We analyzed more complete data sets, including a review of demographic surveys from Northside Neighborhood Housing Services from 1993 to 2003, NRP program allocation data, and contract data. These data show that NRP allocations, particularly in Phase I, were actually more – not less – heavily weighted toward more diverse and low-income communities.

Our analysis is consistent with the findings of a 2006 CURA study which reported that

“some neighborhoods addressed the housing needs of low-income residents by dedicating resources to multi-family projects. Most multi-family housing buildings that received funds were in redirection neighborhoods. Of the 1252 units built or rehabilitated with the use of NRP funds, about half (605) were rented or sold below market rate and about a fifth (226) were designated for households below 30 percent of the metropolitan median.” (Nesse & Lukermann, 2006, pp 17-18).

It is also consistent with the findings of the 2000 Teamworks study which concluded of NRP Phase 1 funds that

“more money was consistently allocated to neighborhoods with greater levels of poverty, higher percentages of substandard dwelling units, and higher concentrations of people of color and youth” (Berger, et al., p. 1).

A 2005 study by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung again drew similar conclusions:

“Although through NRP resources were distributed to all Minneapolis’ neighborhoods, from the most deprived to the wealthiest, not all areas received equal amounts. Resource allocations systematically favored disadvantaged neighborhoods. They were allocated following a formula that included–among other factors- neighborhood size, poverty level and dwelling units’ conditions.” (Fagotto and Fung, 2005, p. 38).

It should raise questions, then, when CURA has come to the opposite conclusion, namely that CPP allocations were more equitable than NRP allocations demonstrating that institutional racism is inherent in NRP, especially when CURA has not provided any data or explained its methodology to explain how they came to this conclusion.

All of the data used in this analysis is publicly available, and should have been available to CURA, since they were working directly with City officials on preparing their reports. It is concerning that CURA did not use any of this data in their analysis, or did not choose to share it.

Although they reported at one meeting that they were of aware of these studies, they did not share the conclusions of these studies or refute them. In one case, they misrepresented the conclusions of a study conducted by CURA itself in 2006 (see below).

This indicates that CURA was at the very least negligent in conducting their research. Either they did not exercise any independence from the City when carrying out their work, or they were biased in their selection and use of data. Either possibility is troubling, to say the least. The careless collection and use of data can create the appearance that CURA was cherry-picking data to support conclusions that they had already reached prior to conducting the study. This leads to reduced confidence in their study.