It is also disturbing that CURA publicly misrepresented the findings of a previous CURA study in a recent public meeting when they referenced the 2006 Nesse-Lukermann CURA study to say that those who received NRP loans had higher incomes. This statement by CURA is taken very much out of context, and is a very selective reading of that study.

Here are some statements from that study:

• "Recipients of single-family home improvement loans were mostly below the metropolitan median income.” (p.9)
• "Given that the majority of loans went to households with incomes below the metropolitan median, it will not come as a surprise to know that most of the money went to house-holds with incomes below the metropolitan median.” (p. 10)
• "In determining how to distribute all NRP funds among the neighborhoods, the City valued funding the neighborhoods that were the worst off (Goetz and Sidney 1997).” (p. 10)
• "In all the studied neighborhoods but three (Linden Hills, Fulton, and Windom, see Chart 3), the income of the median recipient was below the metropolitan median income.” (p. 12)

The Nesse-Lukermann study further reported that:

“When recipients’ incomes are compared to the median income within their own neighborhoods, instead of the metropolitan median income, we find that in protection and revitalization neighborhoods the income of the average recipient is at about the median income for that neighborhood. However, in redirection neighborhoods, the income of the average recipient is about 180 percent of the median income in that neighborhood. The median income in redirection neighborhoods is 45 percent of the metropolitan median income and therefore, even recipients that were 200 percent of the neighborhood median income were below the metropolitan median.” (p. 13)

The study also notes that:

“Perhaps it should be expected that the average recipient was below median income since the median income of Minneapolis recipients is below the metropolitan median income. When compared to the neighborhood median income, the average resident appears to be at the median income for that neighborhood in all but redirection neighborhoods where the average recipient is well above the median income for the neighborhood. This may be because those who own homes have incomes significantly above the neighborhood median income.” (P. 15).

However, it follows up to say:

“This is not to say that people in the low income bracket were forgotten in neighborhood priorities. 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.” (p. 17). This study was largely focused on loan programs through CEE and NNHS, which did not include large multi-family projects.” (p. 17).

The Nesse-Lukermann study concluded:

“Of the $27.4 million that we studied, $19.8 million went to households with income below the metropolitan median. And, it should be noted, that this is only about 47 percent of all the single-family home improvement funds. If neighborhoods distributed their funds through the other vendors in the same way they distributed funds through CEE and NNHS, about $42 million went to households with incomes below the metropolitan median income for home improvement over the last 15 years. Considering that almost all programs required a private match for the amount loaned through NRP, these programs have had a significant impact on home improvement in Minneapolis." (p. 18)

This misrepresentation of the conclusions of a study CURA itself previously carried out again raises the specter that CURA is being very selective in their use of data in this process, and is ignoring previous studies and data that does not fit their narrative.