In late 2019, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), a department of the University of Minnesota, announced that it had been hired by the City of Minneapolis to “complete the resident-led process of furthering the Neighborhoods 2020 framework and developing program guidelines at the ‘Collaborate’ level of engagement based on the International Association of Public Participation Spectrum.” (PECE Item #1, City of Minneapolis).

In response to recent public reporting by CURA and recent statements made by CURA spokespersons to media, we conducted an analysis to test several findings reported by CURA:

• Historical allocations were not based on a racial equity premises.
• The primary benefactor [sic] of this work is white homeowners.
• The outcome of the work is racial inequity (institutional racism) largely driven by NRP allocations.
• CPP was more equitable than NRP.

Our analysis relies on a more complete data set than that apparently used by CURA, including demographic data from Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS), NRP PlanNet data for neighborhood allocations, and NRP PlanNet data for contracts and expenditures. We also reviewed previous studies of the NRP program.

• NRP allocations were more heavily weighted to the most diverse and low-income neighborhoods in Minneapolis;
• CPP allocations were not more equitable than NRP allocations, and were, unlike NRP allocations, neutral in regards to neighborhood diversity or average household income.
• CPP allocations represented a major disinvestment in the most diverse and low-income communities when compared to NRP allocations.
• White affluent homeowners were not the primary beneficiaries of NRP home loan and grant programs. More complete data shows that, particularly in early years of NRP, Black and low-income homeowners were major beneficiaries of NRP home loans.
• Many other types of neighborhood NRP housing programs directly benefited communities of color, low-income communities, and special need communities (addiction, living with HIV/AIDS, seniors and disabilities as examples).

Our examination finds that CURA was negligent at best in their use of data and subsequent analysis of facts. Their use of data raises concerns about cherry-picking of data, and bias in their analysis. Because CURA apparently did little to verify the accuracy or completeness of their data, or to show any independence from the City in collecting data, their study is neither valid nor reliable. We believe CURA’s conclusions, particularly about the primary beneficiaries of NRP home loan programs, and racial inequity of NRP allocations, are simply not supported based on all of the evidence available.