Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

May 2, 2024 R48059

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress:
May 2, 2024
Examples and Considerations
Joseph Dalaker
For decades, Congress has used place-based policies to address regional socioeconomic
Analyst in Social Policy
disparities. Many recent federal economic development policies—including rural development

policies—have focused on economically distressed areas. Economic development policies are
Julie M. Lawhorn
generally designed to develop the resources or capabilities of state, local, and regional
Analyst in Economic
stakeholders, or to address obstacles that hinder development. These policies are often
Development Policy
implemented through community-level interventions rather than individual-level interventions

(i.e., people-based policies). Congress has used economic data and benchmarks to determine
which areas are economically distressed and therefore eligible for place-based economic
Lisa S. Benson
development programs. These economic measures and benchmarks vary by agency and program.
Specialist in Agricultural
Policy

This report analyzes the types of economic distress measures used within three policy
interventions to illustrate the impacts of the definition of economic distress on the direction of

federal economic development spending. The report defines key economic measures and
geographic concepts, shows how they are used, and compares how the measures impact selection
of different geographic areas.
Federal programs that aid economically distressed areas commonly use four socioeconomic measures: median household
income, poverty rate, unemployment rate, and employment-to-population ratio. Data for a potential project area are generally
compared to a benchmark, such as a fixed number or national-level data. Some economically distressed definitions specify
the geographic areas or the unit of analysis to be measured, while others allow the specific geographic area to be determined
by the applicant(s).
Census Bureau data are commonly used in determining whether an area is economically distressed; thus, it may be
convenient for policymakers to refer to the geographic areas defined by the Census Bureau and used in their tabulations.
Using Census Bureau survey data for economic distress criteria has some limitations. For example, populations experiencing
homelessness are not captured using household surveys. In addition, estimates from all surveys have margins of error
reflecting that they were computed using a sample instead of the entire population, and as a result have some imprecision.
Three federal programs and initiatives define economically distressed areas using different criteria: the Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant Program, the Department of Commerce’s
Recompete Pilot Program, and the Persistent Poverty Counties designation used across multiple programs. The Emergency
Community Water Assistance Grant Program defines economically distressed areas using median household income and
geography (i.e., areas must be rural or have 10,000 or fewer people). The Recompete Pilot Program compares an area’s
employment-to-population ratio with that for the nation and does not restrict areas based on population density (i.e., rural or
otherwise). Persistent Poverty Counties use the poverty rate over time. These federal programs and initiatives identify areas
of economic distress in different ways, and as a result, different sets of geographic areas are classified as distressed.
Congress may exercise considerable flexibility in targeting funding for economic development programs. When formulating
economic development policy for economically distressed areas, policymakers may find it helpful to consider the following:
• Different types of economic distress criteria may assist distinct geographic areas. In addition to considering
economic distress at the county level, other geographic levels could be used to target funding at a smaller
geographic unit or to define areas of economic distress in different ways.
• In addition to program-level criteria, Congress may use additional policy strategies to direct assistance to
economically distressed areas, such as setting aside funding at levels that agencies must meet through
program awards, or allowing for agency discretion to designate certain areas or types of communities as
eligible.
As Congress conducts oversight on existing programs and considers new programs, it may seek to understand how economic
distress criteria impact the distribution of program funds.
Congressional Research Service

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Introduction
For decades, Congress has used place-based policies to address regional socioeconomic
disparities.1 Many recent federal economic development policies—including rural development
policies—have focused on economically distressed areas. Economic development policies are
generally designed to develop the resources or capabilities of state, local, and regional
stakeholders, or to address obstacles that hinder development. These policies are often
implemented through community-level interventions rather than individual-level interventions
(i.e., people-based policies). Place-based economic development programs may support a range
of activities such as infrastructure development, entrepreneurship, business development,
technical assistance, planning, and related activities.
Congress has used economic data and benchmarks to determine which areas are economically
distressed and therefore eligible for place-based economic development programs. These
economic measures and benchmarks vary by agency and program. Many criteria use survey data
available at the census tract or county level, but others allow for discretion to be applied by
federal agencies who implement the program. Measures may vary, in part, due to different policy
objectives (e.g., economic development, housing, health, equity) or the structure of the policy tool
(e.g., tax incentives, grants, credit programs).
This report analyzes the types of economic distress measures used within three policy
interventions to illustrate the impacts of the definition of economic distress on the direction of
federal economic development spending. It does not represent a comprehensive review of all
potential measures of economic distress.2 In two of the interventions discussed in this report,
Congress did not use the exact phrase economic distress to characterize the areas targeted;
however, in all the interventions discussed below, Congress did target funding to areas using
measures that indicated local economic conditions in those areas were worse than a specified
benchmark. This report uses the phrase economic distress to characterize such areas.
The report further defines key economic measures and geographic concepts, shows how they are
used, and compares how they differ in which geographic areas they identify as economically
distressed. It uses counties as the unit of analysis; however, as discussed, various programs allow
for the potential eligibility of other types of areas or geographies.
This report does not address underlying capacity challenges that may be involved in applying for,
receiving, and managing federal awards. While federal policies may geographically target
resources toward certain communities, analysts observe that capacity limitations may hamper the
ability of these communities to access, manage, and implement available grant programs.3

1 For a historical perspective on economic distress measures, see Alison Turner et al., “Identifying Measures of Distress
for Economic Development,” National Economic Research and Resilience Center, Argonne National Laboratory,
November 2023, p. 3, https://anl.app.box.com/s/17galz6069fmawquafnglr1xvaba9uh0?utm_content.
2 “Commonly Used Distress Measures” are outlined in Alison Turner et al., “Identifying Measures of Distress for
Economic Development,” National Economic Research and Resilience Center, Argonne National Laboratory,
November 2023, p. 12, https://anl.app.box.com/s/17galz6069fmawquafnglr1xvaba9uh0?utm_content. Additionally, an
analysis of the economic distress definitions used by three of the federal regional commissions—the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC), the Delta Regional Authority (DRA), and the Northern Border Regional Commission
(NBRC)—is provided by Anthony Pipa, Heather Stephens, and Natalie Geismar in “Defining distress: Lessons from
the Federally Chartered Regional Commissions,” The Brookings Institution, May 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2022_Brookings_Defining-Distress.pdf.
3 Statement of Jeff Arkin, Director of Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Grants
Management, Observations on Challenges with Access, Use, and Oversight,” Testimony Before the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, May 2023, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106797.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Analysts also note that economic distress measures could be used to target technical assistance to
further address capacity challenges, in addition to their use in determining program eligibility.4
Economic Distress: Defining Commonly Used
Measures and Criteria
The term economically distressed area lacks a standardized definition and may vary by agency,
program, or executive branch initiative. Federal programs that provide assistance to economically
distressed areas generally use socioeconomic measures, such as median household income, as
criteria for eligibility.5 Data for a potential project area are generally compared to a benchmark,
such as a fixed number or national-level data.
Some definitions of economic distress may specify the geographic areas or the unit of analysis to
be measured (e.g., counties or census tracts), while others allow the specific geographic area to be
determined by the applicant(s).
Economic Measures
Congress has used a variety of measures to identify certain areas that may be economically
distressed. The measures provide a framework for comparing key socioeconomic data across
geographic areas. Four selected measures are discussed below: median household income,
poverty rate, unemployment rate, and employment-to-population ratio.6
Median Household Income
To identify areas of economic distress using median household income, three concepts are
applied: the definition of income as it is measured in surveys, an analysis of the median income,

4 Anthony Pipa, Heather Stephens, and Natalie Geismar, “Defining distress: Lessons from the Federally Chartered
Regional Commissions,” The Brookings Institution, May 2022, p. 3, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2022/06/2022_Brookings_Defining-Distress.pdf. For further discussion about the role of technical assistance in federal
grants, see CRS Report R47607, Federal Grant Technical Assistance: Definition, Use, and Considerations for
Congress, by Natalie Keegan.
5 Programs may also allow the relevant agency to have discretion in how areas may qualify for the program. This report
focuses on the measures specified in legislation using data.
6 These are not the only approaches available. For example, Section 301(a) of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §3161(a)) describes the economic distress criteria and thresholds that
qualify areas as eligible for assistance through selected Economic Development Administration (EDA) programs and
for other purposes. In PWEDA, economic distress is determined by one or more of the following calculations or
thresholds: low per capita income, unemployment rate above national average, or special need. For other programs, an
index approach for designating areas as distressed generally uses a combination of measures to compute a rating or
compare an area’s socioeconomic conditions with national averages. Depending on the structure and benchmark
indicators used in the index, these approaches may result in additional areas being considered as distressed. While the
index approach to county economic distress designation is currently used by several federal regional commissions,
examples of this approach are not analyzed in this report.
Researchers have identified several approaches to combined indicators—see, for example, Alison Turner et al.,
“Identifying Measures of Distress for Economic Development,” National Economic Research and Resilience Center,
Argonne National Laboratory, November 2023, p. 12, https://anl.app.box.com/s/17galz6069fmawquafnglr1xvaba9uh0?
utm_content. The Economic Innovation Group’s Distressed Communities Index Tool—available at https://eig.org/
distressed-communities—is another example of a combined indicator. For an analysis of the economic distress
definitions used by three of the federal regional commissions, see Anthony Pipa, Heather Stephens, and Natalie
Geismar, “Defining distress: Lessons from the Federally Chartered Regional Commissions,” The Brookings Institution,
May 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2022_Brookings_Defining-Distress.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

2

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

and an analysis of the geographic area to be used when making comparisons (particularly when
area median income is referred to as a specific eligibility criterion). Each of these concepts is
described below.
Income
In household surveys conducted by the Census Bureau, income refers to money that comes into
the household on a regular basis, before payments for personal income taxes, Social Security,
union dues, Medicare deductions, and the like.7 Because it is based on income before taxes, it also
does not include refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional
Child Tax Credit. This money income concept also excludes noncash benefits such as those from
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), health benefits, and subsidized housing,
and does not include resources such as food or other goods produced and consumed on one’s own
farm or in-kind benefits from employers, such as the use of company cars.
The reference period, or time span for which a survey asks households about the money they
received, is important for defining income; typically, this is a year-long period. Assets (such as
amounts held in savings accounts, the equity in one’s home, or the unrealized values of
investments) are not considered to be income because the money did not literally come in (to the
household) during the reference period. The money used to purchase the investments or to deposit
into savings would have been considered income at the time the household member received it.
However, the dividends from investments and the interest earned on savings are income because
they represent new money received during the reference period.
Programs that use income in their economic distress criteria might not necessarily define it in the
same manner as Census Bureau surveys. Likewise, they may not necessarily define a household
in the same way as surveys (which typically define a household to include all persons residing
together in the same housing unit—and thus household income from survey data typically
includes the income from all persons residing together, as opposed to some other grouping such
as persons who both live together and share costs and resources as a single economic unit). When
a program’s definitions for income or household differ from those used by the Census Bureau to
publish reports or tables, alternative estimates might be obtainable by programming a custom
tabulation using a survey data file, so that the estimates more closely reflect the definitions used
in Congress’s program of interest. However, the accuracy of such estimates would depend on the
level of demographic and economic detail, geographic detail, and statistical accuracy afforded by
the survey.
Median Income
In a group of numbers, such as the income amounts of all households in an area, the median is the
number that divides the group into two equal parts: one-half is less than the median, and one-half
is greater. The median can be thought of as the middle of the income distribution. Medians are
useful for characterizing income data because they are less sensitive than the mean (arithmetic
average) to large outliers, which occur frequently in income data.
Geographic Area and Area Median Income
Area median income is a term used when comparing median income amounts across geographic
areas. Depending on the program, the term may refer to specific types of geographic areas (such

7 Further discussion may be found on the Census Bureau’s webpage, “About Income,” at https://www.census.gov/
topics/income-poverty/income/about.html.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

as Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSAs]).8 For instance, one metropolitan area may have a
higher median income than another, but also a higher cost of living. To the extent that differences
in median income may reflect differences in average wages and cost of living, comparing the
median income of a census tract, county, or town with that of the metropolitan area can help to
reduce geographic disparities in program eligibility by metropolitan area. For small areas not in
metropolitan areas, a program might use median income for a different geographic type; for
example, the statewide median income or the statewide nonmetropolitan median income may be
used. Or, as noted previously, some programs may allow applicants to define their own
geographic areas as part of their application.9
Poverty Rate
Poverty is defined as a measure of economic hardship using income data, family size data, and
specified dollar amounts called poverty thresholds that are intended to represent the costs
associated with a low level of basic needs. Poverty thresholds vary by family size and
composition to represent that the cost of basic needs varies accordingly.10 Families and single
individuals that have income less than their respective poverty threshold are classified as poor.
Poverty thresholds are not adjusted for geographic variation in the cost of basic needs, but they
are updated annually to adjust for inflation.11
A poverty rate for an area is the percentage of the area’s population that is classified as living in
poverty. Poverty rates are based on adjusted population totals known as the poverty universe, or
persons for whom poverty status is determined. Some persons are not classified as either poor or
nonpoor; these include persons living in institutions (such as nursing homes or prisons), children
under age 15 who are not related by birth, marriage, or adoption to the householder of their
residence (such as foster children), and persons serving in the Armed Forces and living in military
barracks. These persons are excluded from the poverty universe when computing poverty rates.
As a result, for areas with military barracks or large institutional populations, the totals may seem
lower than would otherwise be expected, and the poverty rate may be either higher or lower than
expected.
Unemployment Rate
The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the labor force.
Unemployed persons are those not working but want to work and are looking for work. The labor
force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. This does not include the entire
population: those not working and not looking for work, such as the retired population, stay-at-

8 Further discussion on the types of geographic areas is in the “Geographic Areas” section.
9 For example, the authorizing statute for the Recompete Pilot Program contains language that enables the Secretary of
Commerce to establish additional criteria for eligible areas. See 15 U.S.C. §3722b(j)(1). Additionally, according to
instructions provided by EDA for potential applicants via an online mapping tool (at https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/
Recompete/), geographic areas not specifically delineated within the tool might nevertheless be considered eligible. In
order for an applicant serving such a user-defined area to apply, “A subset of the area served by the unit of local
government has five or more contiguous Census tracts that each individually have a [prime-age employment gap] of at
least 5% and median annual household income of no more than $75,000. In this instance, the applicant’s service area
must be contained within the identified Census tracts.”
10 In the definition of poverty used for official poverty statistics presented using survey data, a family refers to persons
related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Family data are typically available from surveys, and differ from household data
because persons not related by birth, marriage, or adoption may live in the same housing unit. Programs may not
necessarily use either definition in their eligibility criteria.
11 For further information on the definition of poverty, see CRS Report R44780, An Introduction to Poverty
Measurement, by Joseph Dalaker.
Congressional Research Service

4

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

home parents, those who want to work but have stopped looking for it, and those who are unable
to work are classified as not in the labor force. Because the unemployment rate uses the labor
force as its denominator, it is viewed as a measure of an economy’s excess labor supply—in
which more people are available and willing to work than there are jobs available.12
Employment-to-Population Ratio
The employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutionalized
adult population that is employed. In contrast with the unemployment rate, the denominator for
the EPOP includes adults who are not in the labor force.13 That is, the EPOP includes persons
“who have stopped looking for jobs and left the labor force, not just those who are currently
unemployed,”14 and as a result can help to uncover areas where individuals have stopped looking
for work because local opportunities are limited, or where they lack reliable transportation,
certain job qualifications, or adequate child care.15 Areas with low EPOP may also reflect areas
with populations that are not working because of other reasons, such as they are in school or
retired.
Geographic Areas
The economic measures discussed above are computed for many types of geographic areas. To
use a measure to determine whether an area is economically distressed, the geographic area first
needs to be specified: which households or persons does the economic measure need to reflect?
The choice of geographic area type could be driven by the population intended as a target for
funding (e.g., small communities, rural communities, tribal communities, communities of any
size with severely entrenched poverty); by the type of project or activity to be funded, which
involves determining the project area for the activity (e.g., wide but sparsely populated rural
areas that need infrastructure development, parts of urban areas that need more business and
jobs); or both.
Congress could specify the types of geographic areas to be used, or it may allow applicants to
determine the project area and thereby not require that a specific type of geographic area be used
to determine economic distress criteria. For example, applicants self-define project areas for the
Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (Recompete Program) administered by the Department
of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA); project areas may contain one or
more census tracts, counties, or parts thereof. Additionally, Congress may provide federal
agencies with discretion to determine the geographic areas that are applicable and the standards
used to gauge economic distress.16 Nevertheless, Census Bureau data are commonly used in

12 This characterization of the unemployment rate with regard to labor supply is discussed in the context of job
openings—which may indicate labor demand—in CRS In Focus IF11054, Measuring Job Openings in the U.S. Labor
Market, by Elizabeth Weber Handwerker. For further information on the definition of unemployment, see CRS In
Focus IF10443, Introduction to U.S. Economy: Unemployment, by Lida R. Weinstock.
13 For further discussion, see CRS Report R44055, An Overview of the Employment-Population Ratio, by Sarah A.
Donovan.
14 U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “Why does Prime-Age Employment Gap (PAEG) matter?” Recompete Pilot
Program FAQs, https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/recompete-pilot-program/faq.
15 Ibid.
16 For example, the authorizing statute for the Recompete Pilot Program contains language that enables the Secretary of
Commerce to establish additional criteria for eligible areas; see 15 U.S.C. §3722b(j)(1). Additionally, according to
instructions provided by EDA for potential applicants via an online mapping tool (at https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/
Recompete/), geographic areas not specifically delineated within the tool might nevertheless be considered eligible. In
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 link to page 37 link to page 11 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

determining whether an area is economically distressed; thus, it may be convenient for
policymakers to refer to the geographic areas defined by the Census Bureau and used in their
tabulations. Table 1 summarizes these main geographic area types, and notes that some terms
(especially rural) are not defined the same way by everyone. These geographic areas are
discussed in further detail in Appendix B.
Table 1. Types, Number, and Characteristics of Selected Geographic Areas
Number as of
Geographic Area Type
2020 Census
Characteristics
Geographic Areas Defined by the Census Bureau
Census Tract
84,414
•
Smaller than counties.
•
Contained whol y within counties (do not cross
county boundaries).
•
Average population of about 4,000 (most range from
1,200 to 8,000; some are unpopulated).
•
Smallest geographic level available for data on many
demographic and economic characteristics.
Place
31,617
•
A concentration of population in a location with a
known, recognizable name.
•
Primarily defined by population rather than geographic
boundaries.
•
Usually a city or village in common parlance (some but
not all towns are places).
•
Incorporated Places
19,519
A place that has a municipal government.
•
Census-Designated
12,098
A place that is commonly known but does not have a
Places
municipal government; included by the Census Bureau in
place statistics (labeled “CDP”).
County Subdivision
35,629
Area smaller than a county, defined primarily by geography
rather than by population.
•
Township (Minor Civil
16,239
•
A type of county subdivision associated with a
Division)a
general-purpose local government, defined primarily
by geography rather than population.
•
Township governments are present in 20 states.
•
Many areas called towns are townships, but not all
(some are places).
County
3,143
•
The primary subdivision of a state, ranging from 3
(Delaware) to 254 (Texas).
•
Typically administered by a general-purpose local
government (county government).
•
County government services vary widely by state;
Connecticut and Rhode Island have no county
governments.

order for an applicant serving such a user-defined area to apply, “A subset of the area served by the unit of local
government has five or more contiguous Census tracts that each individually have a [prime-age employment gap] of at
least 5% and median annual household income of no more than $75,000. In this instance, the applicant’s service area
must be contained within the identified Census tracts.”
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 37 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Number as of
Geographic Area Type
2020 Census
Characteristics
Core-Based Statistical Area
927
•
A geographic area associated with at least one core of
(CBSA)
10,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory
that has a high degree of social and economic
integration with the core as measured by commuting
ties.
•
Composed of one or more adjacent counties (CBSAs
are defined using entire counties).
•
CBSAs are delineated by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), using data from the Census
Bureau.
•
Metropolitan Statistical
384
A CBSA in which the urban core has a population of
Area (MSA)
50,000 or more.
•
Micropolitan Statistical
543
A CBSA in which the urban core has a population of at
Area (µSA)b
least 10,000 but fewer than 50,000.
Geographic Areas with Programmatic Definitions Distinct from Census Bureau Definitions
Rural Area, ECWAG
733
A county with a population of 10,000 or fewer.
definitionc
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census National Geographic Tallies, https://www.census.gov/geographies/
reference-files/time-series/geo/tallies.html#national; and 2020 Census Geographic Entity Tallies by State and
Type, https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/geo_tal ies2020/2020talliesbystate.xlsx.
Notes: For details on selected geographic areas, see Appendix B.
a. Not all types of Minor Civil Division (MCDs) are listed; others include inactive and nonfunctioning
townships and MCDs developed for statistical purposes only. These MCD types are not referenced in the
definitions of economic distress analyzed in this report.
b. The Greek letter mu (µ) stands for micropolitan; this usage is consistent with other units that include the
prefix “micro” (Greek for “small”).
c. ECWAG: Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant program. Rural areas for this program are
defined as counties with population at or below 10,000. This is different from the Census Bureau’s
definition, which defines “rural” as all areas not classified as “urban”; urban areas are defined using land
usage, distance, and economic integration, as well as population.
In addition, policymakers sometimes consider definitions of urban and rural areas. Urban and
rural designation is usually not associated with any specific geographic type, but rather
characterizes an area based on population density, land usage, and (for rural areas) distance from
population centers. Policymakers may also use their own definitions of urban or rural, which may
not align with the Census Bureau’s definitions.
While geography can play a role in determining where to direct program funding, federal
economic development programs are generally community-driven, meaning that projects are
planned and implemented by state or local stakeholders, such as a city, county, or other eligible
entity. Units of local government, in particular, can vary greatly by state in terms of the
geographic areas they serve and the types of services they provide17—both of which have bearing
on where and how federal economic development programs are implemented.
Limitations of Using Survey Data for Economic Distress Criteria

17 For detail on the types of local governments by state and the scope of services they provide, see U.S. Census Bureau,
2017 Census of Governments, Individual State Descriptions: 2017, at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/
2019/econ/2017isd.html.
Congressional Research Service

7

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

The measures of economic distress discussed in this report use geographic and economic data from U.S. Census
Bureau household surveys. As with all surveys, estimates may differ from the true value simply because a sample
was used instead of the entire population (this is called sampling error). The risk of that difference occurring
increases when using the sample to estimate small populations—either populations with rare demographic
characteristics, or small geographic areas with few residents. Because the surveys are targeted to households,
populations living without housing are not sampled. Additionally, some county-level data may mask certain sub-
county areas of economic distress.
Populations Without Housing Are Not Captured Using Household Surveys
Household surveys do not cover persons without traditional housing and who are not in shelters, and thus the
definitions of economic distress examined in this report do not include estimates of the population without
housing. To the extent that Congress may want to use a place-based policy to address homelessness, it may want
to know which economic measures available from surveys correlate best with the presence of unhoused
populations. It remains an open question how best to estimate the number of persons who are without housing in
an area, though there has been research into which household survey measures correlate with homelessness. For
example, some researchers have investigated large increases in rental costs in an area (which may make rental
units unaffordable in that area for persons with low income), the unemployment rate, the percentage of persons in
deep poverty, and others.18 Studies attempting to estimate the number of persons without housing typically face
certain limitations in generalizing results, and studies undertaken within a single city emphasize different factors
affecting homelessness than do studies across cities.19 When using survey data to estimate homelessness, it may be
useful to consider where the unhoused currently live and the areas where the unhoused used to live (right before
they lost their housing).20
Sample Sizes and Margins of Error for Sub-state Areas
As noted previously, estimates from all surveys have margins of error reflecting that they were computed using a
sample instead of the entire population, and as a result may not be accurate. Margins of error decrease as sample
size increases, and vice-versa. In a household survey for smaller geographic areas being estimated, fewer
households are likely to have been included in the sample. As a result, measures of economic distress that rely on
estimates of sub-state areas may warrant the use of surveys with large sample sizes, such as the American
Community Survey. Some place-based policies have provisions that allow some administrative discretion in
determining eligibility. This can reduce concerns that local entities may be rendered ineligible for resources
because of imprecise estimates for small areas.
Selected Examples of Federal Policies Using
Economic Distress Criteria
Below are descriptions of three economic development policy interventions and the criteria they
use to identify economically distressed areas. Two are grant programs—the Emergency
Community Water Assistance Grants (ECWAG) program and the Recompete Pilot Program—and
the other, the 10-20-30 provision, allocates a percentage of annual appropriations to persistent

18 Summaries of previous statistically significant research findings correlating homelessness with other variables may
be found in Byrne et al., “New Perspectives on Community-Level Determinants of Homelessness,” Journal of Urban
Affairs, vol. 35, no. 5, 2013, pp. 607-625; and Maria Hanratty, “Do Local Economic Conditions Affect Homelessness?
Impact of Area Housing Market Factors, Unemployment, and Poverty on Community Homeless Rates,” Housing
Policy Debate, vol. 27, no. 4, 2017, pp. 640-655, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2017.1282885.
19 A summary of the data sources, methods, and critiques of previous studies investigating homelessness with economic
and social factors may be found in Deden Rukmana, “The Causes of Homelessness and the Characteristics Associated
with High Risk of Homelessness: A Review of Intercity and Intracity Homelessness Data,” Housing Policy Debate,
vol. 30, no. 2, January 14, 2020, pp. 291-308, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1684334.
20 This distinction between areas where people lost their housing and where they later moved to was examined in the
St. Louis area by Ben Alexander-Eitzman, David E. Pollio, and Carol S. North, “The Neighborhood Context of
Homelessness,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 103, April 2013, pp. 679-685, https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2012.301007.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 18 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

poverty counties (PPCs), a type of economically distressed area. The definitions used by these
programs are further compared, contrasted, and analyzed in the “Comparing Areas of Economic
Distress Under Selected Policies” section, and Table 2 provides a summary of the three policy
interventions.
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants Program
(ECWAG)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Rural Utilities Service provides grants through
the ECWAG program to help eligible communities prepare for or recover from an emergency that
threatens the availability of safe, reliable drinking water. Emergencies can be natural disasters
(e.g., droughts, floods, tornadoes) or man-made disasters (e.g., chemical spills). A federal disaster
declaration is not required to participate in the program. Applicants must show a major decline in
the water quality or water quantity within two years of submitting their application. Applicants
compete on a national basis for available funding. Water transmission line grants of up to
$150,000 are available to construct waterline extensions, repair breaks or leaks in existing water
lines, and address maintenance issues. Water source grants of up to $1 million are available to
construct new wells, reservoirs, transmission lines, and treatment plants.
Statutory authority for the ECWAG program is in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, as amended, Section 306A (7 U.S.C. §1926a). Regulations for this program are codified at
Title 7, Part 1778, of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334, §6407(a)) reauthorized
appropriations of $50 million per fiscal year for FY2019 through FY2023 for the ECWAG
program. Congress appropriated $15 million for the program for each fiscal year from FY2019
through FY2023.
Eligible Areas
Eligible areas include rural areas with populations of 10,000 or fewer people, tribal lands in rural
areas, and colonias (unincorporated communities with poor or no infrastructure, near the U.S.-
Mexico border). The area served must also have a median household income that is less than the
state’s median household income for nonmetropolitan areas. Applicants may use geographic units
of measurement other than counties, such as towns, incorporated areas, or census tracts.
Distressed Area Recompete Pilot (Recompete Pilot) Program21
EDA administers the Recompete Pilot Program, which was established to address persistent
economic distress and support long-term, comprehensive economic development.22 Recompete
Pilot funding may be used to address local and regional circumstances to create jobs or connect
workers to jobs. EDA administers the program with two types of funding awards through two
award phases. EDA launched the first round of Recompete funding in FY2023. For Phase 1, EDA

21 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program
(Recompete Pilot Program),” https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/recompete-pilot-program; and CRS Insight
IN12201, Economic Development Administration Announces New Recompete Program.
22 See P.L. 117-167, Division B, Title VI—Miscellaneous Science and Technology Provisions, Subtitle C, §10621. The
Recompete Pilot Program, while developed to address economic distress, does not use the phrase economically
distressed area to name the areas that meet the eligibility criteria.
Congressional Research Service

9

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

instructed applicants to choose either a strategy development grant,23 approval of a Recompete
Plan, or both. 24 In Phase 2, EDA plans to fund implementation awards to support a range of
economic development activities based on regional priorities (e.g., workforce development,
business and entrepreneur development, infrastructure, planning, technical assistance activities).25
Eligible applicants include
• political subdivisions of a state;
• tribal governments;
• U.S. territories;
• the District of Columbia;
• nonprofit organizations working in cooperation with a political subdivision of a
state;
• economic development districts; and
• a coalition of any of the entities listed above.
P.L. 117-167, commonly referred to as the CHIPS and Science Act, established the Recompete
Pilot Program in August 2022,26 and authorized the appropriation of $1 billion to fund it over five
years (FY2022 through FY2026). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328)
appropriated $200 million for the program.27
Eligible Areas
The Recompete Pilot Program targets areas where prime-age (25-54) employment falls below the
national rate.28 This is referred to as the prime-age employment gap (PAEG) and is calculated as
the difference (expressed in percentage points) between (1) the national five-year average prime-
age employment rate and (2) the five-year average prime-age employment rate of the eligible
area.29 In this context, the term employment rate is synonymous with employment-to-population
ratio because it includes persons outside of the labor force (including those who have stopped

23 Strategy development grants are designed to help applicants strengthen regional coordination and support planning
and pre-development activities. See EDA, “Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (Recompete Pilot Program),”
https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/recompete-pilot-program.
24 A Recompete Plan is a comprehensive economic development plan that includes the proposed multiyear activities to
be implemented, projected costs, partner roles, and other information. See EDA, “FY2023 Distressed Area Recompete
Pilot Program Phase 1 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) (Recompete Pilot Phase 1 NOFO),”
https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_phase_1_vF.pdf.
25 U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “FY 2023 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program Phase 2 Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO),” https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/
Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_Phase_2.pdf.
26 See 15 U.S.C. §3722b.
27 P.L. 117-328 provided $41 million in regular appropriations (Division B) and $159 million in supplemental
appropriations (Division N) for the program.
28 15 U.S.C. §3722b(j). See also U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “FY 2023 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot
Program Phase 1 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO),” https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/
Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_phase_1_vF.pdf.
29 The PAEG differs from other criteria used for two of EDA’s other programs, the Public Works and Economic
Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) programs. PWEAA programs are designed to assist areas that are economically
distressed as measured by unemployment levels, per capita income, or a “special need.” For additional information, see
CRS In Focus IF12074, Areas of Economic Distress for EDA Activities and Programs, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Congressional Research Service

10

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

looking for work) instead of measuring only the unemployed.30 Members of the Armed Forces are
excluded.31
Among other requirements, Recompete projects must be located in one of two eligible area types
and meet certain PAEG requirements. The two eligible geographic areas are the following:
1. Local Labor Markets (LLMs)—an MSA, a Micropolitan Statistical Area
(μSA), a commuting zone, or tribal lands. LLMs with a PAEG of at least 2.5
percentage points are eligible. Tribal lands and Pacific Ocean territories are
considered eligible LLMs.
2. Local Communities (LCs)—an area served by a general-purpose unit of local
government that is located within, but does not fully cover, an ineligible LLM. In
addition, one of the following conditions must apply:
• the entire area served by the unit of local government on average has a
PAEG of at least 5 percentage points and a median annual household
income of no more than $75,000; or
• a subset of the area served by the unit of local government has five or
more contiguous census tracts that each have a PAEG of at least 5
percentage points and median annual household income of no more than
$75,000. In this instance, the applicant’s service area must be contained
within the identified census tracts.32
The data required to calculate PAEG were unavailable for certain tribal lands and some Pacific
Ocean territories. As such, the EDA’s guidance indicates that Pacific Ocean territories and all
tribal lands are eligible to participate in the program.33

30 The Recompete Pilot Program’s notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) indicates that the “program uses prime-age
employment gap (PAEG) as an indicator of economic distress because it accounts for prime-age workers who have
stopped looking for jobs and left the labor force, not just those who are currently unemployed.” See U.S. Department of
Commerce, EDA, “FY 2023 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program Phase 1 Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO),” p. 4, https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_phase_1_vF.pdf.
Persons who have stopped seeking employment are classified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as “not in the
labor force.” Thus, because BLS uses the labor force as the denominator when it computes the unemployment rate and
the employment rate used by the Recompete Program does not (because it includes those who have stopped looking for
work), these two terms are not complements to each other. The Recompete Pilot Program’s term employment rate is
instead synonymous with employment-to-population ratio.
31 Jordan Branham, Carmella Burdi, Jane Frantz, and Iain Hyde, Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool Documentation,
National Economic Research and Resilience Center, Decision and Infrastructure Sciences Division, Argonne National
Laboratory, June 2023, p. 6 (of the pdf), at https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/portal/sharing/rest/content/items/
2082c33694e44f5ab3010815ca70cdf2/data.
32 U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “FY 2023 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program Phase 1 Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO),” p. 7, https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/
Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_phase_1_vF.pdf.
33 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
Congressional Research Service

11

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Recompete Pilot Program—Project Area Mapping Tools
According to agency guidance, applicants wil determine the project area(s).34 To help identify LLMs and LCs, EDA,
in partnership with Argonne National Laboratory, developed a Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool showing both
types of eligible areas. A separate mapping tool for partially eligible local communities shows eligible census tracts
in LCs where the entire geography is not eligible. According to EDA, regions that are not included on the maps
are not automatically considered ineligible. These applicants may submit data to demonstrate eligibility, which EDA
wil verify.35
Persistent Poverty Counties (PPCs) and the 10-20-30 Provision
The term persistent poverty county has been defined in appropriations laws for a variety of
programs since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-
5.).36 PPCs are defined as those counties that have had poverty rates of 20% or greater for at least
30 years, as measured using data collected at three points in time.
One funding set-aside provision is commonly referred to as the 10-20-30 provision because a
program subject to it is required to set aside no less than 10% of funds for counties that have had
poverty rates of 20% or greater for at least 30 years. The 10-20-30 provision has been applied by
the USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative Service in its Rural Business Program Account, Rural
Economic Development Loans Program Account, Rural Cooperative Development Grants, and
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program; and applied in the EDA’s Public Works and Build
to Scale programs, among others.37 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)
provided a set amount ($20 million) for certain PPCs through two programs rather than the 10%
used in the 10-20-30 provision.38 P.L. 117-58 also provided the Secretary of Transportation with
discretion to prioritize PPCs to receive technical assistance under the Thriving Communities
Initiative.39
In this report, PPCs will be identified using poverty rates from the 1990 Census (which, while
collected in 1990, recorded the incomes and by extension the poverty statuses of persons in

34 U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “FY 2023 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program Phase 1 Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO),” p. 9, https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/
Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_phase_1_vF.pdf.
35 U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “FY 2023 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program Phase 1 Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO),” p. 7, https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/
Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_phase_1_vF.pdf. For the project area mapping tools, see Argonne National
Laboratory, Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool, https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/Recompete; and Recompete
Eligibility Mapping Tool – Census Tracts Viewer, https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/
index.html?id=251a44f20fcf47c4b88941d2e8e298c9.
36 For a detailed discussion, see CRS Report R45100, The 10-20-30 Provision: Defining Persistent Poverty Counties,
by Joseph Dalaker.
37 See P.L. 117-328, Section 736, for USDA programs subject to the 10-20-30 provision. The same law has programs
subject to the provision in Section 533 in reference to EDA grants authorized by the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 and grants authorized by Section 27 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980; in Division E, Title I, in reference to the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund Program
Account; and in Division G, Title II, in reference to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and its role in authorizing funding for brownfields site assessment and remediation.
See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617/text.
38 P.L. 117-58 provided $20 million each to the Department of Transportation’s National Infrastructure Investment and
Transit Infrastructure grant programs.
39 P.L. 117-328, Division L, Title I (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617/text). Additional
examples are discussed in CRS Report R45100, The 10-20-30 Provision: Defining Persistent Poverty Counties, by
Joseph Dalaker.
Congressional Research Service

12

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

calendar year 1989), Census 2000 (which, similarly, provided poverty data for 1999), and the
2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) (for calendar year 2021).40

40 PPCs were defined using these datasets in Section 21202 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58),
which amended 49 U.S.C. §6702, regarding local and regional project assistance on multimodal infrastructure
investments. This is not the only possible list of PPCs. EDA provides a list at https://www.eda.gov/performance/tools,
which identifies PPCs using data from the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and the most recent SAIPE data, and
includes counties where the poverty rate is 19.5% or greater (for the SAIPE data, the county is also included if 19.5% is
within the poverty rate’s margin of error). USDA’s Economic Research Service provides lists of counties using
decennial census and American Community Survey data at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/poverty-area-
measures/descriptions-and-maps/.
Congressional Research Service

13

Table 2. Selected Approaches to Identifying Areas of Economic Distress

Program Name or
Appropriation
Strategy/Provision
Agency
Purpose
Definition of Distress
Citations and References
Emergency
USDA, Rural
To assist rural areas that
The area to be served must have a median
7 U.S.C. §1926a
Community Water
Utilities Service
have experienced or
household income not exceeding that of the
7 C.F.R. §1778
Assistance Grants
anticipate a significant
statewide nonmetropolitan median household income.
(ECWAG)
decline in water quantity or
The area to be served must be a rural area, which

quality to ensure they have
is defined by 7 U.S.C. §1991(a)(13)(B) as a county
enough clean water per
with a population of 10,000 or fewer.
standards set by the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Grants
may be made to public
bodies (such as local
governments) or private
nonprofit organizations
serving rural areas.
CRS-14

link to page 20 link to page 20
Program Name or
Appropriation
Strategy/Provision
Agency
Purpose
Definition of Distress
Citations and References
Distressed Area
U.S. Department
To address persistent
A labor market* that has a prime-age**
15 U.S.C. §3722b
Recompete Pilot
of Commerce,
economic distress and
employment gap*** greater than or equal to 2.5

Program
Economic
support long-term,
percentage points, and other criteria that the

(Recompete Pilot)
Development
comprehensive economic
Secretary of Commerce may establish
Administration
development. Grants may

OR
be used for project planning
or implementation
A local community; that is, an area served by a
activities.
general-purpose local government**** that is within
but does not ful y cover a labor market, has a
prime-age employment gap greater than or equal
to 5 percentage points, is not located in a labor
market described in the first paragraph above, has
a median household income of not more than
$75,000, and meets other criteria that the
Secretary of Commerce may establish.
* Labor market = an MSA, commuting zone,a or
tribal area
** Prime-age = 25 to 54
*** Employment gap = The civilian employment-to-
population ratio of the United States (for persons
ages 25 to 54) minus the civilian employment-to-
population ratio for the local area.
**** General-purpose local government = county
governments, township governments, and municipal
governments. The areas served by these
governments generally correspond to county
areas, subcounty areas (minor civil divisions), and
places, respectively.b However, applicants may
define other areas, such as census tracts or other
small areas, that are portions of areas served by
the general-purpose local governments. The
language also includes other entities besides
general-purpose governments as potential
applicants, such as special-purpose entities
engaged in economic development activities.
CRS-15

Program Name or
Appropriation
Strategy/Provision
Agency
Purpose
Definition of Distress
Citations and References
10-20-30 provision for N/A
To ensure that certain
Counties that have had poverty rates of 20% or
The 10-20-30 provision has been
persistent poverty
programs set aside 10% of
greater for at least 30 years, using three data
included in appropriations laws in
counties (PPCs)
funds for use in PPCs. PPCs
points. The data sources to be used for the
order to set aside funding of certain

may be used in other
county poverty rates are specified differently in
programs. See, for example, P.L. 117-
contexts (e.g., directing
the appropriations language for different
58, §21202(a)(1)(A).
specific dol ar amounts
programs. The definition used in this report
This corresponds with the poverty
instead of a 10% set-aside).
reflects the one used in Section 21202(a)(1)(A) of
data specifications for counties
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L.
described in 49 U.S.C.
117-58), which amended 49 U.S.C. §6702
§6702(a)(1)(A).
regarding local and regional project assistance on
multimodal infrastructure investments; that is, this
report uses poverty rates from the 1990 Census,
Census 2000, and the 2021 Small Area Income
and Poverty Estimates. This report uses poverty
rates rounded to the whole number 20 (i.e.,
poverty rates of 19.5% or greater are included).
Source: Compiled by CRS using the citations and references listed above; P.L. 117-167, Division B, Title VI—Miscellaneous Science and Technology Provisions, Subtitle
C, §10621; and U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, “Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (Recompete Pilot Program),” https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/
recompete-pilot-program, and “FY2023 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program Phase 1 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO),” https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/
files/2023-06/Recompete_Pilot_Program_NOFO_phase_1_vF.pdf.
a. Commuting zones, originally published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS), were developed using journey-to-work
data from the decennial census to reflect actual commuting patterns and not treat county lines as if they were true-to-life commuting area boundaries (see
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commuting-zones-and-labor-market-areas/documentation.aspx). USDA ERS has stopped producing commuting zone data; in
their place, it has recommended the work of Dr. Chris Fowler at Pennsylvania State University, who made an effort to continue and update the methods for
producing commuting zones; see https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commuting-zones-and-labor-market-areas/ and https://sites.psu.edu/psucz/data/.
b. U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments, Government Organization: Individual State Descriptions: 2017, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/
econ/2017isd.html.
CRS-16

link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 33 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 18 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 23 link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 36 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Comparing Areas of Economic Distress Under
Selected Policies
The three approaches to identifying economic distress discussed in the policy interventions above
have distinct objectives. The ECWAG program addresses water infrastructure in rural areas, the
Recompete Pilot Program addresses economic development and jobs, and the PPCs provision
mandates that economically distressed counties receive a minimum amount of funding through
certain existing programs. The interventions identify areas of economic distress in different ways,
and as a result, different sets of geographic areas are classified as distressed. The data and figures
discussed below are focused at the county level. However, as noted previously, researchers and
agencies observe that areas of economic distress may be found in certain counties not designated
as distressed.41 Tables with numerical detail are available in Appendix A.
Degree of Geographic Overlap Among the Definitions
Of the nation’s 3,143 county areas, 1,073 (34%) met one or more of the three definitions of
economic distress used by the programs or approaches described above (see also Table A-2). Of
those, 158 counties (15.4%) met two or more of the distress definitions.42 This indicates that these
three sets of criteria mostly do not overlap, but rather identify different counties with different
aspects of economic distress.
The three following maps (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3) geographically illustrate economic
distress specified in the ECWAG program, the Recompete Pilot Program, and PPCs, respectively.
The number of counties by region that meet the distress criteria under each program, and the
regional shares (percentages) of counties under each definition, may be found in Table A-1.
Counties defined as distressed under multiple programs are not broken out separately.
Figure 1 displays counties identified as economically distressed for the ECWAG program, many
of which are in the Great Plains, western mountain areas, northern Michigan, and northern
Wisconsin. However, distressed counties also appear in Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the
Southeast. ECWAG limits eligibility to rural areas with populations of 10,000 or fewer people. As
such, many of the areas classified by ECWAG criteria as economically distressed appear in rural
areas and in low-population counties. As noted earlier, applicants set the project area. They may
use geographic units of measurement other than counties such as towns, census tracts, or villages.
Figure 2 displays counties with high rates of PAEG, subject to the other criteria applied in the
Recompete Pilot Program (as described in Table 2). As in the other figures, the data in Figure 2
are shown at the county level only. As noted earlier, applicants self-define project areas, and they
may use geographic units of measurement other than counties. The counties identified as
distressed in Figure 2 are more widely dispersed throughout all regions of the country, including
along the east and west coasts and in the more populous portions of the Midwest, when compared
to counties in Figure 1. This is likely due to the lack of criteria related to rural status or capping

41 See, for example, ARC, “Distressed Areas Within Counties,” https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economic-distress-in-
appalachian-counties/; and Anthony F. Pipa, Heather M. Stephens, Natalie Geismar, “Defining Distress: Lessons from
the Federally Chartered Regional Commissions,” The Brookings Institution, May 2022, p. 18,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2022_Brookings_Defining-Distress.pdf.
42 These counts are broken out by whether the county area meets the definition of economic distress under ECWAG
only, Recompete only, PPC only, and unique combinations of each of those interventions, in Table A-2 (for numerical
counts), Table A-3 (for the regional shares under each definition or combination of definitions), and Table A-4 (for the
percentage breakouts by program definition within each region).
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 41 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

population size (as is done in ECWAG). The criteria for the Recompete Pilot Program, as
discussed earlier, includes specifications for labor market areas based on metropolitan areas, as
well as for local communities that may include nonmetropolitan areas. Both the labor market
areas and local communities use employment gaps (though local communities must have a
median household income not greater than $75,000 in addition to an employment gap of 5
percentage points, as opposed to solely an employment gap of 2.5 percentage points for labor
market areas). These two mutually exclusive specifications of geographic entities help explain the
dispersion of counties in Figure 2, in that both densely populated and sparsely populated counties
meet the specifications in the Recompete Pilot Program language.
In Figure 3, PPCs are found predominantly in Appalachia, the Southeast, the Mississippi Delta,
some urban areas, and tribal lands, as well as along the southern border. In classifying a county as
a PPC, the specification that the county have persistently high poverty (and not just temporarily
high poverty) suggests historical, structural, and other reasons for the classification of such
counties. Because these areas named above have histories that are distinct from each other and
from the rest of the country politically, economically, and socially, policymakers seeking to
address poverty in these areas may benefit from a thorough reading of their histories, with
emphasis on the similarities and differences by which their residents have experienced poverty.
Selected references discussing these areas are presented in Appendix C.
Congressional Research Service

18

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Figure 1. Map of Counties Using Population and Income Specifications in Program
Language for the Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant Program
(ECWAG)
Comparison of the county’s median household income with that of the nonmetropolitan portion of the
state, among counties with 10,000 or fewer persons

Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey,
2021 Five-Year Estimates, Table S1903, “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2021 Inflation-Adjusted
Dol ars),” for counties, county subdivisions, places, and state nonmetropolitan areas; U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Estimates Program, population estimates base for April 1, 2020, “Subcounty Total Resident
Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” SUB-IP-EST2022-POP.csv, and “County Population Estimates (Vintage
2022),” CO-EST2022-ALLDATA.csv.

Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 18

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Figure 2. Map of Counties Using Specifications on Age, Employment-to-Population
Ratio, Labor Market, and Median Income, Used in the Recompete Pilot Program

Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool, Argonne National
Laboratory, https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/Recompete/.
Notes: The map displays county-level data only; the Recompete Pilot Program allows applicants to use other
geographic areas, such as census tracts and tribal lands, to define their project area. “Eligible” and “Partially
Eligible” areas as shown above are categorizations used by the Recompete Mapping Tool: they do not take into
account any further criteria that the Secretary of Commerce may establish as set forth in the Recompete Pilot
Program legislation, nor should they be considered guarantees of receiving funding; conversely, areas in gray that
apply might be considered eligible for a similar reason. “Partially Eligible” indicates areas in which the Mapping
Tool may show census tracts that fit the eligibility criteria even though the entire county area does not meet
them. The figure does not display U.S. territories or the boundaries of tribal lands, which EDA has determined
to be eligible to participate in the program.
For details on the Recompete Pilot Program specifications, see Table 2.

Congressional Research Service

20

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Figure 3. Persistent Poverty Counties Using Poverty Rates in 1989, 1999, and 2021

Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Census 2000, and
2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
Distribution of Distressed Counties, by Census Region
Analyzing the distribution of economically distressed counties by census region can help in
summarizing how different definitions of distress target different parts of the country. The census
regions are defined by four groups of states listed in the text box below, as categorized by the
Census Bureau, and reflect broad historical patterns of settlement and economic organization. The
analysis below compares the number of economically distressed county areas for each region
with the region’s total number of counties to determine, for each measure of economic distress,
whether the region has a disproportionately larger or smaller share of counties compared with the
region’s share of counties overall. This analysis focuses on each region’s share of counties (i.e.,
the geographic areas themselves) as opposed to shares of the population.
Congressional Research Service

21

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

States in Each Census Region
Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont
Midwest: Kansas, Il inois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, Wisconsin
South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,* Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia
West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Oregon,
Washington, Wyoming
*treated in Census Bureau datasets as a state equivalent

Figure 4. Regional Shares of Counties by Selected Economic Distress Criteria
Regions as defined by the Census Bureau

Source: Congressional Research Service, using the fol owing data:
ECWAG: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2021 Five-Year Estimates, Table S1903, “Median
Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2021 Inflation-Adjusted Dol ars),” for counties, county subdivisions, places, and
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 26 link to page 30 link to page 26 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

state nonmetropolitan areas; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, population estimates base for
April 1, 2020, “Subcounty Total Resident Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” SUB-IP-EST2022-POP.csv, and
“County Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” CO-EST2022-ALLDATA.csv.
Recompete Pilot Program: Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool, Argonne National Laboratory,
https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/Recompete/.
Persistent poverty counties: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Census 2000, and 2021 Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates.
Notes: U.S. totals do not include Puerto Rico or U.S. Territories. Percentages may not sum to 100.0% because
of rounding.
ECWAG: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Emergency Community Water Assistance
Grant Program.
Recompete: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Recompete Pilot Program.
Persistent poverty counties: counties that have had poverty rates of 19.5% or greater in 1989, 1999, and 2021
(according to the 1990 Census, Census 2000, and 2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, respectively).
For lists of states by region, see the “States in Each Census Region” textbox.
ECWAG Program
In comparing each region’s share of economically distressed counties with its share of all counties
(Figure 4), under the definition used in the ECWAG program, disproportionately greater shares
of counties were defined as distressed in the Midwest (42.9% compared with 33.6%) and West
(24.1% compared with 14.3%), while disproportionately lower shares were found in the
Northeast (0.9% compared with 6.9%) and South (32.2% compared with 45.2%).
These differences can be explained by the prevalence of low-population counties by region (see
Table 3). As noted, the ECWAG definition includes a requirement that the area population not
exceed 10,000. Among counties of 10,000 persons or fewer, the Midwest and West have
disproportionately greater shares (meaning the percentage of small-population counties in column
D is greater than the percentage of all counties in column B) and the Northeast and South have
disproportionately smaller shares. These differences are also reflected in the median populations
by region (column E): the median populations among counties in the Midwest (19,872) and West
(22,734) are smaller than the overall U.S. median (25,697), while in the Northeast and South they
are larger (105,744 and 25,905, respectively). These differences underscore that the ECWAG
program targets rural counties, which the program defines by population.
Recompete Pilot Program
Using the Recompete Pilot Program’s criteria as a proxy for economic distress, the results are
nearly reversed from ECWAG’s results (Figure 4). The Northeast and South have comparatively
larger shares of distressed counties than all counties generally, while the Midwest has a smaller
share (25.2% compared with 33.6%) and the West’s share is close to being proportional (14.2%
compared with 14.3%).
As noted, the Recompete Pilot Program uses two primary ways of classifying potentially eligible
areas—LLMs and LCs. Both approaches include criteria for median income and employment-to-
population ratio thresholds (via the program’s PAEG). However, LLMs also use the metropolitan
area status as the geographic basis for the eligible area. The Recompete Pilot includes more
counties in the Northeast than does ECWAG, in part because of how the Recompete Pilot
includes MSAs in its definition of LLMs. While Northeastern states tend to have relatively higher
incomes compared to other parts of the country, they also have many MSAs (as evidenced by the
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 26 link to page 25 link to page 21 link to page 25 link to page 30 link to page 18 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

median county population of 105,744 in the Northeast—well above the 50,000 population mark
for urban areas used in delineating MSAs).43
Because MSAs are more abundant near the coasts and inland waterways than in the country’s
interior,44 a greater share of the land in the Midwest and West lies outside of any MSA as
compared with the Northeast and South.
Densely populated areas may be considered eligible under the Recompete Pilot Program but not
ECWAG because ECWAG’s eligibility criteria include a maximum population size (both to
define rural areas and to focus on them).45 Because of the relative abundance of MSAs in the
Northeast and South, these regions have disproportionately greater shares of eligible counties
under the Recompete Pilot Program, compared with both their shares under ECWAG and their
shares of all U.S. counties. Additionally, the EDA’s program guidance identifies an entire MSA
(which may be made up of multiple counties) as eligible if its PAEG is at least 2.5 percentage
points. Further, smaller areas that are within nonqualifying MSAs might also be considered
eligible if the smaller area has a PAEG of 5 percentage points or greater and a median household
income at or below $75,000.
Persistent Poverty Counties (PPCs)
The greatest share of PPCs is in the South (Figure 4). As noted in the discussion of Figure 3 in
the “Degree of Geographic Overlap Among the Definitions” section, the persistence of poverty
over time, as required by the PPC definition, highlighted specific areas such as Appalachia, the
Southeast and Mississippi Delta, tribal areas, and the southern border (see Figure 3) that have
historical legacies and economic histories distinct from one another and the rest of the country.
Many of these areas are located in the South region, with notable exceptions in other regions,
particularly among tribal lands and certain urban areas. Given the persistence of high poverty
rates in these disparate areas, a policy tool—a set-aside to dedicate 10% of program funds to be
directed to PPCs—was developed to be used across a wide variety of programs, from rural
development to brownfield remediation.46
In addition to a historical lack of resources in PPCs throughout the South, another factor amplifies
their presence in this region: the same poverty thresholds are used throughout the country and are
not adjusted for regional variations in the costs of basic goods and services. As stated previously,
a poverty threshold is a dollar amount representing a low level of basic needs; families with
income below that amount are considered poor. Because the official poverty thresholds are the
same nationwide, poverty status under the official measure does not reflect the same purchasing
power nationwide. That is, because the official measure classifies a low-income family as poor if
its income is below the threshold, it means if they live in an area with low average wages and low
prices for basic goods, their purchasing power may be the same as another family with income

43 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “2020 Standards for
Delineating Core Based Statistical Areas,” Federal Register, July 16, 2021, 86 Federal Register 37770,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/07/16/2021-15159/2020-standards-for-delineating-core-based-
statistical-areas#h-27. Each region’s median county population is shown in Table 3.
44 This may be observed in the latest available Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas Wall Map at
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/us_wall/Mar2020/CBSA_WallMap_Mar2020.pdf. MSAs are shaded
dark green, µSAs in light green, and unshaded areas—located primarily in the central plains, mountainous regions, and
northern borders—are neither metropolitan nor micropolitan.
45 As noted in Table 2, areas potentially eligible for the Recompete Pilot Program exist outside of densely populated
areas and MSAs as well.
46 For further discussion, see CRS Report R45100, The 10-20-30 Provision: Defining Persistent Poverty Counties, by
Joseph Dalaker.
Congressional Research Service

24

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

above the threshold, and not classified as poor, if the second family lives in an area with higher
average wages and prices. Prices of goods and services, particularly for housing, tend to be lower
in the South and Midwest than in the Northeast and West.47

47 One metric computed on a quarterly basis for the four regions, the median sales price of houses sold (not seasonally
adjusted), illustrates the differences in costs by region (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, using data from the U.S.
Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/
MSPNE, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPMW, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPS, and
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPW). In Quarter 2 of 2023, median sales prices were $789,600 in the Northeast,
$397,600 in the Midwest, $371,200 in the South, and $547,900 in the West.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30
Table 3. County Population Statistics by Region
As of April 1, 2020

A
B
C
D
E

F
G

H
I

Number of
Share of
Counties with Counties with
County
Populations
Populations at
Median
with
Lowest
County with
Highest
Number of
Share of
at or Below
or Below
County
Lowest
County
Highest
County
Region
Counties
Counties
10,000a
10,000a
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Northeastb
217
6.9%
6
0.8%
105,744 Cameron
4,546 Kings County,
2,736,075
County, PA
NYc
Midwest
1,055
33.6%
329
44.9%
19,872 McPherson
400 Cook County,
5,275,522
County, NE
ILd
South
1,422
45.2%
252
34.4%
25,905 Loving
63 Harris County,
4,731,129
County, TX
TXe
West
449
14.3%
146
19.9%
22,734 Kalawao
80 Los Angeles
10,014,042
County, HI
County, CAf
U.S.
3,143
100.0%
733
100.0%
25,697 Loving
63 Los Angeles
10,014,042
County, TX
County, CA
Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, population estimates base for April 1, 2020, “County
Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” CO-EST2022-ALLDATA.csv, and “Change to County-Equivalents in the State of Connecticut,” 87 Federal Register 34235, Table 2.
Notes: For lists of states by region, see the “States in Each Census Region” textbox. Medians computed by CRS using the univariate procedure in SAS.
a. Definition of rural used in ECWAG.
b. Number of counties shown predates the revised delineation of counties in the state of Connecticut, which in 2022 went from eight to nine counties. For details, see
U.S. Census Bureau, “Change to County-Equivalents in the State of Connecticut,” 87 Federal Register 34235, June 6, 2022, https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2022/06/06/2022-12063/change-to-county-equivalents-in-the-state-of-connecticut.
c. Generally known as the borough of Brooklyn, part of the city of New York; located within the New York-Newark-Jersey City Metropolitan Statistical Area.
d. County seat is Chicago; located within the Chicago-Napervil e-Elgin Metropolitan Statistical Area.
e. County seat is Houston; located within the Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land Metropolitan Statistical Area.
f.
County seat is the City of Los Angeles; located within the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area.
CRS-26

link to page 37 Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Policy Considerations
Congress may choose to keep the criteria for economically distressed areas as they currently
stand; or, if Congress chooses to change the criteria or develop new ones, it may consider the
following:
• economic and demographic measures,
• eligibility options based on different units of geography, and
• data sources and their limitations and availability.
Economic and Demographic Criteria
The three examples of economically distressed area definitions featured in this report target
different types of communities. Congress may want to consider what types of communities it
would want to target and use these examples as models. For example, if Congress is interested in
targeting low-income rural communities, it may want to consider establishing a definition of
economic distress similar to that used in the ECWAG program, which includes median household
income and a maximum population cutoff (such as areas of 10,000 or fewer people). If Congress
is interested in targeting historically poor areas in the United States, it may want to consider using
measures similar to those used in the PPCs designation. That designation considers poverty rates
over time. If Congress is interested in targeting communities with low employment levels, it may
want to consider using the Recompete Pilot Program’s definition as a model and use labor force
statistics, such as EPOP (as is used in Recompete) or the unemployment rate, to be compared
either with the national average (as is done in Recompete) or against a fixed benchmark
percentage.
Geography
Some definitions of economically distressed area require that the project area be a specific type
of geographic area (e.g., PPCs use counties as the project area). Other definitions allow the
applicant to determine the project area (e.g., in the ECWAG program). In that case, the project
area can range from multiple counties to an unincorporated area. See Appendix B for a list of
possible geographic areas that may be used, and for which data are published. Congress may want
to consider whether to specify which geographic area type may be used to classify an area as
economically distressed. The benefit of specifying the geographic area is that it may be more
likely that data would be readily available for the project area from tables published by the
Census Bureau. The drawback is a lack of flexibility; for instance, small communities in need
within more affluent larger communities may not qualify. For example, if the geographic area
were specified to use only county-level estimates, an unincorporated area with a low median
household income located within a county with a high median income may not qualify as
economically distressed.
Data Source
As previously mentioned, many of the definitions of economically distressed area use household
survey data from the Census Bureau to confirm project areas meet the criteria. Household survey
data may not accurately reflect current conditions for several reasons, including coverage (e.g.,
the unhoused population not being surveyed because sampling is performed using housing units),
lag time between the collection of data and making the data publicly available, potential for low
Congressional Research Service

27

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

response rates for small areas or populations, and estimates not being precise for small areas
because they are based on a sample and not the entire population. Some definitions of economic
distress allow the Secretary for the federal program or initiative to use his or her discretion to
allow alternative sources of data to be used, such as administrative records or other sources of
federally collected data. Congress may want to consider whether to allow alternative data sources
to be used at the discretion of the respective Secretary. A potential benefit in allowing alternative
data sources to be used is that these sources, such as administrative records or locally obtained
information, may be more accurate than household surveys in determining which project areas
should qualify. On the other hand, a potential drawback is that the alternative data sources may
not have data that are as accurate as household surveys—the accuracy for which has been
thoroughly investigated and quantified wherever possible—and it could potentially take
additional time to review each application and evaluate the evidence presented.
Concluding Remarks
This report examines three distinct ways Congress has used various criteria in statute, in three
programs or policy contexts, to direct agencies to focus funding and other resources on
economically distressed areas. The interventions were designed to serve different purposes. The
ECWAG program was designed to provide grants for water infrastructure to sparsely populated
rural areas that need it and may not have the resources to build it or clean it on their own. The
Recompete Pilot Program was designed to spur economic development in a variety of locations,
which may include both rural and urban areas. Funding set-asides for PPCs were designed to limit
the degree to which administrators in any number of programs overlook areas with persistently
high poverty for funding opportunities, in favor of areas with more resources.
The approaches described in this report were selected in order to illustrate that different economic
distress criteria result in distinct regions being eligible for different policies. The criteria used to
measure aspects of economic distress in the three examples examined here—the ECWAG
program, the Recompete Pilot Program, and the set-asides for PPCs in appropriations
legislation—identified different geographic areas with considerable lack of overlap. The
differences among the areas deemed eligible for assistance from the three interventions stem from
the following:
• the use of a rural definition in the ECWAG program that focuses on counties of
10,000 or fewer persons,
• the inclusion of MSAs in one of the eligibility pathways for the Recompete Pilot
Program, which correlate to areas with large populations (unlike the definition of
rural used by the ECWAG program in its eligibility criteria), and
• the use of high county-level poverty rates for over 30 years for PPCs, which calls
attention to counties where poor economic conditions have been particularly
entrenched, and for which the measure (poverty) applies to areas with either large
or small populations.
As Congress conducts oversight on existing programs and considers new programs, it may seek
to understand how economic distress criteria impact the distribution of program funds.

Congressional Research Service

28

Appendix A. Number and Percentage of Economically Distressed Counties
by Region
Table A-1. Number of Counties Defined as Economically Distressed and Percentage of All U.S. Economically Distressed
Counties, by Region and Definition of Distress
(Counties may be considered distressed under more than one definition)
Total Number of Counties

ECWAG
Recompete Pilot
PPCs
(without regard to distress)
Region
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Northeast
4
0.9
28
8.8
2
0.5
217
6.9
Midwest
196
42.9
80
25.2
35
8.5
1,055
33.6
South
147
32.2
164
51.7
345
83.3
1,422
45.2
West
110
24.1
45
14.2
32
7.7
449
14.3
U.S. totals
457
100.0
317
100.0
414
100.0
3,143
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from the fol owing:
ECWAG: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2021 Five-Year Estimates, Table S1903, “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2021 Inflation-Adjusted
Dol ars),” for counties, county subdivisions, places, and state nonmetropolitan areas; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, population estimates base for
April 1, 2020, “Subcounty Total Resident Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” SUB-IP-EST2022-POP.csv, and “County Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” CO-
EST2022-ALLDATA.csv.
Recompete Pilot: Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool, Argonne National Laboratory, https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/Recompete/.
PPCs: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Census 2000, and 2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
Notes: U.S. totals do not include Puerto Rico. Percentages may not sum to 100.0% because of rounding.
ECWAG: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant program.
Recompete Pilot: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Recompete Pilot Program.
PPCs: persistent poverty counties—counties that have had poverty rates of 19.5% or greater in 1989, 1999, and 2021 (according to the 1990 Census, Census 2000, and
2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, respectively).
For lists of states by region, see the “States in Each Census Region” textbox.

CRS-29

Table A-2. Number of Economically Distressed Counties by Region and Definition
(Columns are mutually exclusive: counties defined as economically distressed under multiple definitions are broken out separately)
Regional
Total
Total of
Number of
ECWAG
Distressed
Counties
and
Recompete
Counties
(without
ECWAG
Recompete
Recompete
ECWAG
Pilot and
All Three
(any
regard to
Region
Only
Pilot Only
PPCs Only
Pilot
and PPCs
PPCs
Definitions
definition)
distress)
Northeast
4
26
0
0
0
2
0
32
217
Midwest
166
64
14
10
15
1
5
275
1,055
South
64
138
244
3
78
21
2
550
1,422
West
90
35
20
9
11
1
0
166
449
U.S. totals
324
263
278
22
104
25
7
1,023
3,143
Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from the fol owing:
ECWAG: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2021 Five-Year Estimates, Table S1903, “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2021 Inflation-Adjusted
Dol ars),” for counties, county subdivisions, places, and state nonmetropolitan areas; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, population estimates base for
April 1, 2020, “Subcounty Total Resident Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” SUB-IP-EST2022-POP.csv, and “County Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” CO-
EST2022-ALLDATA.csv.
Recompete Pilot: Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool, Argonne National Laboratory, https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/Recompete/
PPCs: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Census 2000, and 2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
Notes: U.S. totals do not include Puerto Rico.
ECWAG: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant program.
Recompete Pilot: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Recompete Pilot Program.
PPCs: persistent poverty counties—counties that have had poverty rates of 19.5% or greater in 1989, 1999, and 2021 (according to the 1990 Census, Census 2000, and
2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, respectively).
For lists of states by region, see the “States in Each Census Region” textbox.

CRS-30

link to page 34
Table A-3. Regional Shares of Economically Distressed Counties
(Columns are mutually exclusive: counties defined as economically distressed under multiple definitions are broken out separately.
These are column percentages of the data shown in Table A-2)
Regional
Regional
Share of
Share of
Counties
all U.S.
That Met
Counties
ECWAG and ECWAG Recompete
Any
(distressed
ECWAG
Recompete
PPCs
Recompete
and
Pilot and
All Three
Distress
and not
Region
Only
Pilot Only
Only
Pilot
PPCs
PPCs
Definitions Definition distressed)
Northeast
1.2
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
3.1
6.9
Midwest
51.2
24.3
5.0
45.5
14.4
4.0
71.4
26.9
33.6
South
19.8
52.5
87.8
13.6
75.0
84.0
28.6
53.8
45.2
West
27.8
13.3
7.2
40.9
10.6
4.0
0.0
16.2
14.3
U.S. totals
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from the fol owing:
ECWAG: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2021 Five-Year Estimates, Table S1903, “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2021 Inflation-Adjusted
Dol ars),” for counties, county subdivisions, places, and state nonmetropolitan areas; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, population estimates base for
April 1, 2020, “Subcounty Total Resident Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” SUB-IP-EST2022-POP.csv, and “County Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” CO-
EST2022-ALLDATA.csv.
Recompete Pilot: Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool, Argonne National Laboratory, https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/Recompete/.
PPCs: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Census 2000, and 2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
Notes: U.S. totals do not include Puerto Rico.
ECWAG: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant Program.
Recompete Pilot: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Recompete Pilot Program.
PPCs: persistent poverty counties—counties that have had poverty rates of 19.5% or greater in 1989, 1999, and 2021 (according to the 1990 Census, Census 2000, and
2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, respectively).
For lists of states by region, see the “States in Each Census Region” textbox.

CRS-31

link to page 34
Table A-4. Percent Distribution of Distressed Counties, by Definition, within Region
(Columns are mutually exclusive: counties defined as economically distressed under multiple definitions are broken out separately.
These are row percentages of the data shown in Table A-2)
ECWAG and
Recompete
ECWAG
Recompete
PPCs
Recompete
ECWAG
Pilot and
All Three
Any Distress
Region
Only
Pilot Only
Only
Pilot
and PPCs
PPCs
Definitions
Definition
Northeast
12.5
81.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
100.0
Midwest
60.4
23.3
5.1
3.6
5.5
0.4
1.8
100.0
South
11.6
25.1
44.4
0.5
14.2
3.8
0.4
100.0
West
54.2
21.1
12.0
5.4
6.6
0.6
0.0
100.0
U.S. totals
31.7
25.7
27.2
2.2
10.2
2.4
0.7
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from the fol owing:
ECWAG: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2021 Five-Year Estimates, Table S1903, “Median Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2021 Inflation-Adjusted
Dol ars),” for counties, county subdivisions, places, and state nonmetropolitan areas; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, population estimates base for
April 1, 2020, “Subcounty Total Resident Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” SUB-IP-EST2022-POP.csv, and “County Population Estimates (Vintage 2022),” CO-
EST2022-ALLDATA.csv.
Recompete Pilot: Argonne National Laboratory, Recompete Eligibility Mapping Tool, https://disgeoportal.egs.anl.gov/Recompete/
PPCs: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Census 2000, and 2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.
Notes: U.S. totals do not include Puerto Rico. Percentages may not sum to 100.0% because of rounding.
ECWAG: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant program.
Recompete Pilot: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Recompete Pilot Program.
PPCs: persistent poverty counties—counties that have had poverty rates of 19.5% or greater in 1989, 1999, and 2021 (according to the 1990 Census, Census 2000, and
2021 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, respectively).
For lists of states by region, see the “States in Each Census Region” textbox.

CRS-32

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Appendix B. Geographic Area Definitions
Census Tracts
Census tracts are small geographic areas with populations typically between 1,200 and 8,000
(approximately 4,000 on average) that are contained wholly within counties and are designed,
where possible, to have recognizable physical boundaries and to have a stable population over
time.48 Census tracts are sometimes split or merged to accommodate changes in population
density that have occurred in an area. For many economic and demographic detailed
characteristics, the census tract is the smallest geographic area for which data are published.
Places
Places correspond roughly to cities and villages in general parlance. That is, they have a
population center and a name generally recognizable to residents of the area. Places may be
incorporated places, meaning a city with a municipal government; or census-designated,
meaning a known population center without a municipal government.49 Places are not defined by
any specific minimum nor maximum population size. Five incorporated places had populations of
zero persons as of April 1, 2020 (Census Day for the 2020 census): these are areas that remain
incorporated according to the laws of their respective states but had lost their entire populations.50
According to the Census Bureau’s Geographic Areas Reference Manual, “the Census Bureau
includes, in the decennial census, all active incorporated places and inactive incorporated places
for which it has certified corporate limits as of January 1 of the census year (the date used to
tabulate the census results).”51 The most populous place in the United States is New York City,
which had a population of 8,804,194 as of April 1, 2020, and which encompasses five county
areas (Bronx County, Kings County, New York County, Queens County, and Richmond County,
which correspond to the boroughs of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island,
respectively).52
Despite numerous exceptions and the absence of any definitional requirement to be bound within
a single county, places are generally smaller than counties. As of April 1, 2020, among all 19,519
incorporated places in the United States, the median population was 1,132 (half of all
incorporated places had fewer than 1,132 persons and half had more).53

48 For further details on census tracts, see the Census Bureau’s online glossary of geographic terms at
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html#par_textimage_13.
49 For further details about places, see the Census Bureau’s online glossary of geographic terms at
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html#par_textimage_14.
50 For example, Carbonate, CO, has had an active municipal government since November 4, 2014, by vote of
nonresident property owners even though there were no permanent residents. John Stroud, Glenwood Springs Post
Independent, “Yes, that’s a town – by 9-0 vote,” November 8, 2014, online version archived at https://web.archive.org/
web/20170306212623/.
51 U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic Areas Reference Manual, Chapter 9, “Places,” https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/
reference/GARM/Ch9GARM.pdf.
52 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, City and Town Population Totals: 2020-2022,
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-cities-and-towns.html; see specifically Table
SUB-IP-EST2022-POP, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in the United States:
April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022, released May 2023, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2020-
2022/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2022-POP.xlsx.
53 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

33

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

County Subdivisions (Townships)
County subdivisions are smaller than counties, and are defined by geographic area rather than by
population center. They are “the primary divisions of counties and equivalent entities.”54 In 20
states, there are general-purpose local governments associated with these geographic areas
(specifically, the county subdivisions termed minor civil divisions as opposed to unorganized
areas or census-defined areas), which the Census Bureau identifies as township governments.55
These are distinct from municipal governments (which may be found in all states) or other
entities such as election districts. As explained by the Census Bureau, “[an] incorporated place is
established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a
minor civil division, which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without
regard, necessarily, to population.”56
The term town has been used in common parlance in different states to refer either to
municipalities or to township governments, or to the geographic areas associated with those
governments, and thus the term requires additional clarification when precision is needed.
Counties
The term county may refer either to a geographic area or a type of general-purpose government.
There are 3,143 geographic areas that the Census Bureau includes in its county-level statistics for
the 50 states and the District of Columbia. County populations as of April 1, 2020, ranged from
63 in Loving County, TX, to 10,014,042 in Los Angeles County, CA57; the median population
was 25,697.58
Of the geographic areas that the Census Bureau includes in its county-level data, not all are called
counties and not all have county governments. The umbrella term county area includes parishes
in Louisiana, boroughs in Alaska, some areas in which a large city and its surrounding county
have been consolidated into one entity (such as Suffolk County, MA, which is administered by
the city of Boston, or Honolulu city and county in Hawaii), as well as cities that are outside of
any county (such as Washington, DC, and independent cities in Virginia). In Puerto Rico, the
areas called municipios correspond to county-level geographic areas. Further, the states of
Connecticut and Rhode Island have county areas in a geographic sense but no county
governments associated with them, as township governments in those states provide the wide

54 See the U.S. Census Bureau’s online glossary of geographic terms at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/
geography/about/glossary.html#par_textimage_11.
55 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments, Government Organization: Individual State Descriptions: 2017,
p. 4, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/econ/2017isd.html.
56 U.S. Census Bureau, “Geographic Terms and Concepts—Place,”
www.census.gov/geo/www/2010census/gtc/gtc_place.html, accessed September 1, 2011 (link not working as of August
1, 2023), cited in U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Individual State Descriptions: 2012, p. viii,
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/econ/2012isd.html.
57 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, County Population Totals and Components of Change: 2020-
2022, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html. The data are provided in
Excel and as a comma-delimited dataset: CO-EST2022-POP, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022, at https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2020-2022/
counties/totals/co-est2022-pop.xlsx and co-est2022-alldata.csv, respectively.
58 Ibid.; median computed by CRS using the univariate procedure in SAS on the dataset co-est2022-alldata.csv.
Congressional Research Service

34

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

range of general-purpose government services that in some other states would be provided by the
county government.59
Metropolitan Areas
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and their smaller counterparts Micropolitan Statistical
Areas (µSAs)60 together constitute Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), which are delineated
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). CBSAs are composed of one or more entire
counties, and have “a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having
a high degree of social and economic integration with that core.”61 CBSAs are not linked to any
one type of local government, and typically multiple local governments exist within their borders.
The fact that CBSAs are composed of one or more entire counties, the borders of which are well-
known to most laypersons, is convenient for identifying which entities are inside or outside of
CBSAs and determining which areas within a state are nonmetropolitan (i.e., outside of MSAs).
As a concept for geographically based statistics (not necessarily for programmatic purposes),
OMB first delineated CBSAs in 2000, modifying the older concept of MSAs to recognize and
take account of recent building development patterns and how the spatial distribution of
residences and businesses has changed since the mid-20th century. Program legislation and
administrative rules written before 2000, therefore, likely will refer to MSAs instead of CBSAs; it
is generally prudent to verify whether the appropriate executive agency reinterpreted the language
to include µSAs or if the legislation had been amended in some other way to include them.62
Urban and Rural
The term rural can evoke an image of farms, unsettled lands, and an absence of cities (which are
characterized by a large population with many buildings located close to one another). However,
specifying that image numerically using measures of population or land usage presents a variety
of choices that could be made to classify areas that do not clearly reflect either pole of rural or
urban. As a result, the definitions of rural or urban for the purposes of economic development
programs vary from program to program, and may not reflect the Census Bureau’s classification
schema.63 For the USDA Water and Waste Disposal Program established by the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act of 1961, rural areas are defined as those with populations of
10,000 or fewer; for the USDA Community Facilities Loan and Grant Program established by the

59 Further information about the presence and services offered by county governments, as well as on county-type areas
without county governments, may be found at U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments, Government
Organization: Individual State Descriptions: 2017, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/econ/
2017isd.html.
60 The lowercase Greek letter mu (µ) stands for “micropolitan” in this use case.
61 U.S. Census Bureau, “About Metropolitan and Micropolitan,” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/metro-
micro/about.html. The description of these criteria mirrors the language in 2010 Federal Register notice that delineated
metropolitan and micropolitan areas: see OMB, “2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas,” Federal Register, vol. 75 no. 123, June 28, 2010, p. 37246, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
FR-2010-06-28/pdf/2010-15605.pdf.
62 For details on the defining characteristics of CBSAs, the history of the MSA as a concept, and OMB’s stated role in
delineating CBSAs for statistical and not programmatic purposes, see U.S. Census Bureau, “About Metropolitan and
Micropolitan,” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/metro-micro/about.html.
63 For examples of how the definition of rural varies in different USDA rural development programs, see CRS Report
R47510, Rural Definitions Used for Eligibility Requirements in USDA Rural Development Programs, coordinated by
Lisa S. Benson. For an explanation of how the Census Bureau defines urban, and by extension rural, see
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html.
Congressional Research Service

35

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

same act, rural areas are those with 20,000 or fewer inhabitants; and at the Census Bureau, the
concept is more complicated, with population, land usage, and distance all considered together
using a set of rules.64

64 An overview of the Census Bureau’s latest revised definition (for the 2020 census), in the form of answers to
frequently asked questions, may be found at https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/
Census_UA_2020FAQs_Feb2023.pdf#page=5.
Congressional Research Service

36

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Appendix C. Selected References on the Histories
and Economies of Areas with Persistent Poverty
Counties
Appalachia
• James Ziliak, “Introduction: Progress and Prospects for Appalachia,” in
Appalachian Legacy: Economic Opportunity after the War on Poverty, Brookings
Institution Press, 2012, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/
appalachianlegacy_chapter.pdf
• Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Then and Now: Examining
Changes to the Appalachian Region Since 1965, 2015, https://www.arc.gov/
report/appalachia-then-and-now-1965-2015/
• Ronald D. Eller, “The War on Poverty in Appalachia,” keynote address at “A
Region Reflects: Seeking Truth, Seeking Vision” conference, Ohio University,
Athens, OH, 2014, https://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/IRJCI/
EllerPovertyWarAppalachiaOhioU.pdf
• Shelley Smith Mastran and Nan Lowerre, “Federal Development of the Southern
Appalachians, 1960-81,” Chapter VII in Mountaineers and Rangers: A History of
Federal Forest Management in the Southern Appalachians, 1900-81, Forest
Service publication FS-380, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983,
http://www.npshistory.com/publications/usfs/region/8/history/chap7.htm
• Trish Kahle, “Overview: Coal Mining and Labor Conflict,” Energy History
Online, Yale University, 2023, https://energyhistory.yale.edu/coal-mining-and-
labor-conflict/.
Southeast and Mississippi Delta
• James Giesen, “Sharecropping,” New Georgia Encyclopedia, last modified
September 29, 2020, https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-
archaeology/sharecropping/
• Ronald L.F. Davis, “Sharecropping,” Mississippi Encyclopedia, University of
Mississippi Center for the Study of Southern Culture, last modified April 15,
2018, http://mississippiencyclopedia.org/entries/sharecropping/
• Bradley L. Hardy, Trevon D. Logan, and John Parman, The Historical Role of
Race and Policy for Regional Inequality, The Hamilton Project, 2018,
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/paper/the-historical-role-of-race-
and-policy-for-regional-inequality/
• Heather O’Connell, “The Impact of Slavery on Racial Inequality in the
Contemporary U.S. South,” Social Forces, March 2012, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 713-
734, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41682675
• Regina S. Baker, “The Historical Racial Regime and Racial Inequality in Poverty
in the American South,” American Journal of Sociology, 2022, vol. 127, no. 6,
pp. 1721-1781, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719653

Congressional Research Service

37

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

Southern Border Colonias
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Colonias History,”
HUDExchange website, https://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-colonias/colonias-
history/ (accessed December 27, 2023).
• Jane E. Larson, “Free Markets Deep in the Heart of Texas,” Georgetown Law
Journal 1995, vol. 84, pp. 179-260, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=
hein.journals/glj84&i=199
• Richard Delgado, “Rodrigo’s Twelfth Chronicle: The Problem of the Shanty
Chronicle,” Georgetown Law Journal, 1996, vol. 85, pp. 667-690,
https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_articles/409
Urban Areas
• Francesco Andreoli, Arnaud Mertens, Mauro Mussini, and Vincenzo Prete,
“Understanding trends and drivers of urban poverty in American cities,”
Empirical Economics, 2022, vol. 63, pp. 1663-1705, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00181-021-02174-5
• Patrick Sharkey, Bryan Graham et al., Mobility and the Metropolis, The Pew
Charitable Trusts, 2013, https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/
uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2013/mobilityandthemetropolispdf
• August Benzow and Kenan Fikri, The Persistence of Neighborhood Poverty:
Examining the Power of Inertia and the Rarity of Neighborhood Turnaround
Across U.S. Cities, Neighborhood Poverty Project, Economic Innovation Group,
2020, https://eig.org/neighborhood-poverty-project/neighborhood-turnaround/
• Margery Austin Turner et al., Tackling Persistent Poverty in Distressed Urban
Neighborhoods: History, Principles, and Strategies for Philanthropic Investment,
Urban Institute, 2014, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
22761/413179-tackling-persistent-poverty-in-distressed-urban-
neighborhoods.pdf
Tribal Lands
• Narayana Kocherlakota, “Persistent Poverty on Indian Reservations: New
Perspectives and Responses,” remarks at the 2015 Federal Reserve System
Community Development Research Conference, Washington, DC, 2015,
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/speeches/2015/persistent-poverty-on-indian-
reservations-new-perspectives-and-responses
• Sara Usha Maillacheruvu, The Historical Determinants of Food Insecurity in
Native Communities, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2022,
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-historical-determinants-of-
food-insecurity-in-native-communities
• K. Whitney Mauer, “Indian Country Poverty: Place-Based Poverty on American
Indian Territories, 2006-10,” Rural Sociology, 2017, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 473-498,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ruso.12130
• Donna Feir, Rob Gillezeau, and Maggie E.C. Jones, “The Slaughter of the Bison
and Reversal of Fortunes on the Great Plains,” CICD Working Paper 2019-01,
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Center on Indian Country Development,
Congressional Research Service

38

Identifying Areas of Economic Distress: Examples and Considerations

• 2019, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/cicd-working-paper-series/the-
slaughter-of-the-bison-and-reversal-of-fortunes-on-the-great-plains

Author Information

Joseph Dalaker
Lisa S. Benson
Analyst in Social Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Julie M. Lawhorn

Analyst in Economic Development Policy

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Calvin DeSouza, CRS Geospatial Information Systems Analyst, for assistance
with the maps; Amber Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist, for graphical assistance; Alyse Minter,
CRS Research Librarian, for assistance compiling existing studies that correlated economic and social
indicators with homelessness; and Sarah Braun, CRS Research Librarian, for assistance compiling
historical information on persistent poverty counties.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R48059 · VERSION 1 · NEW
39

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 2, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Agricultural Policy

Domestic Social Policy

Economic Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON