Search Documents and Resources

  • Ethics
  • Accountability
  • COVID-19
  • More Topics
  • About
  • Mission & History
  • Board & Staff
  • Financials
  • Take Action
  • For Federal Employees
  • COVID-19: Tips
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
Project On Government Oversight
    • Mission & History
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Take Action
    • For Federal Employees
    • COVID-19: Tips
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
  • Ethics
  • More Topics
  • About
  • Mission & History
  • Board & Staff
  • Financials
  • Take Action
  • For Federal Employees
  • COVID-19: Tips
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
Project On Government Oversight
    • Mission & History
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Take Action
    • For Federal Employees
    • COVID-19: Tips
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
Transparency

POGO Requests Better Data on Equity of COVID Relief

By Danielle Brian | Filed under letter | February 18, 2021

President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

I am writing on behalf of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) to express our concern that the available data about the federal government’s distribution of coronavirus relief funds shows that those programs are failing to meet the needs of traditionally underserved communities such as rural, poor, and racial and ethnic minority populations. Furthermore, I write to urge your administration to take the necessary steps to improve data collection and reporting, which is critical to understanding the scope of this disparity and addressing it.

POGO is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that investigates and exposes waste, corruption, abuse of power, and when the government fails to serve the public or silences those who report wrongdoing. We champion reforms to achieve a more effective, ethical, and accountable federal government that safeguards constitutional principles.

Transparency and accountability for federal spending have long been key principles that POGO has supported. The unprecedented levels of federal spending in response to the COVID-19 pandemic merit even greater oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely. To assist in this oversight, POGO has launched an online COVID-19 Relief Spending Tracker that offers the most comprehensive and detailed view into federal spending related to the pandemic.1

Based on this work, POGO is concerned that federal agencies’ distribution of COVID-19 relief funds has so far failed to adequately identify and address structural biases in our financial and government systems. As a result, communities and recipients with less connection to financial and government institutions may have been under-assisted during this crisis.

When passing the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Congress recognized the risk of assistance failing to reach underserved and disadvantaged communities with a provision instructing the administration to take steps to avoid such an outcome for one of the largest aid programs, the Paycheck Protection Program. Congress tasked the administration with issuing guidance to the private lenders processing the government-guaranteed loans to ensure that the program prioritized businesses in underserved and rural markets, as well as veteran-owned, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses.2

But this provision seems to have gone unheeded by the Trump administration. POGO can find no public evidence of such guidance to lenders in the weeks and months immediately following passage of the CARES Act, a period in which hundreds of billions of dollars in loans were being approved. A review by the Small Business Administration’s Inspector General found that “SBA guidance was not sufficient to ensure PPP lenders prioritized underserved markets during the initial round of funding.” 3

Moreover, while Congress limited its stated concerns for underserved communities to the Paycheck Protection Program, the concerns are equally valid for a wide range of coronavirus relief programs. For stimulus checks, there can be increased risks of missing households in lower income areas where federal tax records are more often incomplete.4 Coronavirus relief programs directing aid to specific sectors such as education, health care, and transportation are also at the risk of following the pattern where funds flow more easily to more affluent communities and their institutions not because of greater need but because those funding channels are more established and familiar.

Using our tracker, POGO traced just over $1 trillion in federal COVID-19 spending to specific counties around the country. This amount should be higher, but not all of the spending data collected and disclosed includes sufficient location information.5 The per capita average for that $1 trillion was $3,127. However, when we examined the 100 counties with the highest percentages of racial and ethnic minority populations, we found that 71 had per capita COVID-19 spending rates below the average, many with significantly lower rates.

The full list of these counties and their data are attached. We would also like to highlight a few examples to demonstrate that these are counties from various states with a large range of total populations:

  • Robeson County, North Carolina, is just south of Fayetteville and has an estimated total population of 133,442. Approximately 75% of the population are racial and ethnic minorities. The county received just $863 per capita in COVID-19 funds.
  • Bronx County, New York, just north of Manhattan, is home to approximately 1.4 million residents, 91% of whom are racial and ethnic minorities. Coronavirus relief funds tracked to the location averaged $1,419 per capita, less than half the national average.
  • Hidalgo County, in southeast Texas, has an estimated population of 850,000 with a minority population percentage of 94%. Similar to Bronx County, the per capita average of COVID-19 relief funds was below half the national average at $1,473.

These figures do not conclusively prove a disparity in the distribution of COVID-19 relief funds based on race. Data limitations prevent us from tracking all the coronavirus funds to the counties and zip codes where the money was finally distributed. But the county-specific results our tracker did produce are troubling markers that certainly raise the real possibility that minority communities have been underserved by federal COVID-19 relief efforts so far.

We applaud your executive order instructing agencies to address the health and social inequities that the pandemic and the government’s response to it have exacerbated.6 While addressing this disparity should continue to be your administration’s top priority, we strongly urge you to simultaneously prioritize improving the quality of the data being collected and disclosed to allow for further independent evaluation of the federal government’s coronavirus relief programs.

The first problem we would encourage the administration to address is the lack of location information presented for COVID-19 program awards. Most notably, no data on the county, city or zip code level distribution of stimulus checks have ever been disclosed.7 Additionally, several major COVID-19 programs overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) including the Provider Relief Fund program supporting hospitals and healthcare providers have significant location problems. The award data disclosed for these programs on USASpending.gov show all funds going to a company in Utah that is assisting the agency in distributing the funds.8 Health and Human Services has released additional information about the identities and location of recipients, but the location information is limited to state and city names—it does not include street address, zip code, county, or congressional district.9 Improved location information for the distribution of funds under these major programs should be released immediately.

A second data problem is the absence of reliable and consistent data on subawards. Hundreds of billions of dollars were provided to state and county governments, transportation agencies, education departments, and major programs that support households and individuals, but we have little to no information on how those recipients then distributed the funds. Without details on how much went to specific counties, cities, and zip codes, it remains impossible to fully determine if the assistance resulted in inequities. We need data not just on where the coronavirus relief funds went first, but also where they were finally put to use in communities.

Recipient reporting could be a big part of the needed solution. In the CARES Act, Congress mandated that all recipients of large amounts of COVID relief funds, which was defined as $150,000 or more, had to report quarterly what those funds were used for, including jobs supported by the funds and any subawards that were made. Unfortunately, recipient reporting never began because the Office of Management and Budget quickly issued guidance to agencies instructing them not to pursue any new data collection.10 Properly structured data from recipients could provide significant insights into what these funds were used for and where they wound up.

The third major data barrier we would urge the administration to tackle is the much more limited data fields tracked in federal spending databases for assistance awards compared to contract awards. Data normally collected and disclosed for assistance awards lack several important fields that are reported for contract awards, including industry sector of recipients, and characteristics of recipients such as if they are small businesses or are minority-owned, women-owned, or veteran-owned. Additionally, there are assistance-specific data fields that are also clearly needed, such as identity and location of private lenders processing government-guaranteed loans, and loan repayment status. Expanding the data reporting requirements for assistance spending would require significant time and effort to plan and implement, but including these additional fields would establish a new level of accountability for all assistance awards in the future.

In addition to improving the publicly disclosed data, we also urge the administration to initiate a review of agency guidance and audit the spending distribution from key agencies. A guidance review could help determine how much each agency is doing to address social and structural barriers that could result in unfair and uneven assistance. Agencies overseeing major coronavirus programs should be proactively identifying hurdles that could block members of underserved communities from participating equally in federal assistance programs and developing policies to counter these problems and ensure fuller participation. Such policies will be critically important as agencies move forward with additional rounds of COVID-19 relief funds in 2021.

Audits of the distribution of actual COVID-19 awards would allow us to better understand how well agencies are performing in achieving equitable assistance during this crisis. Such audits would also have the added benefit of being able to review non-public data, such as denied applications for Paycheck Protection Program and other relief loans, for indications of possible bias or inequity.

POGO remains convinced that the federal agencies can and should address these issues as COVID-19 relief funds are being distributed. We hope that our recommendations will help the administration chart a path forward with both immediate improvements and longer-term solutions. While the process may be difficult and even uncomfortable, the benefits of improved accountability for the trillions of tax dollars being used and the hope of improving performance are far too important.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [email protected]

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian

Executive Director

Out of 100 Counties with the Highest Minority Population Percentage, the Following 71 Counties Received Per Capita COVID Funds below the National Average

CountyStateTotal PopulationMinority Population PercentageCOVID Funds Per Cap
KalawaoHawaii 75 79%$0.00
Jim HoggTexas 5,282 93%$204.15
BrooksTexas 7,180 94%$283.71
HancockGeorgia 8,535 76%$422.62
KenedyTexas 595 88%$423.06
WillacyTexas 21,754 89%$482.48
ZavalaTexas 12,131 95%$530.61
BullockAlabama 10,352 78%$537.15
StarrTexas 63,894 99%$545.68
MoraNew Mexico 4,563 84%$576.47
FrioTexas 19,394 84%$620.59
ZapataTexas 14,369 96%$687.10
DallasAlabama 40,029 72%$702.21
LowndesAlabama 10,236 76%$715.87
HumphreysMississippi 8,539 79%$740.06
HolmesMississippi 18,075 84%$844.60
RobesonNorth Carolina 133,442 75%$863.37
Val VerdeTexas 49,027 84%$888.28
San MiguelNew Mexico 28,034 82%$919.38
MaverickTexas 57,970 98%$1,036.76
PresidioTexas 7,123 86%$1,037.61
StewartGeorgia 6,042 75%$1,072.04
DoughertyGeorgia 91,049 74%$1,075.36
AllendaleSouth Carolina 9,214 78%$1,136.43
La SalleTexas 7,409 85%$1,160.01
NoxubeeMississippi 10,828 74%$1,172.69
CameronTexas 421,750 91%$1,174.33
WilkinsonMississippi 8,990 72%$1,230.77
PecosTexas 15,797 74%$1,252.62
Dona AnaNew Mexico 215,338 72%$1,268.15
GreeneAlabama 8,426 83%$1,272.80
ImperialCalifornia 180,216 89%$1,297.84
McKinleyNew Mexico 72,849 91%$1,350.69
KlebergTexas 31,425 80%$1,360.25
DuvalTexas 11,355 91%$1,369.34
BronxNew York 1,437,872 91%$1,418.69
GuadalupeNew Mexico 4,382 81%$1,421.19
HidalgoTexas 849,389 94%$1,473.40
DimmitTexas 10,663 91%$1,499.55
MercedCalifornia 269,075 72%$1,502.20
Aleutians WestAlaska 5,750 76%$1,514.51
Santa CruzArizona 46,584 85%$1,535.52
El PasoTexas 837,654 88%$1,547.00
SharkeyMississippi 4,511 75%$1,684.16
WebbTexas 272,053 97%$1,720.75
CibolaNew Mexico 26,978 80%$1,723.51
CorsonSouth Dakota 4,168 71%$1,730.60
Aleutians EastAlaska 3,425 85%$1,778.47
TunicaMississippi 10,170 81%$1,783.73
WashingtonMississippi 47,086 75%$1,842.49
Rio ArribaNew Mexico 39,307 88%$1,850.78
SumterAlabama 12,985 75%$1,856.32
UvaldeTexas 27,009 73%$1,865.29
CoahomaMississippi 23,802 79%$1,915.12
PetersburgVirginia 31,827 85%$1,930.42
TulareCalifornia 460,477 71%$1,971.63
DeKalbGeorgia 743,187 71%$2,059.28
East CarrollLouisiana 7,225 71%$2,068.00
BexarTexas 1,925,865 72%$2,094.97
ClaytonGeorgia 278,666 89%$2,166.34
San BernardinoCalifornia 2,135,413 71%$2,173.74
Jim WellsTexas 41,192 82%$2,179.77
LefloreMississippi 29,804 77%$2,355.99
HudsonNew Jersey 668,631 71%$2,432.39
ClaiborneMississippi 9,120 88%$2,555.08
Deaf SmithTexas 18,899 75%$2,564.21
SunflowerMississippi 26,532 76%$2,648.06
ZiebachSouth Dakota 2,814 76%$2,808.72
QueensNew York 2,298,513 75%$2,827.82
Prince George'sMaryland 906,202 87%$2,846.81
WilcoxAlabama 10,809 73%$2,865.22

Author

  • Author

    Danielle Brian

    Danielle Brian is POGO's Executive Director.

Related Tags

    Transparency Governance Oversight Accountability COVID-19 CARES Act

Related Content

  • Oversight

    Reforms Must Accompany PPP Reauthorization

  • Corruption

    Corrupted: Confirming Our Fears About the PPP

  • Oversight

    Millions in PPP Loans Went to Chinese State-Owned Companies

  • Oversight

    Whistleblowers Said This Company Is a Fake Small Business. It Got a PPP Loan.

1 Covidtracker.pogo.org makes publicly searchable in one location more than 15 million federal COVID related transactions including grants, loans, direct payments, contracts, and other awards. The site features interactive maps with tools to explore spending patterns by location and against other data such as population demographics and unemployment data. 2 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Section 1102 (a)(P)(iv) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/text: “It is the sense of the Senate that the Administrator should issue guidance to lenders and agents to ensure that the processing and disbursement of covered loans prioritizes small business concerns and entities in underserved and rural markets, including veterans and members of the military community, small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (as defined in section 8(d)(3)(C)), women, and businesses in operation for less than 2 years.” 3 “Inspection of SBA’s Implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program,” SBA Inspector General, January 14, 2021. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/SBA%20OIG%20Report-21-07.pdf 4 Chuck Mar et al., “Aggressive State Outreach Can Help Reach the 12 Million Non-Filers Eligible for Stimulus Payments,” October 14, 2020, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/aggressive-state-outreach-can-help-reach-the-12-million-non-filers-eligible 5 POGO’s tracker includes a total of about $1.6 trillion in coronavirus spending. Only about $1 trillion of it includes county location information, so for about $600 billion POGO was not able to determine what county it was distributed to. 6 Executive Order No. 13,995, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,193 (January 21, 2021). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/26/2021-01852/ensuring-an-equitable-pandemic-response-and-recovery 7 The Internal Revenue Service has only released state totals for stimulus checks, the latest of which can be found at https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-statement-on-economic-impact-payments-by-state-as-of-aug-28-2020, but the office has not issued any data on sub-state distribution of these payments. 8 “COVID-19 Spending: Known Data Limitations.” Last updated January 8, 2021. https://www.usaspending.gov/data/data-limitations.pdf 9 “HHS COVID-19 Funding,” Department of Health and Human Services. https://taggs.hhs.gov/Coronavirus/Providers 10 Sean Moulton, “Administration Seeks to Minimize Transparency of Coronavirus Relief Funds,” Project On Government Oversight, May 13, 2020. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/05/administration-seeks-to-minimize-transparency-of-coronavirus-relief-funds/

Site Footer

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • Press Center
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Training
  • Newsletters
  • Publications
  • Take Action
  • Report Corruption
Better Business Bureau Accredited Charity CharityWatch Top Rated Charity Great Nonprofits 2020 Top-Rated Charity Navigator Four-Star Charity

©2021 POGO | Privacy Policy

Project On Government Oversight logo

Project On Government Oversight