TY - JOUR
T1 - Where Does the Bucket Leak? Sending Money to the Poor via the Community Development Block Grant Program
AU - Brooks, Leah
AU - Sinitsyn, Maxim
N1 - Funding Information:
The analysis and conclusions set forth are those of the authors and do not indicate concurrence by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. We are very grateful to the many research assistants who helped bring this project to fruition; they are listed individually in the Appendix. In addition to Brooks, Justin Phillips (Columbia University) supervised some of the data assembly for this project. We are grateful to the Russell Sage Foundation for funding (received before Brooks joined the Federal Reserve Board). Staffers at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development—Todd Richardson and Sue Miller—have been extremely helpful. We also appreciate the help from city officials in Los Angeles and Chicago in obtaining voting records and precinct maps. Attendees at the 2012 National Tax Association meetings, and in particular our discussant Laura Feiveson, offered very helpful comments.
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - Since the inception of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in 1975, cities and large urban counties have been entitled to funding based on a formula designed to approximate community need. As with any such federally funded and locally administered program, there is a tension between federal and local control. At the federal level, one of CDBG's main goals is to benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) people and places. While a substantial literature assesses how well CDBG funds are targeted to needy recipient jurisdictions, evidence on how funds are distributed within recipient jurisdictions is much more limited. In this article, we examine the distribution of CDBG funds relative to the share of LMI people at the council-district and neighborhood levels in Chicago, Illinois, and Los Angeles, California, for 1998 - 2004. In Los Angeles, we find that relatively poorer council districts receive more than they would were funds distributed following the share of LMI people. In contrast, Chicago's relatively poorer council districts receive lower funding than predicted by their share of the LMI population. This difference across council districts within the cities is partially explained by the greater sensitivity of allocations in Chicago to the location of high-income households. Despite these disparities, policy answers are not obvious; any policy that aims to enhance CDBG's reach to LMI people must contend with the erosion of broad-based political support that this would engender.
AB - Since the inception of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in 1975, cities and large urban counties have been entitled to funding based on a formula designed to approximate community need. As with any such federally funded and locally administered program, there is a tension between federal and local control. At the federal level, one of CDBG's main goals is to benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) people and places. While a substantial literature assesses how well CDBG funds are targeted to needy recipient jurisdictions, evidence on how funds are distributed within recipient jurisdictions is much more limited. In this article, we examine the distribution of CDBG funds relative to the share of LMI people at the council-district and neighborhood levels in Chicago, Illinois, and Los Angeles, California, for 1998 - 2004. In Los Angeles, we find that relatively poorer council districts receive more than they would were funds distributed following the share of LMI people. In contrast, Chicago's relatively poorer council districts receive lower funding than predicted by their share of the LMI population. This difference across council districts within the cities is partially explained by the greater sensitivity of allocations in Chicago to the location of high-income households. Despite these disparities, policy answers are not obvious; any policy that aims to enhance CDBG's reach to LMI people must contend with the erosion of broad-based political support that this would engender.
KW - CDBG
KW - Community Development Block Grant
KW - economic development
KW - neighborhood
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893423920&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893423920&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/10511482.2013.862560
DO - 10.1080/10511482.2013.862560
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84893423920
SN - 1051-1482
VL - 24
SP - 119
EP - 171
JO - Housing Policy Debate
JF - Housing Policy Debate
IS - 1
ER -