Tag Archives: CDBG

How effective are HUD programs? No one knows.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, has been in the news lately due to its policy proposal to ban smoking in public housing. HUD usually flys under the radar as far as federal agencies are concerned so many people are probably hearing about if for the first time and are unsure about what it does.

HUD was created as a cabinet-level agency in 1965. From its website, HUD’s mission:

“…is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.” 

HUD carries out its mission through numerous programs. On the HUD website over 100 programs and sub-programs are listed. Running that many programs is not cheap, and the graph below depicts the outlays for HUD and three other federal agencies for reference purposes from 1965 – 2014 in inflation adjusted dollars. The other agencies are the Dept. of Energy (DOE), the Dept. of Justice (DOJ), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

HUD outlays graph

HUD was the second largest agency by outlays in 2014 and for many years was consistently as large as the Department of Energy. It was larger than both the DOJ and the EPA over this period, yet those two agencies are much better known than HUD. Google searches for the DOJ, EPA and HUD return 566 million, 58.3 million, and 25.7 million results respectively.

For such a large agency HUD has managed to stay relatively anonymous outside of policy circles. This lack of public scrutiny has contributed to HUD being able to distribute billions of dollars through its numerous programs despite little examination into their effectiveness. To be fair HUD does make a lot of reports about their programs available, but these reports are often just stories about how much money was spent and what it was spent on rather than evaluations of a program’s effectiveness.

As an example, in 2009 the Partnership for Sustainable Communities program was started. It is an interagency program run by HUD, the EPA, and the Dept. of Transportation. The website for the program provides a collection of case studies about the various projects the program has supported. The case studies for the Euclid corridor project in Cleveland, the South Lake Union neighborhood in Seattle, and the Central Corridor Light Rail project in Minneapolis are basically descriptions of the projects themselves and all of the federal and state money that was spent. The others contain similar content. Other than a few anecdotal data points the evidence for the success of the projects consists of quotes and assertions. In the summary of the Seattle project, for example, the last line is “Indeed, reflecting on early skepticism about the city’s initial investments in SLU, in 2011 a prominent local journalist concluded, “It’s hard not to revisit those debates…and acknowledge that the investment has paid off”. Yet there is no benchmarking in the report that can be used to compare the area before and after redevelopment along any metric of interest such as employment, median wage, resident satisfaction, tax revenue, etc.

The lack of rigorous program analysis is not unique to the Sustainable Communities program. The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is probably the best known HUD program. It distributes grants to municipalities and states that can be used on a variety of projects that benefit low and moderate income households. The program was started in 1975 yet relatively few studies have been done to measure its efficacy. The lack of informative evaluation of CDBG projects has even been recognized by HUD officials. Raphael Bostic, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Policy Development and Research for HUD from 2009 – 2012, has stated “For a program with the longevity of the CDBG, remarkably few evaluations have been conducted, so relatively little is known about what works” (Bostic, 2014). Other government entities have also taken notice. During the Bush administration (2001 – 08) the Office of Management and Budget created the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Several HUD programs were rated as “ineffective” – including CDBG – or “moderately effective”. The assessments noted that “CDBG is unable to demonstrate its effectiveness” in developing viable urban communities and that the program’s performance measures “have a weak connection to the program purpose and do not focus on outcomes”.

Two related reasons for the limited evaluation of CDBG and other HUD programs are the lack of data and the high cost of obtaining what data are available. For example, Brooks and Sinitsyn (2014) had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the data necessary for their study. Furthermore, after obtaining the data, significant time and effort were needed to manipulate the data into a usable format since they “…received data in multiple different tables that required linking with little documentation” (p. 154).

HUD has significant effects on state and local policy even though it largely works behind the scenes. Regional economic and transportation plans are frequently funded by HUD grants and municipal planning agencies allocate scarce resources to the pursuit of additional grants that can be used for a variety of purposes. For those that win a grant the amount of the grant likely exceeds the cost of obtaining it. For the others, however, the resources spent pursuing the grant are largely wasted since they could have been used to advance the agency’s core mission. The larger the grant the more applicants there will be which will lead to greater amounts of resources being diverted from core activities to pursuing grants. Pursuing government grants is an example of rent-seeking and wastes resources.

Like other federal agencies, HUD needs to do a better job of evaluating its abundant programs. Or better yet, it needs to make more data available to the public so that individual researchers can conduct and duplicate studies that measure the net benefits of its programs. Currently much of the data that are available are usually only weakly related to the relevant outcomes and often are outdated or missing.

HUD also needs to specify what results it expects from the various grants it awards. Effective program evaluation starts with specifying measurable goals for each program. Without this first step there is no way to tell if a program is succeeding. Many of the goals of HUD programs are broad qualitative statements like “enhance economic competitiveness” which are difficult to measure. This allows grant recipients and HUD to declare every program a success since ex post they can use whatever measure best matches their desired result. Implementing measurable goals for all of its programs would help HUD identify ineffective programs and allow it to allocate more scarce resources to the programs that are working.

Scranton, PA and the failures of top-down planning

City officials in Scranton, PA are concerned that a recently released U.S. census map used as a basis for distributing federal grant money doesn’t reflect reality. The map was created using 2010 census data and identifies which neighborhoods meet the U.S. government’s criteria for low-to-moderate-income classification. Such neighborhoods are eligible to receive Community Development Block grant (CDBG) funding.

Scranton Councilman Wayne Evans stated that:

“A lot of us feel that the map is inaccurate, knowing the neighborhoods like we do,”

The city is hoping to conduct their own survey of the area and then use the results to petition the federal government to change the designations of the areas city officials believe are misclassified so they can receive funding.

This situation is a great example of the importance of local knowledge. Economist F.A. Hayek wrote the seminal paper on the importance of local knowledge in 1945. In his book Doing Bad by Doing Good, economist Chris Coyne builds on Hayek’s idea and defines the “planner’s problem” as “the inability of nonmarket participants to access relevant knowledge regarding how to allocate resources in a welfare-maximizing way in the face of a variety of competing, feasible alternatives.” The primary goal of the CDBG program is to create viable urban communities. In order to accomplish this a top-down planner needs to take certain steps: 1) the place to be developed needs to be identified and the goals of the development need to be established; 2) the availability of the resources needed for the development project needs to be confirmed and the resources need to be allocated; and 3) a feedback mechanism needs to be identified that can confirm that the goals are met. If any of these steps are not taken effective economic development will not occur.

As the example from Scranton shows, sometimes the planner – in this case the Department of Housing and Urban Development – fails to carry out step 1 effectively: Scranton officials and HUD can’t even agree on the place to be developed. Instead of letting the local officials who are knowledgeable about the area allocate the CDBGs, HUD officials in Washington bypass them by identifying the areas that need help via census data. Sometimes this approach might work, but when it doesn’t resources will be given to relatively prosperous areas while poorer areas are ignored.

The misallocation of resources will be an issue as long as the ability to allocate the funds is severed from the people with local knowledge of the communities. Cities and municipalities are receiving more and more of their revenues from the state and federal government, as seen in the graph below for Pennsylvania, and this contributes to situations like the one in Scranton.

PA intergov grants

As shown in the graph, total intergovernmental revenue and state intergovernmental to local governments in Pennsylvania increased in real terms from 1992 to 2012 (measured on the left vertical axis). In 1992, total intergovernmental revenue to local governments was equal to 59% of the revenue that local governments raised on their own (the orange line measured on the right vertical axis). In 2012 it was equal to 69%, an increase of 10 percentage points. This means that local governments became more dependent on higher-level governments for funding.

Funding from higher-level governments usually comes with restrictions and conditions that must be met, which prevents local citizens from using their local knowledge to alleviate the problems in their community. The further away decisions makers are from the region, the more likely they are to misidentify the problem areas. In Scranton’s case, city officials now have to expend scarce resources conducting their own survey and petitioning the federal government to change the neighborhood classifications.

Local knowledge is important and it should be utilized by decision makers. State and federal governments should limit intergovernmental transfers and allow local communities to keep more of their own tax dollars, which they can then use to address their own local issues.

Grants to Puerto Rico haven’t helped much

Greece’s monetary and fiscal issues have overshadowed a similar situation right in America’s own back yard: Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico’s governor recently called the commonwealth’s $72 billion in debt “unpayable” and this has made Puerto Rico’s bondholders more nervous than they already were. Puerto Rico’s bonds were previously downgraded to junk by the credit rating agencies and there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Puerto Rico’s ability to honor its obligations to both bond holders and its own workers, as the commonwealth’s pension system is drastically underfunded.   A major default would likely impact residents of the mainland U.S., since according to Morningstar most of the debt is owned by U.S. mutual funds, hedge funds, and mainland Americans.

So how did Puerto Rico get into this situation? Like many other places, including Greece and several U.S. cities, the government of Puerto Rico routinely spent more than it collected in revenue and then borrowed to fill the gap as shown in the graph below from Puerto Rico’s Office of Management and Budget. Over a recent 13 year period (2000 – 2012) Puerto Rico ran a deficit each year and accrued $23 billion in debt.

Puerto rico govt spending

Puerto Rico has a lot in common with many struggling cities in the U.S. that followed a similar fiscal path, such as a high unemployment rate of 12.4%, a shrinking labor force, stagnant or declining median household income, population flight, and falling house prices. Only 46.1% of the population 16 and over was in the labor force in 2012 (compared to an average of nearly 64% in the US in 2012) and the population declined by 4.8% from 2010 to 2014. It is difficult to raise enough revenue to fund basic government services when less than half the population is employed and the most able-bodied workers are leaving the country.

Like other U.S. cities and states, Puerto Rico receives intergovernmental grants from the federal government. As I have explained before, these grants reduce the incentives for a local government to get its fiscal house in order and misallocate resources from relatively responsible, growing areas to less responsible, shrinking areas. As an example, since 1975 Puerto Rico has received nearly $2.7 billion in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). San Juan, the capital of Puerto Rico, has received over $900 million. The graph below shows the total amount of CDBGs awarded to the major cities of Puerto Rico from 1975 – 2014.

Total CDBGs Puerto Rico

As shown in the graph San Juan has received the bulk of the grant dollars. The graph below shows the amount by year for various years between 1980 and 2014 for San Juan and Puerto Rico as a whole plotted on the left vertical axis (bar graphs). On the right vertical axis is the amount of CDBG dollars per capita (line graphs). San Juan is in orange and Puerto Rico is in blue.

CDBGs per capita, yr Puerto Rico

San Juan has consistently received more dollars per capita than the other areas of Puerto Rico. Both total dollars and dollars per capita have been declining since 1980, which is when the CDBG program was near its peak funding level. As part of the 2009 Recovery Act, San Juan received an additional $2.8 million dollars and Puerto Rico as a country received another $5.9 million on top of the $32 million already provided by the program (not shown on the graph).

It’s hard to look at all of this redistribution and not consider whether it did any good. After all, $2.7 billion later Puerto Rico’s economy is struggling and their fiscal situation looks grim. Grant dollars from programs like the CDBG program consistently fail to make a lasting impact on the recipient’s economy. There are structural problems holding Puerto Rico’s economy back, such as the Jones Act, which increases the costs of goods on the island by restricting intra-U.S.-shipping to U.S. ships, and the enforcement of the U.S. minimum wage, which is a significant cost to employers in a place where the median wage is much lower than on the mainland. Intergovernmental grants and transfers do nothing to solve these underlying structural problems. But despite this reality, millions of dollars are spent every year with no lasting benefit.

More reasons why intergovernmental grants are harmful

In a recent blog post I explained how intergovernmental grants subsidize some businesses at the expense of others. But that is just one of several negative features of intergovernmental grants. They also make local governments less accountable for their fiscal decisions by allowing them to increase spending without increasing taxes. The Community Development Blog Grant (CDBG) money that local governments spend on city services or use to subsidize private businesses is provided by taxpayers from all over the country. Unlike locally raised money, when cities spend CDBG money they don’t have to first convince local voters to provide them with the funds. This lack of accountability often results in wasteful spending.

These grants also erode fiscal competition between cities and reduce the incentive to pursue policies that create economic growth. If local governments can receive funds for projects meant to bolster their tax base regardless of their fiscal policies, they have less of an incentive to create a fiscal environment that is conducive to economic growth. The feedback loop between growth promoting policies and actual economic growth is impaired when revenue can be generated independently of such policies e.g. by successfully applying for intergovernmental grants.

Some of the largest recipients of CDBG money are cities that have been declining since the 1950s. The graph below shows the total amount of CDBG dollars given to nine cities that were in the top 15 of the largest cities in the US by population in 1950. (Click on graphs to enlarge. Data used in the graphs are here.)

CDBGs 9 cities 1950

None of these cities were in the top 15 cities in 2014 and most of them have lost a substantial amount of people since 1950. In Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Buffalo the CDBG money has not reversed or even slowed their decline and yet the federal government continues to give these cities millions of dollars each year. The purpose of these grants is to create sustainable economic development in the recipient cities but it is difficult to argue that such development has occurred.

Contrast the amount of money given to the cities above with that of the cities below:

CDBGs 9 cities 2014

By 2014 the nine cities in the second graph had replaced the other cities in the top 15 largest US cities by population. Out of the nine cities in the second graph only one, San Antonio, has received $1 billion or more in CDBG funds. In comparison, every city in the first graph has received at least that much.

While there are a lot of factors that contribute to the decline of some cities and the rise of others (such as the general movement of the population towards warmer weather), these graphs are evidence that the CDBG program is incapable of saving Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Cleveland, etc. from population and economic decline. Detroit alone has received nearly $3 billion in CDBG grants over the last 40 years yet still had to declare bankruptcy in 2013. St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffalo, and Milwaukee are other examples of cities that have received a relatively large amount of CDBG funding yet are still struggling with population decline and budget issues. Place-based, redistributive policies like the CDBG program misallocate resources from growing cities to declining cities and reduce the incentive for local governments to implement policies that encourage economic growth.

Moreover, if place-based subsidies, such as the CDBG program, do create some temporary local economic growth, there is evidence that this growth is merely shifted from other areas. In a study on the Tennessee Valley Authority, perhaps the most ambitious place-based program in the country’s history, economists Patrick Kline and Enrico Moretti (2014) found that the economic gains that accrued to the area covered by the TVA were completely offset by losses in other parts of the country. As they state, “Thus, we estimate that the spillovers in the TVA region were fully offset by the losses in the rest of the country…Notably, this finding casts doubt on the traditional big push rationale for spatially progressive subsidies.” This study is further evidence for what other economists have been saying for a long time: Subsidized economic growth in one area, if it occurs, comes at the expense of growth in other areas and does not grow the US economy as a whole.

Intergovernmental grant to gelato maker distorts market competition

Intergovernmental grants are grants that are given to one level of government by another e.g. federal to state/local or state to local. In addition to being used on public works and services they also subsidize the development of private goods. The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is a federally funded grant program that distributes grants and subsidized loans to local and state governments which then use them or award them to other businesses and non-profits. The grants can be used on a variety of projects. Since 1975 the CDBG program has given over $143 billion ($215 billion adjusted for inflation) to state and local governments. The graph below (click to enlarge) shows the total dollars by year adjusted for inflation (2009 dollars) and the number of entitlement grantees by year. While the total amount of funding has declined over time, it was still $2.8 billion in 2014.

cdbg dollars, grantees

Intergovernmental grant programs like CDBG are based on the incorrect idea that moving money around produces economic development and creates a net-positive amount of jobs. But only productive entrepreneurs who create value for consumers can create jobs. The CDBG program and others like it distort the entrepreneurial process and within-industry competition by giving an artificial advantage to the companies that receive grants. This results in more workers and capital flowing into the grant-receiving business rather than their unsubsidized competitors. For example, Brunswick, ME is giving a $350,000 CDBG to Gelato Fiasco to help the company buy new equipment. Meanwhile, nearby competitors Bohemian Coffeehouse, Little Dog Coffee Shop, and Dairy Queen are not receiving any grant money. Governments at all levels, such as Brunswick’s, should not pick winners and losers via a grant process that ultimately favors some constituents over others.

Some other projects that the CDBG program has helped fund are: a soybean processing plant in Arkansas, a new facility for a farmer’s market in Oregon, solar panels for houses in San Diego, and waterfront housing in Burlington, VT. Like the Gelato Fiasco example, these are all examples of private goods, not public, and the production of such goods is best left to the market. If private investors who are subject to market forces are unwilling to produce a private good then it is probably not a worthwhile venture, as the lack of private investment implies that the expected cost exceeds the expected revenue. Private investors and entrepreneurs want to make a profit and the profit incentive promotes wise investments. Governments don’t confront the same profit incentive and this often leads to wasteful spending.

At its best, a government can create the conditions that encourage economic development and job creation: the enforcement of private property rights, a court system to adjudicate disputes, a police force to maintain law and order, and perhaps some basic infrastructure. The scope of a local government should be limited to these tasks.

Which States are Earmark Magnets?

Cato’s Tad DeHaven has a great piece in The New York Post on what the earmark ban means for New York. Not much, it turns out. New York taxpayers contribute 8.2% on average to the overall federal tax burden and receive only 2.1% of all earmarked funds, making them the last state in the earmarks line.

Who gets the most bacon? Missisippi, Alaska, West Virginia and Hawaii. Tad notes it’s important not to let earmarks distract from the larger spending debate. Earmarks are really about process in how funds are allocated. Fixing earmarks doesn’t mean wasteful spending disappears. Consider the $8 billion a year Community Development Block Grant. With or without earmarks, CDBG is designed to award federal money to municipalities where is it spent fixing sewers, buying park benches and streetlights, building amusement centers, and  many other purely local or private activities.

The Community Development Block Grant in Perpetuity

Steven Malanga writes at City Journal of the defenseless persistence of the Community Development Block Grant. Created by the merger of a slew of Johnson Administration local aid grants, CDBG has been doling out grants to municipal governments since 1974.

CDBG’s primary constituencies include the U.S. Conference of Mayors and community groups.The program has been criticized from many angles. HUD itself has pointed to deficiencies in the funding formula which have resulted in the grant being disproportionately targeted to college towns. CDBG has been the subject of numerous fraud investigations by the IG’s office. And more fundamentally, the program has not shown it can meet its statutory purpose of revitalizing communities, the subject of a study I authored in 2007.

Regardless, CDBG is funded every year at about $4.7 billion. It’s not alot of money relative to the size of the federal budget, but as Mr. Malanga notes, that isn’t the point. CDBG is a vehicle for waste and congressional patronage.

And as far as I know it is also the only block grant with a folk song:

The Doughty Hill Band – The CDBG Song

When Block Grants Mutate: EECBG in Loudoun County, Virginia

When it was created last year, the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) was barely noticed.

Today, EECBG is rolling into city halls as a green-certified Trojan Horse.

Authorized in Title V, subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EECBG was fully funded at $2.7 billion with the stimulus bill of 2009.  It is intended to help local governments:

  • Reduce fossil fuel emissions,
  • Reduce total energy use,
  • Improve energy efficiency in government buildings, and
  • Create and retain jobs.

In practice, this means it was intended to fund installation energy efficient street lights, building code improvements, transportation programs, recycling, and so on.

EECBG is modeled after HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Before getting to EECBG, here’s a primer on CDBG.

Back in 1974, the Nixon administration decided to merge a bunch of urban aid grants. Experts agreed Urban Renewal and President Johnson’s Model Cities had failed in part because it was impossible to direct grants in DC to the local level, and getting out of the federal micromanagment was part of the “New Federalism.”

Block granting, it was hoped, would free cities from federal control allowing local government more flexibility with funds, as long as the projects fell into one of 72 possible activities and the grantee stuck to HUD’s general guidelines. The idea, in a nutshell, was federal money, local control.

But block granting isn’t a solution to centralized government; it only provides the illusion of local control. Grants-in-aid carry the policy priorities of the federal government. Local priorities are shaped by federal grants. Whether your community needs a park or not is another matter. You now have a grant to build one.

Such grants may stimulate greater local spending but to what’s known as the Flypaper Effect. Once the park is built, it will need local maintenance.

There is no such thing as “free” federal money. Grants comes with rules. Before a CDBG project is undertaken it may have to meet Davis-Bacon wage requirements, environmental reviews, and other regulatory tests.

Now back to EECBG, a second-generation experiment in block granting.

Loudoun County, Virginia is one of many communities to receive EECBG money. To spend its $2.215 million grant, the county must submit a plan to the Department of Energy (read it here). The plan begins by assuming passage of Cap and Trade (p. 11), and then lays out a familiar future. The plan is less an example of local experimentation as it is of federal policy cloning.

There will be an Energy Performance Labeling rating of homes, before sale or rental, to “give transparency to actual consumption of both new and existing structures.” Some Northern Virginia Realtors really don’t like this. There is also Smart Growth, and an Energy Environmental Trading Team to help implement Cap and Trade. There will be electric cars, mixed used housing, bike paths, more transit, less driving, and “parking strategies.”

The plan is no surprise, once it is understood that federal grants are carriers of federal policies that grow roots in state and local governments. But does the plan reflect the needs of Loudoun’s residents or the wants of Washington, DC?