x

Frequently Asked Questions

 

1. Why is it Important to map Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)?

States have broad discretion to tailor state-defined Disadvantaged Communities, a critical aspect determining how and if underserved communities can access and benefit from Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRFs). DAC status unlocks eligibility to more favorable financing terms, grants, and principal forgiveness. To get a deeper understanding of how DAC status and other factors impact a community’s ability to qualify for subsidized funding for water infrastructure projects through their state’s DWSRF program, read this accompanying report.

2. How can I use this tool?

The tool allows users to map and visualize which communities qualify as state-defined DACs and how coverage shifts with changes based on certain factors and thresholds. This tool can be used to analyze demographics and socio-economic data to assess whether DAC definitions effectively prioritize underserved communities. The ability to visually compare DAC definitions across six states provides insights for improving policies by learning from other states' approaches. This feature is also a powerful communication tool that facilitates discussions with policymakers and SRF Administrators on improving DAC definitions.

3. How is the Data on DACs Presented?

Watch this webinar to get a quick tutorial on how to navigate this tool.

The map displays water system service areas based on Community Water System (CWS) water system service area boundaries (SABs), which define the geographic regions receiving drinking water from public or private systems. Users can view all water system service areas, identify which qualify as DACs, and determine water system service areas using ZIP codes in the search feature.

One of its most valuable features is the ability to swap one state's entire DAC definition for another, allowing users to compare how different criteria impact DAC designation. Analysis shows the percentage of communities that qualify and enables users to adjust factors and thresholds to observe how it impacts qualifying status.

Users can overlay data from the Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool to get deeper drill-through into the environmental and demographic factors impacting a community. By adjusting and comparing criteria, users can identify additional communities that could qualify as DACs. Read the accompanying report to learn about additional factors that could be incorporated to improve DAC definitions.

Further details about the data sources and methodologies used to create the DAC Mapping Tool are provided in the Appendix to the accompanying report.

4. What other factors do I need to consider?

While visualizing DACs on a map and assessing the quality of state DAC definitions is valuable in the process of change, it is equally crucial to understand the other policy processes and decisions shaping a state’s DWSRF program and consider these policies as a whole to assess the equity outcomes of state DWSRF programs.

Beyond DAC definitions, key policies include project prioritization methods, caps on principal forgiveness or other additional subsidies, and funding terms such as interest rates on SRF loans. The accompanying report explores these issues, encouraging users to address misaligned DAC definitions within the broader context of state policies and practices that influence how communities are prioritized for DWSRF assistance, including for additional subsidies.

5. What are some of the limitations of the mapping Tool?

The primary goal of the tool and report is to enhance understanding of DAC definitions and their policy implications. While neither the tool nor the accompanying report offers specific policy or advocacy recommendations, additional resources highlight best practices and advocate strategies and ways to connect with the SRF advocacy community.

While including all 50 states would be ideal, this work requires significant time and resources. For now, the analysis focuses on six Great Lakes states, where CNT and EPIC have the most experience and established partnerships with community organizations that can benefit from this tool.

Pennsylvania’s DAC criteria cannot be mapped for this project because eligibility depends on comparing applicants within each funding cycle, along with user rate data. Thresholds for factors like MHI, socioeconomic conditions, and water service costs are set only after reviewing the applicant pool, making them unpredictable in advance. For more information on Pennsylvania’s DAC definition read the tool report.

Also, even for states included in the tool, there are some DAC factors which cannot be mapped because the information to be considered – such as the impact of a proposed project’s cost on water rates – is not publicly accessible. Please look out for notes on each state page noting these concerns, which are also noted and explained further in the accompanying report. Also, even for factors that are mapped, note that the geographic scope of the communities being assessed for DAC factors do not always align neatly with the census tracts from which data is drawn.

6. Who is this Tool For?

Community Advocates: Use the tool to understand and improve state DAC definitions, engaging with SRF administrators and legislators. Includes community organizations and local officials.

State SRF Policy Advocates: Leverage data to shape SRF policy, compare DAC definitions, and illustrate gaps to educate policymakers.

SRF Administrators & Policymakers: Use data to refine DAC definitions, learn from other states, and adjust policies accordingly.