10 percent of funds to persistent poverty counties, which the ARRA identified using a poverty rate of 20 percent or more for each Decennial Census year from 1980 to 2000; the definition in ARRA used one time period fewer than ERS’s definition but referred to the time period as a span of 30 years. The ARRA provision became known as the 10-20-30 provision. Since ARRA, the 10-20-30 provision has been applied to other federal programs outside of rural development and updated to include more current data.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA-2021, P.L. 116-260) updated and redefined the 10-20-30 provision definition of persistent poverty counties. The CAA-2021 also expanded the focus on poverty areas to include high poverty Census tracts, identified by a poverty rate of 20 percent or more for a single time period.⁴⁷ Altogether, CAA-2021 includes multiple definitions of persistent poverty in conjunction with the Act’s provisions to various federal agencies and initiatives (see Appendix table 2 for links to specific policies).

A feature of these definitions is that they combine geographic levels of counties and census tracts. The poverty concept used for census tracts in CAA-2021 is high poverty measured by a 5-year average (from the American Community Survey) in contrast to the multiple decades that are used for defining persistent poverty at the county level. There is growing demand for persistent poverty measurement at the census tract level. In 1990, the Census Bureau first assigned census tract geography to the entire nation and collected tract-level income and poverty data for all tracts (for more information see ). With the additional years of nationwide tract-level data now available, persistent poverty measures for census tracts can be constructed and have begun to be adopted by federal agencies.⁴⁸ A challenge with defining the census tract rather than the county as the geographical unit is that the tract level can involve greater methodological complexity, as discussed in Section III below.

---

Diversity of persistent poverty area indicator uses by federal agencies

Persistently poor areas are generally defined by a high proportion of residents with incomes below the federal poverty level over multiple decades (see for example, ERS Poverty Area Measures definitions and others in Appendix tables 1 and 2). By this definition, persistent poverty for an area is both systemic and enduring. Persistent poverty reaches beyond economic well-being to also encompass social, demographic, political, cultural, and environmental outcomes of interest. As such, persistent poverty indicators produced by ERS or others are relied upon to target, implement, and monitor federal initiatives aimed at addressing a wide range of issues. They are used by grants and programs designed to assist with educational and employment opportunities, health care services and healthy food access, transit service and community facilities improvements, housing assistance and land development loans, fiscal health and administrative capacity of local governments, energy savings and climate change resilience, and aid to underserved groups.

Appendix table 2 provides a summary of federal agencies that use persistent poverty area indicators in their programs and granting initiatives and, where available, links to their definitions and data resources. The summary is not exhaustive but illustrative of the diverse programs across the federal government. As application of persistent poverty indicators has become more common across the federal government, it has been accompanied by the development of tools that can assist stakeholders with determining their persistent poverty status and with obtaining corresponding socioeconomic and demographic information.

• Low per capita income - the area has a per capita income of 80 percent or less of the national average.
• Unemployment rate above national average - the area has an unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least 1 percent greater than the national average unemployment rate.
• Unemployment or economic adjustment problems - the area is in an area that has experienced or is about to experience a special need arising from actual or threatened severe unemployment or economic adjustment problems resulting from severe short-term or long-term changes in economic conditions.

The PWED is directly referenced by multiple federal programs while other programs use a similar design though not directly referential. Examples are listed in Appendix table 3.

Developing a measure of persistent poverty or understanding an existing measure better for programmatic or research purposes involves several key considerations. They can be summarized in a conceptual framework that is introduced here using four D’s: Data, Duration, Depth, and Decisions. With a focus on the Official Poverty Measure, which is prominent in current federal methodologies, the discussion of the 4-D Framework for Persistent Poverty Measurement examines each factor in turn. The issue of spatial scale, which is embedded in each of the four D’s, is discussed as well.

---

Data – available sources

Ultimately, any methodological considerations depend on the nature, strengths, and limitations of the data that are available. Federal data resources that can help meet the need for multiple years of spatial poverty statistics include Decennial Census data, the American Community Survey 1- and 5-year estimates (ACS), and the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE).

Decennial Census. The Decennial Census is a national survey that dates back to 1790, but its content has changed over time. Between 1970 and 2000 the Decennial Census collected certain demographic and housing information from the entire population using what was called the short form. A subset of the population – about one in six households – answered a second questionnaire, called the long form, that collected more detailed information including data on income that were used for measurement and analysis of poverty.⁵⁰ The long form was eliminated following the 2000 Census with the advent of the American Community Survey, which posed those questions and others on an ongoing basis instead of once each decade.

A summary of data options is provided below to assist with making data year/source selections.

County level

• For years 1990 or earlier, Decennial Census.
• From 1995 to 2005, annual SAIPE and 2000 Decennial Census.
• From 2005 to present, annual SAIPE and ACS 5-year period estimates, beginning with 2005-2009 (use of non-overlapping 5-year periods recommended).

Census tract level

• For years 1980 or earlier, tract geography does not exist for the entire nation, but what does exist is available through the Decennial Census. Additional census tract geographies and poverty estimates derived from and available through various data sources are also an option (use with caution). This issue and alternative data sources are discussed below, under the spatial scale heading.
• From 1990 to 2000, Decennial Census.
• From 2005 to present, ACS 5-year period estimates, beginning with 2005-2009 (use of non-overlapping 5-year periods and consideration of margins of error recommended, also discussed later with spatial scale).

Duration – appropriate timeframe

Federal data users often seek definitive answers about the appropriate timeframe for persistent poverty area measurement. Yet, the temporal scale for any poverty area measurement is context specific, depending on the poverty phenomenon of interest and purpose.

Research. ERS’s 1985 persistently low-income county type and subsequent persistent poverty county type (beginning in 1994) differ by the specific indicator of well-being and the use of a relative or absolute approach, but they both use four data points spanning 30 years. The decision for this approach was driven by the availability of data and by the research context. Specifically, ERS researchers sought to examine spatial trends in poverty over as long a period as possible, with a particular interest in examining the distributional impacts of 1950s and 1960s economic prosperity trends, the War on Poverty initiatives, and related issues of interest to ERS such as agrarian technological change and trends in migration. More generally, there was an intention to provide researchers and federal stakeholders with tools to inform and evaluate federal policies and programs. At the time, the sole data source available for long-term analysis with sub-state geography was the Decennial Census.⁵¹

Policy objectives. Poverty area measurement as applied in the federal context has been tailored to specific policy objectives. This is demonstrated by the 10-20-30 provision of the ARRA and the CAA-2021, which were discussed in Section II. The persistent poverty area methodologies defined in those legislative acts are very similar to ERS’s. The main difference is that they use three data points instead of four. A result of using fewer data points is that more areas can meet the persistent poverty criteria because an area would not have to exhibit high poverty for as many consecutive points in time.

Also similar to ERS’s definition is that the persistent poverty measures of the Acts are described as spanning thirty years. Yet some use a shorter time span, while others use a potentially longer time span. For instance, the rural development definition that appears in the 10-20-30 provision and CAA-2021 (table 1,) uses three data points including 1990, 2000, and 2007-11. They are approximately equally spaced apart, by about 10 years, considering the transition from Decennial Census data to ACS 5-year estimates. The time span between the first and the last data point is 20 years. In comparison, the public works definition of the CAA-2021 (table 1) also uses three data points including 1990 and 2000. The third data point is stated as the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. The most recent SAIPE to date is 2021, meaning that the public works definition uses three data points, unequal distances apart, spanning more than thirty years. Given that SAIPE is updated annually, the time span for this definition will increase annually.

A potential result of annual updates is that the persistent poverty status of some areas, particularly those with poverty rates nearest to 20 percent, will fluctuate. Poverty rates can change rapidly from year to year due to cyclical changes in the macroeconomy, causing short-term economic difficulty or improvement. Research has shown that this is especially problematic for rural manufacturing and natural resource-based economies that rely heavily on one relatively unstable industry.

Program needs. Persistent poverty area indicators are often constructed to reflect the specific needs of federal programs, hence the diversity shown in Table 2. Many adopted persistent poverty area indicators before any definition had appeared in federal legislation, while others developed their own following the 10-20-30 provision of the ARRA, even though their program areas did not fall under rural development. The lack of uniformity of definitions found in CAA-2021 (Table 1) is likely influenced by the need to conform to the definitions already embedded in specific program areas. Since the 10-20-30 provision was first introduced, which targets persistent poverty counties, there has been widespread recognition that counties are not the appropriate unit of geography for all situations. Communities with entrenched concentrations of poverty can fail to meet program eligibility because they exist within counties that do not meet the criteria for persistent poverty status. This led to a search of more nuanced targeting mechanisms that can identify the diverse array of persistently poor communities across the nation. One result has been the adoption of census tract level poverty area measures in place of or in addition to county level persistent poverty area measures.

All of the census tract level poverty area measures that appear in legislation to date are defined by one data period. Very few program agencies have developed and implemented persistent poverty area census tract indicators. The lack of availability of comparable tract level data over the long-run and methodological complexities, as discussed in Section II and elsewhere in this report, can create hindrances. The use of one data period, however, can be problematic if the program goal is to address long-term economic difficulties.

The nature of economic difficulty associated with the persistent poverty phenomenon is systemic. There are fundamental structural differences between persistently poor areas and their counterparts. Allocating aid using one data period (single-year or a multi-year average) or multiple data points in the short-run may provide a misleading picture of long-term economic well-being. Research has found that a timeframe of less than five years results in estimates that do not represent well the phenomenon of persistent poverty (as measured using four time periods of data spanning thirty years). This research stems from the concentrated neighborhood poverty and resource economics literature. For instance, the characteristics most associated with persistent poverty are not especially prevalent in chronic or short-term concentrated poverty areas.⁵²

---

Depth - poverty rate cutoff

As discussed in Section 1, fifty years ago the Census Bureau first used a 20 percent cut-off for the OPM poverty rate to measure depth of area poverty. The decision was based on correlation between such a measure and the metropolitan area poverty status derived from a multi-dimensional index measure of economic well-being. About 20 years later, ERS was considering its own study of poverty rate cutoffs relative to nonmetro counties and decided to use a 20 percent cutoff as well.

More recently, the contemporary relevance of the 20 percent cutoff was tested as part of a ‘50 years later’ exploratory update to the ERS poverty area research that appeared in the seminal 1967 People Left Behind report on rural poverty. Using the 1967 relative index methodology and data from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates, ERS researchers found that the corresponding OPM poverty rate for nonmetro and metro poor counties was about 22 percent and 18 percent, respectively. This finding suggests that when considering the conceptual and methodological groundwork for persistent poverty area measurement, a 20 percent OPM cutoff is appropriate to the combined metro/nonmetro persistent poverty county designation today.

Over the same timeframe (approximately 1970 to 2020) research by some academic researchers also suggest that 20 percent is the critical poverty rate cutoff at which residents begin to experience the impacts of area-wide poverty.⁵³ Those impacts appear to be greater at even higher poverty rates, raising the question of whether a "critical impact" point might exist above 20 percent. These effects tend to plateau or slow significantly beyond a 40 percent poverty rate, which is commonly referred to as the threshold of extreme poverty.

It is possible that a poverty rate just above the 20 percent threshold over multiple decades may be more damaging to areawide well-being and thus have greater potential to impact residents than a poverty rate nearing the extreme threshold of 40 percent for just a few years. The long-term erosion of government financial resources in the face of a limited residential tax base is one such scenario. Given these considerations, the 20 percent poverty rate seems a reasonable and defensible threshold for identifying high spatial poverty.

---

Spatial scale – counties and census tracts

Historically, persistent poverty areas have been defined at the county level. Even so, persistent poverty can be measured at any spatial scale for which appropriate data are available. Demand for sub-county measures has grown in recent years, bringing increased attention to census tract data (often used as a proxy for neighborhoods). As previously noted, these data have been available for the entire nation since 1990, initially based on the decennial Census followed by the ACS (as five-year estimates).

There are special considerations with tract level data, including how boundaries of census tracts change over time much more than do boundaries of counties. Many statistical areas (like census tracts and block groups) are updated once per decade to reflect the most recent Decennial Census. Census tract geography can change dramatically from one decade to the next making temporal comparisons difficult. In order to maintain the greatest geographic coverage when constructing a persistent poverty area indicator, the geographic normalization of tract level data over time should be considered. There is no set methodology for normalizing data, but tutorials for doing so exist as do options to use open access data or to purchase proprietary normalized census tract datasets from private vendors.

Decision-making exercise.

A. Questions / answers that may be of help include, but are not limited to:

• Is the purpose of the persistent poverty indicator for research, meeting broad policy objectives, meeting specific program need, or a combination?
• Is the target population the most historically impoverished areas, chronically poor areas, newly or temporarily poor areas, or a combination?
• Is the interest only in persistent poverty, as traditionally measured using a high poverty rate cutoff (20 percent or more) or is persistent extreme poverty (40 percent or more) also of interest?
• Is a ten-year period between data points acceptable or desirable? Is there a need to consider an alternative (shorter, longer, or varying)?
• How important is it to have the most current, annual, single-year poverty rates?
• Is direct access and comparability of other socioeconomic, demographic, and/or housing variables important?
• Is the ability to determine reliability of the estimates a priority? If yes, what degree of difficulty in doing so is acceptable (novice, intermediate, or expert)?
• Is there a need for a census tract measure of high or persistent poverty, in addition to or instead of a county measure of persistence?

B. Once the answers to these and other questions (relevant to motivation, data limitations, concept) are established, as a next step, consider:

C. Also, consider consulting with other federal program agencies about the resultant persistent poverty area definition (adopted from existing definitions or uniquely designed) and their experiences with the same/similar/unique persistent poverty area indicators.

---

Example decision-making exercise related to ERS’s definition:

A. By answering the exercise questions, it was determined that in order to meet ERS’s primary research and secondary federal agency support needs, there are two fundamental (temporal) issues for determining persistent poverty area status and change in persistent poverty area status.

1. Poverty should be measured over the long run to capture structural poverty rather than cyclical poverty, using a timeframe adequate to reflect extent of economic difficulty.
2. Economic cycles should be taken into consideration when evaluating change, using a time span adequate for capturing permanent improvement or lack thereof.

B. Upon review of definitional options that might address the two issues, ERS’s decision was to continue to use the county-level methodology that was established in 1994:

C. Federal stakeholder consultation: Agencies with programs aimed at addressing persistent poverty directly or aimed at addressing various issues associated with long-term economic difficulty (e.g., access to healthcare) have reported that ERS’s approach works well. It captures areas consistent with program concerns and observed conditions. It limits cyclical variation in program eligibility status and provides a sufficient timeframe for program impact evaluation. A change to an update every five years (using non-overlapping 5-year ACS) or every year (using concurrent 5-year ACS or SAIPE) instead of ten would diminish the usefulness of the indicator.

Table 1. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 poverty area definitions

Policy objective/program area	Geographic scale	Concept	Indicator of well-being	Data years included and sources
1. Rural development	county	persistent poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses and the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estmates
2. Public works	county	persistent poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses and the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
3. Comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability	county	persistent poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses and the most recent Small Area Income and Povery Estimates
4. Community develpment financial institutions	a. census tract	high poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
	b. census tract	high poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
	c. county	persistent poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses and the 2011-2015 American COmmunity Survey 5-year estimates
	d. county	persistent poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	1990, 2000, and 2010 Island Areas Decennial Census or equivalent data of the Bureau of the Census
5. Transportation in infrastructure	a. county	persistent poverty	poverty rate of 20 percent or more	1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses and the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
	b. census tract	undefined	poverty rate of 20 percent moare	2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
6. Covid-19 pandemic reponse and recovery (emergency capital investment program)	a. communities	low- and moderate- income	unspecified	unspecified
	b. communities	underserved	unspecified	unspecified
	c. counties	persistent poverty	unspecified	unspecified

Table 2. Summary of federal agencies that use persistent poverty area indicators

Program, policy, or grant name	Administering department/agency	Issue(s) addressed	PPA spatial scale	Website
Areas of Persistent Poverty Program	Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration	Support planning, engineering, and financing to improve transit services in areas of long-term economic distress	Counties and census tracts	DOT FTA Areas of Persistent Poverty Program
Bank Enterprise Award Program	Department of Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund	Provides formula-based grants to successful applicants for increasing Qualified Activities	Counties	DOT CDFI Bank Enterprise Award Program
Community Development Financial Institutions Program	Department of Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund	The CDFI Program offers both Financial Assistance and Technical Assistance awards to CDFIs	Counties	DOT CDFI Community Development Financial Institutions Program
Native American CDFI Assistance Program	Department of Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund	Financial Assistance and technical assistance awards are made to Native CDFIs.	Counties	DOT CDFI Native American CDFI Assistance Program
Distressed Cities and Persistent Poverty Technical Assistance Program	Department of Housing and Urban Development	Improve fiscal health and build administrative capacity of relatively small units of general local government (UGLGs or local governments) and their nonprofit partners in places experiencing persistent poverty and economic distress.	Census tracts	HUD Distressed Cities and Persistent Poverty Technical Assistance Program
Rural Community Development Grants	Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Communities Services	RCD grants support training and technical assistance for creating and maintaining safe and affordable water and wastewater systems in the nation’s lowest income rural communities, including tribal areas, many of which have populations at or below 2,500 individuals.	Counties	HHS ACF Rural Community Development Grants
Expanding Cancer Control in Persistent Poverty Areas	Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute	Provide resources to support highly collaborative, multi-disciplinary Program Projects (P01s) that focus on the development and conduct of cancer control research in low-income and/or underserved populations living in persistent poverty (PP) areas.	Counties and census tracts	NIH NCI Expanding Cancer Control in Persistent Poverty Areas; includes link to census tract persistent poverty data
Cancer control grants; Persistent Poverty Initiative; Cancer Control Research in Persistent Poverty Areas	Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute	Cancer control in designated NCI cancer centers and cancer control research to understand the causes and distribution of cancer in populations, support the development and delivery of effective interventions and monitor and explain cancer trends.	Counties	NIH NCI Cancer Control Research in Persistent Poverty Areas
Rural Community Facilities Program; Community Facilities Grant	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides affordable funding to develop essential community facilities in rural areas.	Counties	USDA RD Community Facilities Program
Rural Business Program Account; Rural Business Development Grants	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides technical assistance and training for small rural businesses.	Counties	USDA RD Rural Business Development Grants
Rural Business Program; Rural Economic Development Loans Program	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides funding for rural projects through local utility organizations.	Counties	USDA RD Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program
Rural Business Program; Rural Cooperative Development Grants	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Improves the economic condition of rural areas by helping individuals and businesses start, expand or improve rural cooperatives and other mutually-owned businesses through Cooperative Development Centers.	Counties	USDA RD Cooperative Development Grant Program
Water and Waste Disposal Program Account; Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides funding for clean and reliable drinking water systems, sanitary sewage disposal, sanitary solid waste disposal, and storm water drainage to households and businesses in eligible rural areas.	Counties	USDA RD Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides financing for the construction, maintenance, improvement and expansion of telephone service and broadband in rural areas.	Counties	USDA RD Telecommunications Program
Distance Learning and Telemedicine and Broadband Program	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Helps rural communities use the unique capabilities of telecommunications to connect to each other and to the world, overcoming the effects of remoteness and low population density.	Counties	USDA RD Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program
Distance Learning and Telemedicine and Broadband Program; Delta Health Care Services Grant	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides financial assistance to address the continued unmet health needs in the Delta Region.	Counties	USDA RD Delta Health Care Services Grant
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program; Direct Single Family Housing Loans	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Assists low- and very-low-income applicants obtain decent, safe and sanitary housing in eligible rural areas by providing payment assistance to increase an applicant’s repayment ability.	Counties	USDA RD Single Family Housing Direct Home Loans
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program; Single Family Housing Repair Loans	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides loans to very-low-income homeowners to repair, improve or modernize their homes or grants to elderly very-low-income homeowners to remove health and safety hazards.	Counties	USDA RD Single Family Housing Repair Loans
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program; Rural Housing Site Loans	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides loans to acquire and develop sites for low- or moderate-income families, with no restriction as to the method of construction	Counties	USDA RD Rural Housing Site Loans
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program; Self-Help Housing Land Development Loans	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides loans are to acquire and develop sites only for housing to be constructed by the Self-Help method.	Counties	USDA RD Mutual Self Help Housing Grants
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program; Mutual Self Help Housing Grants	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides grants to qualified organizations to help them carry out local self-help housing construction projects.	Counties	USDA RD Mutual Self Help Housing Grants
Rural Housing Assistance Grants; Rural Housing Preservation	U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development	Provides grants to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of housing owned or occupied by low- and very-low-income rural citizens.	Counties	USDA RD Housing Preservation Grants

Table 3. Federal programs that use poverty area measures similar to the Public Works and Economic Development Act (1965)

Administering department/agency	PPA spatial scale	Website
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA)	Region	EDA Economic distress levels
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)	Community	FAA economically distressed areas special rule
Appalachian Regional Commission	County and community	ARC distressed counties and areas