I genuinely appreciate the anecdotal stories about the how and who of various NRP programs and whether they have benefitted renters and persons of color. Here's a long response that takes into account some of the comments.
As one caveat--I certainly understand that an NRP subsidy to a school or rec center or arts project generally benefits all--poor and rich, black and white. But, 1. these made up about 7-8% of all NRP expenditures; and 2. we need to be careful to note that we are talking about certain subsidies, often small subsidies in an overall project. I think most posts incorrectly imply that NRP somehow built these projects, when in reality NRP funds generally made up a small portion of the overall funding (there may, of course, be exceptions, and I fully understand the power of leveraging, just no one has made the case that NRP made that leveraged difference). Barb Lickness wrote: > If someone pulled all the information related to the > NRP projects and the populations that were actually > served with the expenditure of NRP funds then > conclusions could be drawn with factual statistics and > not conjecture based on a persons limited experience > with the NRP program. Someone did pull that information, as requested by NRP. Teamworks did a thorough study of Phase I in the year 2000 (and that is the study Pauline Thomas refers to in her opinion piece) and noted the following statistical information, which I repeat for the umpteenth time: 1. By far the greatest expenditure was for housing related programs, and within these expenditures the vast majority went to homeowner grant and loan programs. According to Teamworks, where data could be tracked (NRP does not track beneficiary data, but one subcontractor did in 16 neighborhoods, including Whittier, Elliot Park and Longfellow): "programs were not generally targeted to people with high degrees of need, as measured by household income." Six percent of recipients had incomes under 30% of the Metro Median Income (MMI) and only 19% had incomes under 50% of the MMI. This is true even though Teamworks specifically found that NRP had successfully targeted funds to neighborhoods with high degrees of poverty and/or need. Ironically, MCDA does a far better job itself of targeting beneficiaries of such home improvement grants and loans. 2. From Teamworks: "A majority of [the sixteen surveyed] neighborhoods provided home improvement assistance to residents with median incomes greater than that of all households even in their own neighborhoods, in some cases by as much as two or three times the neighborhood median." My comment: in any other case, folks would be lambasting this is as wasteful spending on people who could otherwise generally find traditional financing. 3. From another NRP requested evaluation: Eighty-eight percent (88%) of all NRP housing grant and loan recipients during the period of 1993 to 2000 were white- despite the City's white population declining during the same period from 78% to 65% of the general population. These are the stastistics. We can paint rosy pictures of NRP and what it has accomplished, but the NRP sponsored evaluations paint a larger more pessimistic picture with respect to whom it has benefitted. David Brauer wrote: . . . The allegation of racial bias is far from proven. The one statistical summary alleging has not presented a detailed view of its methods to be able to peer review, which, as Michael often asserts, is a necessary component for judging validity. (A side point: even if certain groups received more than their share of expenditures, that does not inherently connote bias. Or, as many a stat prof has said, "correlation does not equal causation.") [GDL] I cringed when I read this, because it does not adequately address the issue. Proving bias is nearly impossible and puts the burden unfairly back on the individuals left out and wanting change. I'd rather look at it with the presumption that there is inherent bias in the distribution of NRP's funds, based on the statistical information, and let neighborhoods prove there is no bias. But, ultimately, talk of bias here and bias there gets you into a corner with fists flying--nowhere. Why not take the suggestions of well-meaning and knowledgeable folks who do want change, such as the Tenant Issues Working Group, and begin to work on those suggestions. From my experience, if you challenge the expenditures as failing to fulfill NRP's ultimate mission and statutory mandate, you are immediately labeled a trouble maker, "controversial," or worse, and requests for information from neighborhoods and others are thereafter ignored. I then interpret such responses to be akin to what one of PJ504's board members said: "your teeth have finally pierced the skin of the poisonous snake." We want dialogue, we want suggestions, we want change, not defensive tactics. David Brauer also wrote: I would argue that opinion polls showing Minneapolis residents consistently, overwhelming supporting NRP, plus the success of many candidates supporting NRP in the last election, are a good evidence that the program has succeeded. Of course, that may be a problem for those same politicians now. [GDL] Let me put a different spin on this. Those who vote are generally those who participate in NRP, so it's somewhat of a problematic but certainly legitimate conclusion here. More significantly, NRP has become, as some Republicans in the legislature may also perceive it to be, a loose but effective organizing structure for many locally elected officials. It provides core support for many on the Council (and especially the Mayor) because it involves residents who are typically already highly involved in their neighborhoods. Nothing wrong with that, but it does have its real downsides, in that it is somewhat of a stultifying force for efforts to involve those more marginalized--if those more marginalized question NRP expenditures and want change, it threatens the core support of elected officials. We've found this out in asking for change in NRP, as CM's and the Mayor want to stay ten feet away from it (though some remain open to talking constructively). Who is then heard? Generally, it's the highly organized but not necessarily representative folks in the neighborhood groups, who have a stake in NRP by continuing the rather biased distribution of benefits. It remains a circle of relatively unchanging beneficiaries and participants. There's much good about NRP and its model, but in application it has been quite problematic from the viewpoint of many for whom I work with and work for. Gregory Luce St. Paul _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
