{ "id": "RL32675", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL32675", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 100210, "date": "2004-11-15", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:04:08.484634", "title": "Metropolitan Area Designations by OMB: History, Current Definitions, and Uses", "summary": "On December 27, 2000, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced its uniform\ncriteria, or \"standards,\" for defining metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas in the current\ndecade. These areas together are termed \"core based statistical areas\" (CBSAs). Also announced\nwere the standards for defining New England city and town areas (NECTAs), which are conceptually\nsimilar to CBSAs. The 2000 standards superseded those for defining metropolitan statistical areas\nin the 1990s.\n CBSAs consist of counties and county-equivalents in the United States and Puerto Rico. Each\nCBSA must contain at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more persons (metropolitan statistical\narea) or at least one urban cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 persons (micropolitan statistical area). \nCBSAs have one or more principal cities and central counties. Outlying counties are included in\nCBSAs on the basis of commuting data. Counties that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in\nCBSAs are classified as \"outside core based statistical areas.\" NECTAs are classified similarly to\nCBSAs and designated as either \"metropolitan\" or \"micropolitan\" NECTAs.\n OMB issued, effective June 6, 2003, the actual lists of CBSAs -- the titles of the areas, with\ntheir principal city and county components. NECTAs and their components are listed as well. The\nlists were derived by applying the OMB standards to population and commuting data from the 2000\ndecennial census, conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Each year until 2010, OMB will announce\nany revisions to CBSAs that are justified by the Census Bureau's annual population estimates. The\nmost recent revisions were announced on February 18, 2004.\n In principle, standard metropolitan area definitions are to be used solely for descriptive,\nstatistical purposes. In practice, however, they have other applications, including their use in\nformulas for allocating federal grant program funds.\n No straightforward procedure exists for calculating the exact amount of money distributed\nthrough all federal grant programs that use metropolitan area definitions, or for determining the\neffects of changes in these definitions on the total amount of funds allocated to a specific\njurisdiction. Even identifying comprehensively which programs use metropolitan area designations\nwould require reviewing the statutes, regulations, and formulas associated with the programs. \nAssuming that such an identification were feasible, it would be only the first step toward determining\nwhether inclusion in, or exclusion from, a particular metropolitan area or its components directly\ntranslates into an increase or decrease in the federal funds a particular jurisdiction might receive from\nall federal grant programs that rely on these designations. Again, the question would have to be\naddressed on a program-by-program basis and posed to department or agency program staff.\n This report will be updated to incorporate any relevant legislative developments or\nannouncements by OMB.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32675", "sha1": "101b9b89c2556c5a1e39a0ac3b7e6670102f70fb", "filename": "files/20041115_RL32675_101b9b89c2556c5a1e39a0ac3b7e6670102f70fb.pdf", "images": null }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20041115_RL32675_101b9b89c2556c5a1e39a0ac3b7e6670102f70fb.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy" ] }