About the Budget Equity Project

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.

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.

Section	Points
Overall Equity Focus	10
Equity Decision-Making Tools and Infrastructure	15
Community Engagement	10
Equitable Labor Practices	5
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 Transparency	10
Total	100

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

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