The New School -- Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy | Budget Equity Project logo

About the Budget Equity Project

About Us

The Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy advances research to understand structural inequalities and works to identify groundbreaking ways to promote equity. The Budget Equity Project at the Institute aims to equip community leaders and policymakers with research, tools, and frameworks to support equitable local budgeting. Through this project, we are tracking whether and how local governments are making equitable investments with their federal American Rescue Plan Act fiscal recovery funds and documenting exemplary investments and approaches. We are also producing a prototype budget equity assessment tool for community leaders to use to champion equitable budgeting processes and investments.

This project is based on research funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Our Team

In addition to the Institute staff listed below, student research assistants are an integral part of the Budget Equity Project team. Current research assistants include Lenny Black, Bree Howell, Maritza Rico, Danielle Twiss, and Chloe Wright. Past research assistants included: Carlos Celis, Nathaniel Manock, Daniela Garcia Moreno, Natalia Pinzon, and Kanishka Puri.

Darrick
HamiltonHenry Cohen Professor of Economics and Urban Policy and Founding Director
Sarah
TreuhaftDirector of Policy and Partnerships
Elaine
ChangDirector of Technology Innovation
Ashley
ThomasPolicy Analyst
Fatimah
Al-KhaldiResearch Associate
Chidera
IhejirikaProgram Research Associate

Media Coverage & Updates

Media Coverage

ARPA funds to the rescue

Toledo Free Press

November 21, 2024 - Toledo has emerged as a national leader in equity-focused spending, using American Rescue Plan (ARPA) funds to eliminate $230 million in medical debt for over 113,000 residents.

Media Coverage

Snohomish County identified as a “High Performer” in advancing equity

Lynnwood Times

November 7, 2024 - Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers welcomed a national report from The New School’s Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy, which found that Snohomish County is a “high performer” among the largest city and county governments assessed for advancing equity in pandemic relief and recovery efforts nationally.

Media Coverage

$32M improvements to Garden Hills about halfway done

October 7, 2024 - The city’s improvements to the Garden Hills neighborhood were recently featured in a study conducted by the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at The New School as an example of using ARPA funds to “advance equity,” Champaign officials said.

Media Coverage

Dallas Hailed for Equitable Distribution of COVID-19 Relief Funds in National Study

October 1, 2024 - The City of Dallas has been acknowledged as a top performer in the equitable allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, according to a new report. The study, executed by The New School's Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, positioned Dallas in the upper echelon, among 170 U.S. cities and counties evaluated for their commitment to reinforcing racial and economic equity via strategic ARPA investment.

Media Coverage

City of Fort Wayne recognized for equitable American Rescue Plan Act investments

September 27, 2024 - Fort Wayne leaders announced that the city, the only municipality in Indiana to be recognized, was evaluated in a new multi-year study for its equitable American Rescue Plan Act investments.

Media Coverage

Baltimore Ranks Third Nationwide for Equitable Use of Federal ARPA Funds According to Independent Report

Hoodline Baltimore

September 26, 2024 - Baltimore ranks third nationwide for its equitable use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, according to a report by The New School’s Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, recognizing the city's efforts to address racial and economic disparities through targeted investments.

Media Coverage

Fort Wayne recognized for use of federal COVID-19 pandemic relief funds

The Journal Gazette

September 26, 2024 - Fort Wayne has been recognized for its equitable use of $50.8 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support public health, neighborhood revitalization, and resilient city operations, ranking in the top third of U.S. cities and counties in a national study.

Media Coverage

Baltimore ranks third in U.S. for equitable use of federal recovery funds, study finds

Fox 45 News Baltimore

September 26, 2024 - Baltimore ranks as the third highest-performing jurisdiction in the U.S. for leveraging ARPA funds to advance racial and economic equity, dedicating 81% of its $336.7 million in obligated funds towards equity-focused initiatives, according to a study by The New School's Institute of Race, Power and Political Economy.

Media Coverage

Champaign Garden Hills ARPA project highlighted in New School study

WCIA Champaign

September 24, 2024 - The City of Champaign’s innovative use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to transform the Garden Hills neighborhood has been highlighted in a new study by The New School’s Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy.

Media Coverage

Biden wants cities to spend American Rescue Plan cash on police. We wish they wouldn't.

USA Today

June 8, 2022 - Some localities are using an equity lens, and listening to the communities that are typically excluded from budget discussions, to use these fleeting federal funds to build thriving cities.

Methodology

Assessing city and county investment strategies

To assess whether and how cities and counties operationalized equity in their ARPA spending decisions, our primary data source was the 2022 and 2023 Recovery Plan Performance Reports that large cities and counties were required to submit to the U.S. Treasury by the end of July of each year, as well as the corresponding July 2022 and July 2023 Project and Expenditure reports which include project descriptions and spending to date. We reviewed the reports of 170 jurisdictions: the 80 largest cities, 81 largest counties, and nine combined largest cities and counties.

Aligned with the federal government’s first racial equity executive order, the performance reports asked grantees to describe how their investment strategy “prioritizes economic and racial equity as a goal, names specific targets intended to produce meaningful equity results at scale, and articulates the strategies to achieve those targets.” We reviewed these reports using a rubric that assesses equity performance across six arenas: 1) overall equity focus; 2) application of equity tools and institutional infrastructure; 3) community engagement; 4) equitable labor practices; 5) equity-promoting investments; and 6) investment transparency/accountability. We documented the presence or absence of the equity indicator (with 1 meaning present and 0 meaning absence), along with evidence/language from the report when the indicator was present. Specific assessment methods by section included:

  • Equity tools and institutional infrastructure: For the small number of cases where we learned about institutional equity infrastructure through the course of our qualitative research or outreach, we included that knowledge into the assessment. 
  • Equitable labor practices: Most jurisdictions that did not make any infrastructure investments noted this section was not applicable to them, so we excluded this section of the assessment for all jurisdictions that allocated $0 toward the Treasury’s expenditure category group “5-Infrastructure” (43 jurisdictions). 
  • Equity-promoting investments: To capture the breadth of investments that were potentially equity-promoting, we reviewed the project descriptions of each jurisdiction’s ARPA investments in the expenditure reports and assigned them to one or more of 14 equitable investment areas (up to three investment areas per investment) as well as up to three investment strategies within the investment area (there were a total of 106 investment strategies). We also identified up to five target populations associated with the investment. To assess the extent of equity investments, we created two indicators: 1) percent of total adopted budget as of July 2023 dedicated to potentially equity-promoting investments; and 2) percent of total projects as of July 2023 that were potentially equity-promoting. When investments that were initially approved and included in the Project and Expenditure reports were canceled, we subsequently removed them from the assessment calculations (keeping them in for the year when they were active and removing them once they were canceled) and kept them in the investment table, noting they were canceled (425 investments). We excluded this section of the assessment for 17 jurisdictions that allocated $0 toward equity-focused investments and met either of the following criteria: dedicated 100 percent of their ARPA funds revenue replacement or reported two or fewer total projects. The 17 jurisdictions include: Anaheim, CA; Arlington, VA; Broward County, FL; Cuyahoga County, OH; Dekalb County, GA; Greensboro, NC; Irvine, CA; Miami Dade County, FL; Oakland, CA; Orlando, FL; Palm Beach County, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Sacramento, CA; San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; Scottsdale, AZ; and Shelby County, TN.

Scoring the assessment

We scored the assessment using a 100-point scale and distributing points across the six arenas. The equity-focused investments section was weighted most heavily (50 points), divided equally between the breadth of investments and depth of investments. Jurisdictions that invested funds in policing and/or incarceration received a 10 point deduction. The overall equity focus, community engagement, and accountability and transparency sections were each worth 10 points. The equity decision-making tools and infrastructure arena was weighted higher, at 15 points, because of the structural nature of these indicators which could lead to longer-lasting impacts. The equitable labor practices section was weighted less, at 5 points, because the information that jurisdictions provided in this section was generally quite minimal. The total section points were distributed equally across the indicators in each section (or sub-section in the case of equity-focused investments). For the jurisdictions for which we excluded the equity-focused investments and/or equitable labor practices section, we adjusted the point system to total 100 for comparability.

SectionPoints
Overall Equity Focus10
Equity Decision-Making Tools and Infrastructure15
Community Engagement10
Equitable Labor Practices5

Equity-Focused Investments

  • Breadth of investments (25)

  • Extent of investments (25)

    • Extent of Investments (dollars) (12.5)
    • Extent of Investments (projects) (12.5)
  • Policing/incarceration investments (-10)
50
Accountability and Transparency10
Total100

After scoring the assessments, we sorted jurisdictions into three equal sized groups (low, medium, and high) for the overall assessment and for each of the six sections.

The assessment was conducted by a team of research assistants between February and December 2023. Each assessment was cross-checked by at least one additional research assistant. The 2022 data was sent to the Chief Equity Officer, ARPA lead, or budget department of each jurisdiction for review in July 2023 and the cumulative data was sent to the same contacts in December 2023. Forty-two cities and counties responded with confirmations or changes to the assessment data in July 2023 and 29 responded in December 2023. The research team reviewed all requested changes according to the assessment rubric to make final decisions.

Selecting jurisdictions, investment strategies, and investments for further analysis

This equity assessment surfaced jurisdictions, investment strategies, and investments for further investigation and possible inclusion in case studies, examples, policy tools, and other written resources. To prioritize investments for further analysis, we filtered the investments using the following criteria: large-scale/potentially transformative, community-driven, innovative, and targeted to a marginalized population. We also conducted a media scan and reviewed additional publicly available information related to the investments of ARPA local fiscal recovery funds in these and other cities and counties, including news articles, public meeting records, and information shared online. From these methods, we identified 10 potential jurisdictions for case studies, 15 possible investment strategies, and 100 equity investments for potential inclusion in our toolkit.

ARPA Equity Assessment Tool

Overall Equity Focus
1Equity ConsciousThe jurisdiction demonstrated equity awareness by acknowledging the inequitable impacts of the pandemic and the importance of prioritizing funding to underserved communities disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and systemic inequities
2Race ConsciousThe jurisdiction demonstrated race-consciousness by describing how Black, Latinx, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Native American, and other communities of color were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and/or systemic inequities
3Equity as a PriorityThe jurisdiction identified equity as a priority
Equity Decision Making Tools and Resources
4Equity PrinciplesThe jurisdiction described using equity-focused principles or goals to guide their spending plans
5Equity PoliciesThe jurisdiction has city or county-wide policies that support efforts to center equity in policy making
6Equity FrameworkThe jurisdiction uses or plans to use an equity framework that provides a vision, approach/plan, and set of actionable strategies to inform their ARPA investments
7Equity StaffingThe jurisdiction has an equity office and/or staff positions dedicated to equity
8Equity ToolsThe jurisdiction uses or plans to use equity tools to prioritize projects or funding decisions
9Data DisaggregationThe jurisdiction uses or plans to use data disaggregated by race/ethnicity and other demographics to understand inequities and guide decision making
10Geographic Targeting via QCTsThe jurisdiction is targeting or plans to target qualified census tracts (QCTs) in allocating resources. QCTs are census tracts where at least half of households have lower incomes than most of the surrounding region
11Neighborhood Risk/Vulnerability MappingThe jurisdiction uses or plans to use geographic targeting to disinvested/marginalized/vulnerable neighborhoods to inform resource allocation
Community Engagement
12Broad Community EngagementThe jurisdiction engaged residents in deliberations on how to use the funds through mechanisms such as surveys, workshops, listening sessions, participatory budgeting, and community-submitted/generated project proposals
13Targeted OutreachThe jurisdiction conducted targeted outreach to engage underserved communities most impacted by the pandemic and systemic inequities
14Inclusive EngagementThe jurisdiction made its community engagement activities accessible by holding meetings at convenient times and locations and/or by providing services such as translation and childcare
Equitable Labor Practices
15Targeted or Local HiringThe jurisdiction indicated that it will apply targeted or local hiring requirements to ARPA-supported projects
16Living WageThe jurisdiction indicated that it will apply living wage requirements to ARPA-supported projects
17Prevailing WageThe jurisdiction indicated that it will apply prevailing wage requirements to ARPA-supported projects
18Project Labor AgreementThe jurisdiction indicated that it will apply Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements to ARPA-supported projects
19Community Benefits AgreementsThe jurisdiction indicated that it will apply Community Benefits Agreements (CBA) requirements to ARPA-supported projects
Equity Investments
20Good JobsThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support access to and creation of family-supporting jobs for underserved residents through strategies such as sector-focused career training pathways, wraparound supports for job training participants, apprenticeships, and strong labor standards
21Income and WealthThe jurisdiction plans to use funds for programs that build income or wealth for low-income and pandemic-impacted residents, including direct cash assistance (such as one-time cash payments or guaranteed income pilot programs), as well as debt relief, access to public benefits, and access to financial services
22Inclusive Business DevelopmentThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support inclusive business development, including pandemic emergency assistance and longer-term investments that support the development of small businesses owned by people of color, women, and members of other underrepresented communities
23Housing SecurityThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support housing security for low-income households, including affordable housing production and preservation, eviction protection and rent/mortgage relief, community ownership models, home buying assistance, and homelessness prevention
24Food SecurityThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support equitable food systems and increased access to healthy food for food-insecure people or communities
25Health EquityThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to improve public health and address health disparities including COVID-19 prevention and treatment for vulnerable populations, community health workers/benefits navigators, mental health and substance abuse programs, and other health and human services
26Digital EquityThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support equitable access to affordable, reliable high-speed internet, computing devices, and digital skills
27Early ChildhoodThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support early childhood development, such as pre-K and early learning programs, perinatal supports, and home visits
28Quality Child CareThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to ensure access to affordable, quality child care, including supports for childcare businesses, childcare workers, and working parents
29Youth & School-Aged ChildrenThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support youth and school-aged children, including educational and extracurricular programs, mental health services, and youth employment programs
30Community InfrastructureThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to improve the quality of disinvested neighborhoods through investments such as removing lead pipes, energy-efficient retrofits, water and sewer infrastructure, public transit, and arts and culture projects
31Equity InfrastructureThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to maintain or expand institutional infrastructure to advance equity, such as staffing and data infrastructure, community engagement, and participatory budgeting
32Community Based OrganizationsThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to support community-based organizations, including community grant programs, capacity-building initiatives, and individual grants to community-based organizations to implement programs
33Community Safety & JusticeThe jurisdiction plans to use funds to increase community safety through investments such as community violence intervention and prevention programs, non-police emergency response programs, access to legal services, and re-entry services
34Policing (Negative Points)The jurisdiction plans to use funds to expand policing or incarceration, including funding for new or expanded programs or departments, additional hiring, premium pay, equipment purchasing, and building renovation or construction
35Extent of Investment (% of Spending)Percent of total adopted budget as of July 2023 dedicated to potentially equity-promoting investments
36Extent of Investment (% of Projects)Percent of total projects as of July 2023 that were potentially equity-promoting
Transparency & Accountability
37Equity OutcomesThe jurisdiction uses or plans to use disaggregated data to track equity outcomes related to their ARPA investments
38Public DataThe jurisdiction committed to making data on ARPA investments and progress toward outcomes publicly accessible via a website/dashboard
39ARPA WebsiteThe jurisdiction has or is planning to have a dedicated website or space on an existing web page for ARPA resources
40Performance MeasuresThe jurisdiction sets and tracks progress toward performance measures for some or all of its investments

Cities and Counties Included in Equity Assessment
  1. Alameda County, CA
  2. Albuquerque, NM
  3. Allegheny County, PA
  4. Anaheim, CA
  5. Anchorage, AK
  6. Arapahoe County, CO
  7. Arlington, TX
  8. Atlanta, GA
  9. Aurora, CO
  10. Austin, TX
  11. Bakersfield, CA
  12. Baltimore, MD
  13. Baltimore County, MD
  14. Baton Rouge, LA
  15. Bergen, NJ
  16. Bernalillo County, NM
  17. Bexar County, TX
  18. Boston, MA
  19. Broward County, FL
  20. Buffalo, NY
  21. Chandler, AZ
  22. Charlotte, NC
  23. Chicago, IL
  24. Chula Vista, CA
  25. Cincinnati, OH
  26. Jacksonville, FL
  27. Clark County, NV
  28. Cleveland, OH
  29. Cobb County, GA
  30. Collin County, TX
  31. Colorado Springs, CO
  32. Columbus, OH
  33. Contra Costa County, CA
  34. Cook County, IL
  35. Corpus Christi, TX
  36. Cuyahoga County, OH
  37. Dallas, TX
  38. Dallas County, TX
  39. Dane County, WI
  40. Dekalb County, GA
  41. Denton County, TX
  42. Denver, CO
  43. Detroit, MI
  44. Dupage County, IL
  45. Durham, NC
  46. El Paso, TX
  47. El Paso County, CO
  48. El Paso County, TX
  49. Erie County, NY
  50. Essex County, NJ
  51. Fairfax County, VA
  52. Fort Bend County, TX
  53. Fort Wayne, IN
  54. Fort Worth, TX
  55. Franklin County, OH
  56. Fresno, CA
  57. Fresno County, CA
  58. Fulton County, GA
  59. Glendale, AZ
  60. Greensboro, NC
  61. Gwinnett County, GA
  62. Hamilton County, OH
  63. Harris County, TX
  64. Henderson, NV
  65. Hennepin County, MN
  66. Hidalgo County, TX
  67. Honolulu, HI
  68. Houston, TX
  69. Hudson County, NJ
  70. Indianapolis-Marion County, IN
  71. Irvine, CA
  72. Jackson County, MO
  73. Jersey City, NJ
  74. Kansas, MO
  75. Kern County, CA
  76. King County, WA
  77. Lake County, IL
  78. Laredo, TX
  79. Las Vegas, NV
  80. Lee County, FL
  81. Lexington-Fayette County, KY
  82. Lincoln, NE
  83. Long Beach, CA
  84. Los Angeles, CA
  85. Los Angeles County, CA
  86. Louisville-Jefferson, KY
  87. Lubbock, TX
  88. Madison, WI
  89. Maricopa County, AZ
  90. Mecklenburg County, NC
  91. Memphis, TN
  92. Mesa, AZ
  93. Miami Dade County, FL
  94. Miami, FL
  95. Milwaukee, WI
  96. Milwaukee County, WI
  97. Minneapolis, MN
  98. Monmouth County, NJ
  99. Monroe County, NY
  100. Montgomery County, MD
  101. Montgomery County, PA
  102. Multnomah County, OR
  103. Nashville-Davidson County, TN
  104. Nassau County, NY
  105. New Orleans, LA
  106. New York, NY
  107. Newark, NJ
  108. Norfolk County, MA
  109. North Las Vegas, NV
  110. Oakland, CA
  111. Oakland County, MI
  112. Oklahoma City, OK
  113. Oklahoma County, OK
  114. Omaha, NE
  115. Orange County, CA
  116. Orange County, FL
  117. Orlando, FL
  118. Palm Beach County, FL
  119. Philadelphia, PA
  120. Phoenix, AZ
  121. Pierce County, WA
  122. Pima County, AZ
  123. Pinellas County, FL
  124. Pittsburgh, PA
  125. Plano, TX
  126. Portland, OR
  127. Prince George’s County, MD
  128. Raleigh, NC
  129. Reno, NV
  130. Riverside, CA
  131. Riverside County, CA
  132. Sacramento, CA
  133. Sacramento County, CA
  134. Salt Lake County, UT
  135. San Antonio, TX
  136. San Bernardino County, CA
  137. San Diego, CA
  138. San Diego County, CA
  139. San Francisco, CA
  140. San Joaquin County, CA
  141. San Jose, CA
  142. San Mateo County, CA
  143. Santa Ana, CA
  144. Santa Clara County, CA
  145. Scottsdale, AZ
  146. Seattle, WA
  147. Shelby County, TN
  148. Snohomish County, WA
  149. St Louis, MO
  150. St Louis County, MO
  151. St Paul, MN
  152. St Petersburg, FL
  153. Stockton, CA
  154. Suffolk County, NY
  155. Tampa, FL
  156. Tarrant County, TX
  157. Toledo, OH
  158. Travis County, TX
  159. Tucson, AZ
  160. Tulsa, OK
  161. Tulsa County, OK
  162. Utah County, UT
  163. Ventura County, CA
  164. Virginia Beach, VA
  165. Wake County, NC
  166. Washington, DC
  167. Wayne County, MI
  168. Westchester County, NY
  169. Wichita, KS
  170. Will County, IL

Contact Us

For questions or comments about this website, our research, or media requests, please contact us using the form below.