PAGENO="0001" BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF A NATIONAL URBAN POLICY DEPOS ITO~~Y HEARINGS BEFORE THE TASK FORCE ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 3, 15, 16, AND APRIL 3, 197S Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget ~ 0' ~UiGERS tI~~V~ ~CHUULLB~R~ CAMDENY ft 08102 GOVEPNMFNT DOCUMENN U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 27~-196 WASHINGTON: 1978 TF-8-95-24 (~_~ I 7 ~ ~ ( ~ * F U ~/ (~ PAGENO="0002" THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET JIM WRIGHT, Texas THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California PARREN J. MITCHELL, Maryland OMAR BURLESON, Texas LOUIS STOKES, Ohio ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York BUTLER DEI~RICK, South Carolina OTIS G. PIKE, New York DONALD FRASER, Minnesota DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida PAUL SIMON, Illinois JOSEPH L. FISHER, Virginia NORMAN Y. MINETA, California JIM MATTOX, Texas GEORGE GROSS, Executive Director BRUCE MEREDITH, Assistant Director, Budget Priorities NANCY TEETERS, Assistant Director, Economic Analysis WENDELL BELEW, Counsel V V WILLIAM LILLEY III, Minority Staff Director TASK FORCE ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York, Chairman THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee PARREN J. MITCHELL, Maryland V LOUIS STOKES, Ohio V V V V NORMAN Y. MINETA, California STANLEY B. COLLENDER, Administrator V V CHARLES W. WIECKING, Senior Analyst TASK FORCE ON TAX EXPENDITDRES, GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND REGULATION~ PAUL SIMON, Illinois, Chairman OMAR BURLESON, Texas JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina JOSEPH L. FISHER, Virginia BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York NORMAN Y. MINETA, California JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California NANCY TEETERS, Director, Economic Analysis Division CHARLES W. WIECKING, Senior Analyst NICHOLAS A. MASTERS, Director, Majority Associate Staff *The task force appeared in a joint hearing on Wednesday, Feb. 15, 1978. ROBERT $. GIAIMO, Connecticut, Chairman V VV - DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio JAMES T. BRVOYHILL, North Carolina BARBER B. CONABLE, Ja., New York MAI~JORIE S. HOLT, Maryland JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee CLAIR W. BURGENER, California RALPH S. REGULA, Ohio (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held on- Page February 3, 1978 1 February 15, 1978 75 February 16, 1978 139 April 3, 1978 235 Statements by- Altman, Roger C., Assistant Secretary for Domestic Finance, Depart- ment of the Treasury, accompanied by Emil Sunley, Deputy Assist- ant Secretary for Tax Policy 270 Edgar, Hon. Robert W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, on behalf of Northeast-Midwest Economic Ad- vancement Coalition, accompanied by John Moriarty, of the Coali- tion staff 217 Farber, Stephen, director, National Governors' Association 211 Francois, Hon. Francis B., county councilman, Prince Georges County, Md., and second vice president, National Association of Counties____ 204 Hance, Hon. Margaret T., mayor, Phoenix, Ariz 139 Hall, Robert T., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development 255 Harris, Hon. Patricia R., Secretary, Housing and Urban Develop- ment 236 Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., mayor of Cleveland, Ohio 152 Logue, Hon. Frank, mayor of New Haven, Coun 179 Nathan, Dr. Richard P., senior fellow, Governmental Studies Program, Brookings Institution 19 Peterson, Dr. George, director of public finance, Urban Institute 68, 130 Rivlin, Dr. Alice M., Director, Congressional Budget Office, accom- panied by Peggy Cuciti and James Verdier 1 Sunley, Dr. Emil, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury 112 Vaughan, Dr. Roger, the Rand Corp 122 Verdier, James, Deputy Assistant Director for Tax Analysis, Tax Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office, accompanied by Dr. Frank Russek, Tax Analysis Division 76 Wagner, Robert F., chairman, New York City Planning Commission, appearing on behalf of Mayor Koch of New York 165 Additional information submitted for the record by- Altman, Roger C.: Prepared statement 275 Suggested Examples of Proposed National Development Bank-Fi- nanced Projects 283 Deane, Hon. John, prepared statement on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures with enclosure~. 288 Enclosure to statement entitled, National Urban Policy and Urban Action Agenda for State Legislatures 289 Farber, Stephen B., prepared statement on behalf of the National Governors' Association 214 Francois, Hon. Francis B., prepared statement with appendix, on behalf of the National Association of Counties - 207 Table entitled, "Medicaid Program and Administrative Costs to Counties, July 1, 1975 to June 30, 1976" 216 Hall, Robert T.: Factors Causing Business Flight From the Cities 267 Hance, Hon. Margaret T., prepared statement 145 Harris, Hon. Patricia R., table entitled, "Federal Aid As Percent of Own Source General Revenue For 48 Largest Cities" 247 (III) PAGENO="0004" `V Additional information submitted for the record by-Continued Logue, Hon. Frank: Page Prepared statement with enclosures 183 Enclosure to statement: Letter to Joseph A. Califano Jr., dated February 15, 1978, re concerns over comments on the proposed 1979 Federal budget 186 Attachment to letter entitled, "New Haven's Pre- liminary Response to Cities and People in Dis- tress: The National Urban Policy Discussion Paper, Draft of November 1977" 187 Prepared statement on behalf of the National League of Cities - 200 Mineta, Hon. Norman Y.: Letter dated February 15, 1978, to Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman, chairperson, Task Force on State and Local Government, Com- mittee on the Budget, re administration's investment tax credit proposal 75 statement entitled, "Urban Policy: A History and A Suggestion" with attachment 224 Attachment to statement: A Process for Implementation of a National Investment Strategy 229 Nathan, Dr. Richard P.: Appendix entitled, "Projected CDB G Allocations to Entitlement Jurisdictions in Fiscal 1980, With Urban Conditions Index and Index Variables" 31 Prepared statement with tables 23 Tables in prepared statement: Table 1.-Direct Federal Aid As A Percent of Own Source General Revenue, Selected Cities and Fiscal Years, 1957-78 - 26 Table 2.-Comparative Growth in Total Federal Grants, Selected NEQ and Sun Belt Cities 1971-72 Through 1978 26 National Association of Counties, prepared statement with appendix presented on its behalf by Francis B. Francois 207 National Conference of State Legislatures, prepared statement pre- sented on its behalf by Hon. John Deane with enclosure entitled, "National Urban Policy and Action Agenda for State Legislatures__ 288 National Governors' Association, prepared statement presented on its behalf by Stephen B. Farber 214 National League of Cities, statement presented on its behalf by Frank Logue 183 Peterson, Dr. George, prepared statement (February 15) 133 O'Neffl, Hon. Thomas P. III, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, prepared statement 284 Rivlin, Dr. Alice M.: Prepared statement 8 Tables submitted in oral testimony: State and Local Government Revenues and Expenditures, Calendar Years 1973-77 4 Outlays for Grant Programs by Major Purpose, Various Years 5 Grants to State and Local Governments by Function and for Selected Programs Important to Cities 5 Simon, Hon. Paul, article from Washington Post dated February 15, 1978, entitled, "Tax Cut Plan Seen Costing Blacks Jobs" 109 Sunley, Dr. Emil: Economic Impact of Stimulating the Economy~. 121 Prepared statement 114 Vaughan, Dr. Roger, prepared statement 124 Verdier, James, summary and analysis statement with preface by Dr. Alice M. Rivlin 80 Estimated Cost of Compensatory Federal Programs. 107 Wagner, Robert F., prepared statement 169 PAGENO="0005" BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF A NATIONAL URBAN POLICY FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TASK FORCE ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Wa.sMngton, D.C. The task force met, pursuant to notice, at 9 :30 a.m., in room 304, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman, chair- woman of the task force, presiding. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Good morning. I would like to open these bearmgs on the budgetary implications of a national urban policy and of the implications in the President's budget for urban affairs. The witnesses before us are distinguished and we will start with Dr. Rivlin, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. STATEMENT OP Bit. ALICE M. RIVLIN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY PEGGY CUCITI AND ~fAMES VERDIER Dr. RIVLIN. Thank you. I have with me Peggy Cuciti from our Human Resources Group and James Verdier from our Tax Analysis Group. The testimony is fairly long, but I have shortened it some- what for reading purposes and will submit the rest of it for the record. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Without objection, your full statement will appear in the record. Dr. RIvLIN. Madam Chairwoman and members of the task force, this morning I have been asked to provide an overview of the President's 1979 budget as it relates to the needs of our Nation's cities. Such a review may seem premature inasmuch as the President has promised to submit to the Congress in early spring the adminis- tration's urban policy initiative, which could entail modifications to the 1979 budget. Despite this situation, however, the proposed budget is worth reviewing now, because the President has stated that, as sub- mitted, this budget reflects the administration's efforts to meet urban needs. Another reason is that one cannot develop and evaluate pro- posals for change without a clear understanding of current policies. The fiscal policy implied by the overall spending and revenue totals, the choice of particular fiscal instruments, and the priorities reflected in specific expenditure and tax proposals must all be con- sidered to determine the likely impact of the budget on cities. (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 THE CITtES AND THE ECONOMY While all Americans have a stake in an effective fiscal policy-one that will create jobs without generating inflationary pressures-the residents of our larger and older cities may be most concerned, since the hardships imposed by weak performance of the national economy are not distributed evenly throughout the country. Blacks and youths-the two segments of the population that were hit hardest by the recent recesssion-make up a large proportion of the total popu- lation of many central cities. In the third quarter of 1977, the unemployment rate in central cities was 8.6 percent, down from the 10-percent rate at the worst point in the recession but clearly still much too high. Many urban businesses are hard hit as well. When there is a slack- ening in national demand, older and less efficient plants are usually the first to curtail operations. And as the economy recovers, these plants are often the last to resume production. Such plants are more often found in the older cities of the Northeast and Midwest. tTnemployment and inadequate demand for business output not only cause hardship for individuals but also create budgetary diffi- culties for State and local governments. As unemployment increases, the demand for services for the unemployed and the poor go up. At the same time, revenue collections are likely to go down reflecting reduced levels of economic activity. Faced with this situation and unable to sustain deficits, State and local governments are often forced to raise taxes or cut services. These actions make it more difficult for the Federal Government to achieve its goal of increasing the rate of economic growth. Inflation too is a problem for State and local governments. As employees demand salary adjustments to keep pace with the cost of living, the cost of providing public services goes up. Also, like other consumers, governments face price increases for fuel and materials used in production of public services. Local governments-cities, counties, and school districts-are most hurt by inflation for two reasons. First, they rely more heavily on property taxes, which, unlike the income and sales taxes that provide most of the revenue raised by State governments, tend to be rela- tively unresponsive-at least in the short run-to changes in income and prices. Second, because local governments actually provide most public goods and services, the impact of price changes on their budgets is both more immediate and more direct. Federal and State governments are shielded to some extent from inflationary pressures, inasmuch as grants constitute a portion of their budgets. They need not take the inflation immediately into account. When spending in grants programs fails to keep pace with inflation, it is largely local governments who must cut back services or raise taxes. According to CBO's most recent economic forecast, if current policies are continued, a slowdown in economic growth is likely to appear toward the end of 1978 and in 1979. The two factors con- tributing to this slowdown are the fiscal drag implicit in a current policy budget that has receipts increasing at a faster rate than ex- PAGENO="0007" 3 penditures and an expected weakening in major components of non- Federal demand. In response to similar forecasts, the administration has made tax cuts the centerpiece of economic policy in its 1979 budget proposals. To maintain real growth in GNP in the 4.5- to 5-percent range, and to reduce unemployment below 6 percent by the end of 1979, the President is proposing tax cuts of $25 billion and spending increases of $6 billion-1.O percent more than currrent policy. Concern for the condition of cities and their residents may lead the Congress to favor more rapid economic growth or the use of alterna- tive measures to achieve the President's goals. If the congressional goal is a higher growth rate and a faster reduction in unemployment, then it should consider further increases in total spending, changes in spending patterns, or additional tax reductions. Several employment-stimulating expenditure programs can have stronger effects on employment growth than do tax reductions, and these can be more easily targeted toward cities. These include support for public service employment, antirecession financial assistance, and local public works projects. In a study published last year, CBO concluded that dollar for dollar, these types of spending programs were more effective than a tax cut in creating jobs. CBO expressed. reservations, however, about the administrative feasibility of increas- ing spending programs enough to accomplish the same total growth in employment that could be achieved by a tax cut. The jobs impact of these employment-oriented grant programs are heavily dependent on whether State and local governments simply substitute Federal grant dollars for their own revenues. To the extent that they do, the net impact of these programs might be either similar to or smaller than a general tax cut of the same magnitude. If Federal grant dollars allows State and local governments to tax at rates lower than they would otherwise, then the impact of the pro- gram should be roughly equal to a Federal tax cut, albeit with some delays. If, however, grant funds are used to build surpluses or to reduce borrowing for major construction, then the net employment impact would be substantially less, or even negative. How State and local governments respond to grant programs prob- ably depends on their fiscal situations. During the recession, State and local governments as a group incurred operating account deficits of $2.9 billion in 1974 and $6.2 billion in 1975. Since most State and local governments are legally constrained from borrowing to cover the cost of current operations, many were forced to deplete reserves, cut expenditures, and raise taxes. The longer a recession lasts, the greater the number of governments that deplete their reserves and the greater the incidence and magnitude of restrictive actions. Under such circumstances as prevailed a couple of years ago, one can reason- ably conclude that State and local governments would respond to Federal funds by mounting programs that could not otherwise have been supported and that additional Federal funds would have a sub- stantial net impact on State and local spending and employment. [The following information was submitted for the record:] PAGENO="0008" 4 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, CALENDAR YEARS 1973-77 [Dollars in billionsi 1973 1974 1975 1976 11977 Total revenues 193. 5 210. 4 235. 7 264. 7 294. 4 Total revenues in 1972 dollars 180. 3 177. 7 181. 8 192. 1 200. 3 Own-source revenues 152. 9 166. 4 181. 1 203. 7 226. 8 Own-source revenues in 1972 dollars 142. 5 140. 6 139. 7 147. 9 154. 2 Expenditures Expenditures in 1972 dollars Surplus/deficit-all funds Surplus/deficit-operating accounts only 180.5 168. 2 13. 0 4. 1 202.8 171. 4 7. 6 -2. 9 229.8 177. 2 5. 9 -6. 2 246.3 178. 8 18. 4 3. 9 265.3 180. 4 29. 1 13. 6 1 Data for 1977 are estimated using incomplete information for the fourth quarter. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income Accounts. Dr. RIvLIN. Since 1976, however, the financial status of the State and local sector has greatly improved. Surpluses, which have been recorded in operating accounts since the latter half of 1976, ap- proached $13.6 billion in 1977. "Own-source" revenues have increased steadily between 1975 and 1977; growth in real terms was 5.9 percent in 1976 and is expected to be 4.3 percent in 1977. While expenditure growth has been restrained in both 1976 and 1977, most projections show substantial increases in 1978. In these circumstances, a larger portion of Federal grant dollars is likely to substitute for spending that would take place anyway, and the net employment impact is likely to be relatively small. Many individual governments, however, are still experiencing fiscal diffi- culties, and they continue to be likely to use Federal dollars in ways that produce substantial effects on employment. Because of this un- evenness in fiscal condition and its impact on effectiveness of counter- cyclical grants, both the level of funding and geographic targeting of these grants are important issues facing the Congress. To determine the priority assigned to urban needs in the Presi- dent's budget proposal, one should review the status of both direct expenditure programs and consider both ongoing programs and pro- posed legislative changes. SPENDING FOR GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS In examining the direct expenditure budget, I will limit my com- ments to the programs that extend grants to State and local govern- ments. Other programs affect cities and their residents, but their impacts are indirect and cannot easily be deduced by simple exami- nation of budgetary totals and legislative proposals. Some grant programs are more important to cities than others; yet it is impossible to isolate any one set and call it the "budget for cities." Almost every grant program provides support to some cities and almost no program provides support exclusively to cities. The budget proposed by the President is essentially a current policy budget, and thus its impact on cities is likely to be little differ- ent from recent budgets. It includes few major initiatives and few increases in spending beyond those necesary to maintain' current service levels in the face of inflation. The President's budget includes outlays of $85 billion in all grant programs in fiscal year 1979. This PAGENO="0009" 5 is a 5.9-percent increase over the President's estimate of $80.3 billion for 1978. If expected price changes are taken into account, grant outlays in 1979 are expected to decrease by 0.6 percent in real terms. In assessing these outlay changes, it is important to remember that this proposal for a year of restrained growth follows a year in which there were large increases in grant outlays. Between 1977 and 1978, grant outlays are estimated by the President to increase by approxi- mately 15 percent. Furthermore, the 1978 base includes a number of countercyclical programs in which one might have expected expendi- ture cutbacks in response to improved economic conditions. Instead, outlays for antirecession grant programs are projected by the budget to be 4.4 percent higher in 1979 than 1978. An increase of 8.1 percent is requested in grant programs that provide benefits to individuals such as AFDO and medicaid. Outlays for all other grant programs combined are projected to increase by 5.0 percent. [The following information was submitted for the record:] OUTLAYS FOR GRANT PROGRAMS BY MAJOR PURPOSE, VARIOUS YEARS [Dollars in billionsj 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 - Transition quarter 1977 1978 2 19792 15.2 17.3 20.4 0.6 27.7 1.0 28.7 .6 33.2 .4 37.4 2.2 10.2 .6 40.7 4.7 46.5 8.6 48.8 9.0 Function and Program Outlays Bud get authority 1977 1978 1979 1977 1978 1979 270 Energy-all grants 300 Natural resources and environment-all grants_ Abatement and control Construction grants 400 Transportation-all grants Urban highways Urban mass transportation 450 Community and regional development-all grants Community development grants Economic development assistance Local public works 0.07 0.27 0.64 0.07 0.37 0.59 4.19 4.90 5.58 2.61 5.43 5.51 .19 .24 .25 .15 .23 .24 3.53 4.14 4.66 1.98 4.50 4.50 8. 30 9. 56 10. 44 4. 81 8. 34 11. 28 NA NA NA .80 .80 .70 1. 62 1. 91 2. 16 . 46 . 48 2.78 4. 50 6. 70 6. 28 10. 21 5. 00 5.27 2.09 2.58 2.80 .3.25 4.00 4.15 .17 .18 .15 .22 .21 .25 .58 2.29 2.00 5.98 0 0 Grants for payments to Total individuals Programs enacted to stimulate the Other economy' 24. 0 28.1 34. 4 41.3 43. 3 49. 7 59.0 15.9 613. 4 80. 3 85.0 8. 9 10.8 13.4 13.1 14.0 16.1 19. 5 5. 1 23. 0 25. 1 2]. 2 1 Includes Emergency Employment Assistance, Job Opportunities Program, Temporary Employment Assistance, Antirecesnion Financial Assistance and Local Public Works. 2 President's estimates. Source: COO calcuations based on table H-5, "Special Analyses Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1979." Dr. RIvr~IN. The following budgetary changes, in the table I have submitted for the record, are detailed in the longer statement, but let me summarize them very briefly. [The following table was submitted for the record:] GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY FUNCTION AND FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS IMPORTANT TO CITIES [Dollars in billionsj PAGENO="0010" 6 GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY FUNCTION AND FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS IMPORTANT T9 CITIES-Continued lDollars in billions) Outlays Budget authority Function and Program 1977 1978 1979 1977 1978 1979 501 Elementary, secondary and vocational educa- tion-all grants 4.64 5. 19 Elementary and secondary education 2. 34 2. 56 Child development .47 .57 Education for the handicapped . 12 . 24 Emergency school assistance .24 . 28 lmpactaid .72 .74 504 Employment and training-all grants 6.33 9.98 Employment and training assistance 2. 94 4. 15 Temporary employment assistance 2.34 4. 76 506 Social services-all grants 4.38 5.23 Grants to States for social services and child welfare 2. 53 2.70 Human development services_ 1.35 1. 40 550 Health-all grants - 12.10 12.88 Medicaid 9.88 10.85 Heath Services Administration grants .74 .81 600 Income security-all grants 12.61 13.99 Child nutrition 2.62 2.64 Supplemental food (WIC) . 24 . 36 AFDC 6.35 6.71 Subsidized housing 1.31 1.86 Public housing operating subsidies . 51 . 61 750 Administration of justice-all grants . 71 .65 LEAA .71 .63 800 General purpose fiscal assistance-all grants~. 9.44 9.74 General revenue sharing 6.76 6.83 Antirecessisn financial assistance 1.70 1.57 Taxable municipal bond option_... All other 1. 06 1.20 5. 95 5. 78 6. 17 3. 02 2.71 3. 17 .65 .51 .66 . 40 .32 . 47 .30 .29 .31 .71 .73 .76 11.09 12.70 3.89 3. 98 4. 85 2.83 5. 96 6. 85 0 4.90 4.66 5.11 2.84 2. 71 2. 52 1. 53 1. 35 1. 48 14.08 12.12 12.75 11.95 10.23 10.69 .90 .81 .89 14. 81 27.83 34. 13 2.61 2.81 2.50 . 53 . 25 . 25 6.85 6.31 6.54 2.28 16.22 22.10 . 69 . 60 .69 . 57 . 58 . 51 .54 .57 .49 9.46 9.21 9.60 6.85 6.66 6.86 1.05 1.57 1.40 .10 1.22 1. 15 1. 20 7. 89 3. 78 .72 . 80 . 33 1.46 10.91 3.79 5. 96 6.22 2.86 2.85 14.54 11.95 1.41 28.38 6.85 . 56 6.85 15.85 .73 . 52 .49 16.45 6.85 1.04 7.09 1.30 Total-all functions 68.40 80.29 85. 02 91. 73 92 50 108.86 NA-not available. Source: "Special Analysis Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1979." Dr. RIvLIN. The effects of the budget submitted by President Carter on State and local governments result primarily from overall fiscal policy and secondarily from a number of specific expenditure and tax proposals. If enacted, these proposals would have both positive and negative effects on urban problems. On the positive side, the President has proposed a significant in- crease in the funding of the title I education program-an increase of $644 million in budget authority. This expansion would allow continuation of the program at its real level of effort and the imple- mentation of a new program that aids school districts with high concentrations of poor children. The budget also requests funding to maintain federally supported public service employment through fiscal year 1979 at the 725,000 job level. This proposal would assist State and local governments that have become increasingly reliant on Federal funds to maintain services. With respect to general fiscal assistance to State and local govern- ments, the net result of the President's budget proposals are unclear. The President has requested more than $1 billion for antirecession financial assistance, although the current program expires at the end of fiscal year 1978. Since a significant portion of some city budgets are funded by this program, serious local budgetary difficulties may PAGENO="0011" 7 occur if the program is allowed to lapse. The President has indicated that he will propose legislation either extending the existing pro- gram or substituting a new program that would continue the flow of funds to hard-pressed cities, but the specifics of this legislation are not available. Another program for which the President's proposals are unclear is the New York City seasonal financing loan program. Authority to make loans to the city ends on June 30, 1978. While no funds are included in the budget, the President has indicated that he would recommend additional funds if he were convinced this was the only way to insure continued fiscal solvency for New York City. Fiscal assistance to State and local governments will also result if, as the President proposes, a new program of subsidies for taxable municipal bonds is enacted. This program would allow State and local governments to issue taxable securities and to receive a Federal subsidy equal to 35 to 40 percent of interest costs. These direct sub- sidies would be substituted for the indirect subsidy currently result- ing from the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds. This proposal is important to cities because it could broaden the market for munici- pal securities and thereby lower the costs of borrowing. In several other areas of the budget, the President's proposals may have some negative effects. Although the President has proposed full funding for the community development block grant program, total outlays for community and regional development grant programs are estimated to decline because of the phaseout of urban renewal and local public works spending. In the health area, the President has proposed several program initiatives that would extend services or eligibility for reimbursement to many needy children and expectant mothers, large numbers of whom live in urban areas. These exten- sions would probably increase the fiscal demands on State and local governments who share the cost of medicaid with the Federal Government. Many of the President's proposed changes in tax policy would also affect urban areas and their problems. The President's tax reform proposals would end deductions for State and local sales and gasoline taxes-but not income and real property taxes. This proposal might increase voter resistance to tax increases; however, the effect could be small since most taxpayers receive little benefit from the deduction- 77 percent now use the standard deduction. The President has also proposed abolishing the tax-exempt status of most industrial development bonds except for private industrial plants costing less than $10 million and located in "economically distressed" areas. Finding an acceptable definition of distressed areas that is both defensible in principle and administrable in prac- tice might be difficult; pressures to expand the definition of eligibility would be hard to resist, and the "target" eventually could become so broad as to be meaningless. In reviewing the budget's impact on cities, it must be remembered that budgets are shaped over a period of years and that the priorities reflected in this budget are those of past administrations and Con- gresses as well as of this administration and ultimately this Congress. If it is determined that urban needs have received insufficient prior- PAGENO="0012" S ity, budgetary changes can be made. But they will take time, for much of the budget is relatively uncontrollable in the short run. Only with advance planning and a multiyear commitment to reshape the budget can the budget be significantly altered to reflect changing priorities. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. iRivlin follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE M. RIVLIN Madam Chairwoman and members of the task force. This morning I have been asked to provide an overview of the President's 1079 budget as it relates to the needs of our Nation's cities. Such a review may seem premature inas- much as the President has promised to submit to the Congress in early spring the administration's urban policy initiative which could entail modifications to the 1979 budget. Despite this situation the proposed budget is worth reviewing because the President has stated that this budget as submitted reflects efforts by the administration to meet urban needs and because one cannot develop and evaluate proposals for change without a clear understanding of current policies. The fiscal policy implied by the overall spending and revenue totals, the choice of particular fiscal instruments, the priorities reflected in specific expendi- *ture and tax proposals all must be considered to determine the likely impact of the budget on cities. THE CITIES AND THE ECONOMY While all Americans have a stake in an effective fiscal policy-one that will create jobs without generating inflationary pressures-the residents of our larger and older cities may be more concerned than others since the hardships imposed by weak performance of the national economy are not distributed evenly throughout the country. Blacks and youths, the two segments of the population that were hit hardest by the recent recession, comprise a large pro- portion of the total population of many central cities. In the third quarter of 1977, the unemployment rate in central cities was 8.6 percent, down from the 10-percent rate at the worst point in the recession, but still clearly much too high. Many urban businesses are hard hit as well. When there is a slackening in national demand, older and less efficient plants are usually the first to curtail operations. As the economy recovers, these plants are often the last to resume production. Such plants are more often found in the older cities of the North- east and Midwest. Unemployment and inadequate demand for business output not only cause hardship for individuals but also create budgetary difficulties for State and local governments. As unemployment increases, the demand for services for the unemployed and the poor go up. At the same time, revenue collections are likely to go down reflecting reduced levels of economic activity. Faced with this situ- ation and unable to sustain deficits, State and local governments are often forced to raise taxes or cut services. These actions make it more difficult for the Federal Government to achieve its goal of increasing the rate of economic growth. Inflation too is a problem for State and local governments. The cost of pro- viding public services goes up as employees demand salary adjustments to keep pace with the cost of living. Also, governments like other consumers face price increases for fuel and materials used in the production of public services. Local governments-cities, counties, and school districts-are most hurt by inflation for two reasons. They rely more heavily on property taxes which, unlike the income and sales taxes that provide most of the revenue raised by State governments, tend, at least in the short run, to be relatively unresponsive to changes in income and prices. Second, because local governments actually provide most public goods and services the impact of price changes on their budgets is both more immediate and more direct. Federal and State govern- ments are shielded to some extent from inflationary pressures inasmuch as grants comprise a portion of their budgets. When spending in grants programs fails to keep pace with inflation, it is largely local governments who must cut back services or increase taxes. PAGENO="0013" 9 According to OBO's most recent economic forecast, if current policies ar~ continued there is likely to be a slowdown in economic growth toward the end of 1978 and in 1979. The two factors contributing to this slowdown are the fiscal drag implicit in a current policy budget that has receipts increasing at a faster rate than expenditures and an expected weakening in major com~ ponents of non-Federal demand. In response to similar forecasts, the administration has made tax cuts the centerpiece of economic policy in its 1979 budget proposals. To maintain real growth in GNP in the 4.5- to 5-percent range and to reduce unemployment below 6 percent by the end of 1979, the President is proposing tax cuts of $25 billion and spending increases of $6 billion-1.O percent more than current policy. Concern for the condition of cities and their residents may lead the Congress to favor more rapid economic growth or the use of alternative measures to achieve the President's goals. If the congressional goal is a higher rate o~ growth and a faster reduction in unemployment, then it should consider further increases in total spending, changes in spending patterns or additional ta~ reductions. There are several employment-stimulating expenditure programs that can have stronger effects on employment growth than do tax reductions and can be more easily targeted toward cities. These include support for public service employment, antirecession financial assistance, and local public works projects. In a study published last year, CBO concluded that dollar for dollar, these types of spending programs were more effective in creating jobs than a tax cut. CBO expressed reservations, however, about the administrative feasibility of increasing spending programs enough to accomplish the same total growth in employment that could be achieved by a tax cut. The jobs impact of these employment-oriented grant programs are highly dependent on whether State and local governments simply substitute Federal grant dollars for their own revenues. To the extent that they do, the net impact of these programs might be either similar to or smaller than a general tax cut of the same magnitude. If Federal grant dollars allow State and local govern- ments to tax at rates lower than they would have otherwise, then the impact of the program should be roughly equal to a Federal tax cut albeit with some delays. If, however, grant funds are used to build surpluses or to reduce bor- rowing for major construction, then the net employment impact would be sub- stantially less, or even negative. How State and local governments respond to grant programs probably de- pends on their fiscal situations. State and local governments as a group incurred operating account deficits during the recession: $2.9 billion in 1974 and $6.2 billion in 1975. Since most State and local governments are legally constrained from borrowing to cover the cost of current operations, many were forced to deplete reserves, cut expenditures and raise taxes. The longer a recession lasts, the greater the number of governments that deplete their reserves and the greater the incidence and magnitude of restrictive actions. Under these circum- stances, it is reasonable to conclude that State and local governments would respond to Federal funds by mounting programs that could not otherwise have been supported and that additional Federal funds would have a substantial net impact on State and local spending and employment. Since 1976, however, the financial status of the State and local sector has greatly improved. Surpluses, which have been recorded in operating accounts since the latter half of 1976 approached $13.6 billion in 1977. Own-source revenues have increased steadily between 1975 and 1977; growth in real terms was 5.9 percent in 1976 and is expected to be 4.3 percent in 1977. While ex- penditure growth has been restrained in both 1976 and 1977, most projections show substantial increases in 1978. In these circumstances a larger portion of Federal grant dollars are likely to substitute for spending that would take place anyway and the net employment impact is likely to be relatively small. Many individual governments however, are still experiencing fiscal difficulties and they continue to be likely to use Federal dollars in ways that produce substantial employment impacts. Because of this uneveness in fiscal condition and its impact on effectiveness of counter- cyclical grants, both the level of funding and geographic targeting of these grants are important issues facing the Congress. PAGENO="0014" 10 PEIORITIES REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET To determine the priority assigned to urban needs in the President's budget proposal, one should review the status of both direct expenditure and tax expenditure programs and consider both ongoing programs and proposed legis- lative changes. SPENDING FOR GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS In examining the direct expenditure budget, I wifi limit my comments to the programs that provide grants to State and local governments. Other programs affect cities and their residents but their impacts are indirect and cannot easily be reduced by simple examination of budget totals and legislative proposals. Some grant programs are more important to cities than others and yet it is impossible to isolate any one set and call it the "budget for cities." Almost every grant program provides support to some cities and almost no program provides support exclusively to cities. The budget proposed by the President is essentially a current policy budget and thus its impact on cities is likely to be little different from recent budgets. It includes few major initiatives and few increases in spending beyond those necessary to maintain current service levels in the face of inflation. The President's budget includes outlays of $85 billion in all grant programs in fiscal 3rear 1979. This is a 5.9-percent increase over the President's estimate of $80.3 billion for 1978. If expected price changes are taken into account, grant outlays in 1979 are expected to decrease by 0.6 percent in real terms. In assessing these outlay changes it is important to remember that this pro- posal for a year of restrained growth follows a year in which large increases in grant outlays took place. Between 1977 and 1978 grant outlays are estimated *by the President to increase by approximately 15 percent. Furthermore, the 1978 base includes a number of countercyclical programs, in which one might have expected expenditure cutbacks in response to improved economic condi- tions. Instead outlays for antirecession grant programs are projected by the budget to be 4.4 percent higher in 1979 than 1978. An increase of 8.1 percent is requested in the programs such as AFDO and medicaid that provide benefits to individuals. Outlays for all other grant programs combined are projected to increase by 5.0 percent. The aggregate increases proposed by the President are not evenly distributed among all budget functions. Funding changes and program initiatives of particu- lar importance to cities are proposed in several areas. Education.-Outlays for elementary and secondary education grant programs are expected to increase by 14.6 percent in 1979 to $5.9 billion. The fiscal year 1979 request for budget authority is $7.9 billion. An increase of $644 million in budget authority is requested for title I grants-enough to offset price increases in the base program and to initiate a new program that provides funds to school districts with especially high concentrations of poverty children. A sub- stantial increase is also requested for the education for the handicapped program. Employment and Training.-The budget includes $11.1 billion in outlays and $10.9 billion in budget authority for employment and training grant programs in 1979. The most important aspect of the President's budget in this area is the decision to fund 725,000 public service employment jobs-the same number as will be supported at the end of fiscal year 1978. All jobs would be funded under title VI of the CETA program rather than through titles II and VI as in past years. This will result in some shifts in the allocation of job slots among geographic areas. The President has requested budget authority for 1979 for youth training and employment programs which, when combined with previously available funds, will permit operation of these programs at the peak level achieved in 1978, but not allow expansion. The budget also includes a request for $400 million, $250 million of which would be used in 1979, for new but unspecified, training programs designed * and operated by private industry. While listed as a new initiative, this pro- gram appears similar to the current skill training improvement and help through industry retrainmg and employment programs. Both of these were funded in 1977 and 1978 but no new budget authority is reauested to continue them in 1979. PAGENO="0015" 11 Social Services.-The budget calls for $4.9 billion in outlays and $6.2 billion in budget authority for social service grant programs in 1979. The only major increase in this area is for child welfare services intended to improve foster care and adoption services. The budget also calls for continuation of the $200 million added to the title XX program in 1978 for child care services. However, no change is requested with respect to the $2.5 billion ceiling that was legis- lated in 1972. Thus, States that are utilizing their full title XX allotments can receive no funding increases. For some States, including several where large cities are located, this ceiling has meant reductions in real levels of Federal support for several years. Community and Regional Development .-T he President's budget includes $6.3 billion in outlays for grant programs in this area, a reduction of 6.7 per- cent from 1978 levels. The reduction in outlays is largely attributable to two programs. Spending in urban renewal will be lower than in 1978 as projects under the old program are closed out. Also, spending in the local public works program starts to phase down as no new budget authority is requested for this countercyclical program. The President has requested $5.3 billion in new budget authority for com- munity and regional development grant programs, an increase of 5.3 percent over 1978. This will fully fund the community development block grant pro- gram, and provide some increases for the economic development assistance grant programs. Increases requested in the budget for the regular EDA pro- gram are substantiaL A supplemental appropriation of $117 million is asked for 1978, thereby increasing the program by one-third. A further increase of $128 million is requested in 1979. Most of the increment is scheduled to be used for business development grants and loans, and for economic and trade adjust- ment assistance. Cities are expected to benefit disproportionally (relative to past funding patterns) from these increases; their funding would double from $100.4 million under the current appropriation for 1978 to $205 million in 1979. General Purpose Fiscal Assistance.-T his function includes an estimated $9.5 billion in outlays and $16.5 billion of budget authority in 1979. In fiscal year 1978, outlays and budget authority are estimated in the budget, to be $9.7 billion and $9.6 billion respectively. The fiscal year 1979 outlay figure is $280 million lower than 1978, largely because outlays in the antirecession financial assistance program are expected to decline with improvements in the national unemployment rate. Budget authority, on the other hand, shows a significant increase due to the proposal for subsidies for taxable municipal bonds. The authorization for the antirecession financial assistance program expires at the end of fiscal year 1978. Since a significant portion of some city budgets are funded by this program, serious local budget difficulties may occur if it is allowed to lapse. The President has indicated that he will propose legislation either extending the existing program or substituting a new program which would continue the flow of funds to hard-pressed cities. The budget authority request of $1.04 billion for antirecession financial assistance, while below 1978 levels, is $310 million more than would be required for an extension of the existing program given the administration's unemployment projections. Budget authority of $7.1 billion and outlays of $99 million are requested to finance a new program of subsidies for taxable municipal bonds. If the pro- gram is enacted, State and local governments could issue taxable securities and receive a Federal subsidy equal to 35 to 40 percent of interest costs. Thus a direct interest subsidy would be substituted for the indirect subsidy currently provided as a result of the tax exempt status of municipal bonds. This is important to cities because it may broaden the market for municipal securities and thereby lower the costs of borrowing. Another program of importance to at least one city is the New York City seasonal financial loan program. Authority to make loans to the city ends on June 30, 1978. While no funds are included in the budget, the President has indicated that he would recommend additional funds if he was convinced it was the only way to insure continued fiscal solvency for New York City. Healtlv.-The 1979 budget includes $14.1 billion in outlays for health grant programs of which $12 billion is for medicaid; total outlays in 1978 are expected to be $12.9 billion. The President has proposed several budget initiatives and program changes to improve child health and avoid unwanted pregnancies among teenagers. PAGENO="0016" 12 Health assessment and screening services would be extended to an additional 1.7 million low-income children and teenagers not currently eligible for medic- aid. Medicaid eligibility would also be extended to include all low-income expectant mothers. These increases in eligibility will probably increase the requirements for State and local n1edicaid funds. Funding increases are also proposed for community based health services programs. Income Security.-Outlays for grant programs in the income security func- tion are expected to be $14.8 billion in 1979, an increase of 5.9 percent over 1978 levels. The most important Presidential proposal in this area is welfare reform. It does not show up in 1979 budget totals but would have important impacts in later years. In addition to the aid which would be provided to some city residents by the new program, some fiscal relief would be provided to city governments-directly, if they currently contribute to the costs of categorical programs, or indirectly if State governments respond to their reduced welfare costs by increasing State aid to cities. Most housing assistance programs appear in this budget function. Substantial increases in outlays are shown in 1979 as a number of new housing units built under the section 8 program move from the construction stage to occupancy and start receiving rent subsidies. New funding is requested in 1979 sufficient to make commitments to subsidize an additional 400,000 units for low-income families. This represents a small increase over the 380,240 new commitments expected in fiscal year 1978. Included in the budget is a proposal for a new section 8 moderate rehabilitation program and a significant expansion in the substantial rehabilitation program. This new emphasis on rehabilitation is also reflected in a proposed increase in the section 312 direct rehabilitation loan program found in the community and regional development budget function. Transportation .-The administration's budget includes outlays of $104.4 bil- lion in transportation grant programs. This represents an increase of 9.2 per- cent over 1978 levels. New budget authority requested for grants in this func- tion equals $11.3 billion. The administration is proposing major legislation reauthorizing highway and public transportation programs through 1982. In- cluded in the proposals are a number of changes, mostly administrative rather than budgetary in nature, that could be important to cities. The proposed highway legislation includes a program of urban formula grants which would be distributed directly to local governments and would replace the existing urban system program. The new program would broaden eligibility to include any road or street not currently in the interstate or primary system, whereas previously, urban grants could only be used for roads designated as part of the Federal aid system. The proposed changes are impor- taut for cities because they reduce the role of State agencies and increase the discretion allowed to local officials. Little change in funding levels is involved in the proposal. The proposed legislation also adopts uniform local matching requirements for highway and transit assistance. The local match in noninterstate highway programs would be decreased from 30 to 20 percent, the same as the matching rate currently in effect for transit programs. The legislation would also change matching requirements pertaining to interstate transfers: It would extend the lower match (10-percent local funds) required in the interstate program to any highway or transit project substituted for withdrawn interstate highway segments. New budget authority of $2.8 billion is proposed for urban mass transporta- tion grant programs. The budget authority request includes funds for discre- tionary capital grants, which in the past have been funded by multiyear contract authority provided in 1973 and 1074. In general, the budget allows no increase for capital purposes but it includes a small increase for operating subsidies as called for in section 5 of the current law. Proposed reauthorizing legislation for the UMTA programs would increase the proportion of total funds that are to be distributed by formula rather than on a discretionary basis. The funds which are shifted into the formula grant program would still have to be used for capital purposes only: Energy.-The President's budget includes outlays of $190 million in 1978 and $548 million in 1979 for energy conservation grants-a substantial increase over 1977, when only $6 million was devoted to this purpose. Cities would benefit from two of the energy conservation programs. The residential and commercial program would provide financial assistance to low-income families PAGENO="0017" 13 to insulate their homes. The State/local grants program would finance archi- tectural and engineering studies of ways to reduce energy consumption in hospitals, schools, and local public buildings. No funds, however, may be used for the implementation of these energy savings plans. Natural Resources and Environmeflt.-In the natural resources and environ- ment function, outlays are expected to equal $5.6 billion in 1979, an increase of almost 14 percent over fiscal year 1978. The request for budget authority equals $5.5 billion. Of particular importance to cities is the Environmental Protection Agency's construction grant program which provides funds for the construction of waste-water treatment facilities necessary to meet national water quality goals. Outlays in this program are expected to increase from $4.1 billion in 1978 to $4.7 billion in 1979. The President has requested an additional $4.5 billion in budget authority to fund new projects. PROPOSED TAX LAW CHANGES THAT MIGHT AFFECT CITIES Federal priorities are reflected in the tax expenditure as well as the direct expenditure budget. The President has proposed a number of changes in the tax code, several of which may have an impact on cities. Certain tax expenditures have made it somewhat easier for State and local governments to levy taxes or borrow money. The deductibility of State and local taxes, for example, may reduce the resistance of local voters to tax increases, while the tax exemption for municipal bond interest permits States and localities to borrow at lower interest rates. The President's tax reform proposals would end deductions for State and local sales and gasoline taxes (but not income and real property taxes). This is not likely to have a signifi- cant effect on State and local financing decisions, however, since most tax- payers receive little benefit from these deductions (77 percent now use the standard deduction and the tax saving is very small for the remainder who itemize). It has been argued that a number of tax provisions-especially accelerated depreciation and the investment tax credit-have the effect of favoring new construction over the repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing prop- erty, and are thus biased against central city development. The President's tax proposals would eliminate accelerated depreciation for new commercial and industrial buildings, and reduce it for new residential buildings. However, be has also proposed to extend the investment tax credit-which now applies only to machinery and equipment-to new industrial and utility structures. This by itself could have a negative impact on cities, since new construction is more likely to take place outside city boundaries where land is cheaper and more easily assembled. In an attempt to alleviate this problem, the President proposed that the investment tax credit also be permitted for the costs of rehabilitating structures. Whether this would offset the potential antiurban bias from extending the investment tax credit to new structures is uncertain at this point. The President has also proposed limiting the tax exempt status of industrial development bonds. Private industrial plant costs could be financed only if less than $10 million and are located in "economically distressed" areas. A problem with this and similar geographically targeted tax incentive proposals, however, is that it will be difficult to find an acceptable definition of distressed areas that is both defensible in principle and administrable in practice. Pres- sures to expand the definition of eligibility will become hard to resist, and the "target" eventually may become so broad as to be no longer meaningful. CONCLUSION The budget submitted by President Carter is largely a current policy budget. It does not call for many spending increases and it relies primarily on tax reductions to stimulate the economy. In reviewing the budget's impact on cities it must be remembered that budgets are shaped over a period of years and that the priorities reflected in this budget are those of past administrations and Congresses as well as of this administration and ultimately this Congress. If it is determined that urban needs have not received sufficient priority, budget changes can be made. But they will take time, for much of the budget is relatively uncontrollable In the 27-196-78-----2 PAGENO="0018" 14 short rim. Only with advance planning and a inultiyear commitment to reshape the budget can the budget be significantly altered to reflect changing priorities. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you. The substance of your testimony is that this budget does not reflect any kind of drastic reshaping to address the problems of cities? Dr. RIvI.IN. Yes; I think that is right, although the President proposes an additional urban policy package to come within the next couple months. Ms. HOLTZMAN. But this 1979 budget, as far as it has been presented to the Congress at least, does not reflect that reshaping. Dr. R.IvLIN. I think that is right. Ms. HOLTZMAN. You mentioned in your statement that the Presi- dent's proposal to extend the investment tax credit could have a negative impact on cities since new construction is more likely to take place outside city boundaries where land is cheaper and more easily assembled. I have heard comments from at least one person familiar with urban matters to the effect that this proposal in and of itself could undermine any other proposal to enhance the problems cities are facing. In your statement you note that the President has attempted to alleviate the problem of greater incentives to invest outside of city boundaries, but you cannot yet determine whether his attempt would offset the potential antiurban bias of the tax credit for new industrial structures. Would it be possible for you to complete that analysis so that we could know more clearly what the implications for cities are of the President's proposed changes in the investment tax credit? Dr. RIVLIN. I think we could take a further look at it, Madam Chairman, but the question is inherently very difficult. The extension of the investment tax credit to structures would, of course, encourage new building. That is the point of it. Such an extension would allow a business that is trying to decide between building a new plant or not building a new plant, some advantage in building a new one. Extending the investment tax credit to renovation of plants should help cities and mitigate the incentive for businesses to migrate to new places. But it is very difficult to tell how much effect this would have. Mr. Verdier might want to comment more. Mr. VERDrER. Yes. I think, as Dr. Rivlin suggested, extending the investment tax credit to rehabilitation helps keep it neutral in the case of a plant that is really trying to decide whether to move out and build somewhere else or to renovate and stay where they are. The problem is that most plants really do not have that option. For a lot of reasons, it is often just not realistic for a lot of reasons to rehabilitate in the central city, so the choice really is to go out or to stay and not do too much more. Another problem is that most-by far the great bulk-of the con- struction in the country is new buildings, not rehabilitation. So overall, there is going to be a lot more subsidy going to new struc- tures than to rehabilitation of old ones. Another problem is that, while the investment tax credit is ex- tended to industrial and utility structures, it is not extended to commercial buildings-office buildings, shopping centers, and so PAGENO="0019" 15 forth-which are more likely to be constructed in the central city than are industrial plants. Extending the investment tax credit to commer- cial buildings would be very costly because there are probably twice as many of them built-in terms of value of construction-than indus- trial buildings. An offsetting consideration is that construction costs are generally higher in cities. So if you give the same percentage incentive for cost of construction in the cities and in the suburbs, this might tend to offset a bit the disadvantage cities now have because of their high construction costs. Probably this is not a very large factor but it exists. Two other minor features in the investment tax credit that are relevant are that right now, firms with either low tax liability or very high expenditures on new investment do not benefit as they might otherwise because you can only offset 50 percent of your tax liability with the credit. You can carry the remainder forward or backward to a time when you have greater tax liability. The President would extend that to allow you to offset 90 percent of your tax liability; so this would help new and growing firms in the suburbs with high investments and low tax liability, but it would also help low-profit declining firms, which tend to be in the inner cities. The final, relatively minor, thing is that a full investment tax credit would now be provided for pollution control equipment that has to be added onto old buildings. Now they only get half plus some rapid writeoffs under the depreciation provisions. This is likely to be of some help to older plants in the central cities that, under the pollution control laws, must install new equipment. They get a little extra benefit under the President's proposal for that. So it is a com- plicated mix that has to be balanced. It is by no means clear where you come out at the end. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Dr. Rivlin, your staff has done a very extensive analysis in preparation for these hearings. It is very helpful. It seems to me that if the country is to adopt a rational policy for the survival of cities, it would make more sense to encourage industrial plants to remain in cities rather than to move out. Mr. Mineta, do you have any questions at this time? Mr. MINETA. No; thank you. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Dr. Rivlin, you suggested in your prepared state- ment that the distress of cities is not a uniform factor and while there have been surpluses generated at some State levels and while some areas of the country are in good shape, many are not. It that correct? Dr. RIvLIN. That is correct. You happen to be very familiar with the circumstances of one that is not. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Very. Would you agree that we should target our programs to the cities that are facing this kind of hardship, rather than providing assistance generally to all cities, regardless of their financial condition? Dr. BIvLIN. That is clearly one approach. I think the answer is, yes, the current circumstances suggest that there is really great diver- sity in the fiscal condition of cities-tremendous distress in a few and a generally improving situation for most other State and local gov- PAGENO="0020" 16 ernments. To help the distressed few means finding a way of getting the money there without spreading it around more generally. Such~ targeting is hard to do. Mr. MINETA. Would the Congresswoman yield? Ms. HOLTZMAN. Yes. Mr. MINETA. Is that really a problem of the substance of the pro- gram, or one of a political consideration within the I-louse, or within the Congress, of trying to get such a program through? Dr. 1RIVLIN. I think it is both, There are technical problems in how you define distress and how you construct a formula for targeting that will get the money into the places of greatest need. Once you do that, there is the political problem of whether you can get it passed. Mr. MINETA. If we were to approach this from the viewpoint of establishing various national goals-for example in housing, unern- ployment rates, et cetera-which we would then present to the local community as a basis for negotiation between the Federal Govern- ment and the various local agencies, might we not be better able to mobilize all public revenues in a concerted plan? Such a negotiated outcome should maximize its impact on private investment in local communities. Through that kind of negotiation.. technique we would be able to recognize that different urban areas will require different kinds of programs. For example, Newark, N.J., is vastly different from San Jose, Calif. Dr. RIvLIN. That is certainly true, and I think, then, there are two~ approaches to it. One is to let the local government decide-to have~~ a fiscal help program for cities that has some kind of formula that. gets the money to, say, San Jose and Newark and that then lets the local governments decide what to do with it. You are suggesting something other than that; a partnership with the Federal Govern- ment in which somebody approves and reviews and works over the. city plan. That sounds like model cities program, which goes back to the 1960's. This system has some advantages; it also some great disadvantages, especially: Who do we have in the Federal Govern- ment that the Congress and everybody else will trust to make the decisions in the best interests of individual cities. It becomes a very difficult administrative problem. Mr. MINETA. We experienced this kind of negotia.tion with what was called annual arrangements. We had a number of cities chosen-.~ I think back in 1972-in what was the predecessor to the block grant approach where we did it on a negotiated basis. From my own~ experience as a mayor of a city of 550,000, that was one of those cities involved in that annual arra.ngements process, it worked out relatively well and we were able to tailor our local needs to the resources that~. were available through the Federal Government. Dr. RIVLIN. I think it has great advantages. The risks, however,.. are that a city with an astute mayor and some good project proposal drafters can fare better than a more distressed city that happens not to put its case terribly well. It leaves matters in the hands of grants-. men and can lead to possible inequities in the distribution of funds., Mr. MINETA. Thank you. Ms. J-IOLTZMAN. Dr. Rivlin, I notice on page 9 of your testimony- that you said if you take inflation into account, grant outlays to PAGENO="0021" 17 `State and local governments in the President's budget for 1979 are expected to decrease by 0.6 percent in real terms. In other words, State and local governments are going to get a real cut in the grants that they receive from the Federal Government? Dr. RIvLIN. That is right. Overall, the total grant figure does not increase in real terms. Ms. I{OLTZMAN. But there are portions of the Federal budget that do increase in real terms for 1979; is that not correct? Dr. RIvLIN. That is right. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Defense, for example, increases by 2.6 percent in real terms, roughly? Dr. RIvLIN. Yes. That depends on what you think inflation is going to be in defense; but there is some real increase there. Ms. I-IOLTZMAN. And real increase in the energy area? Dr. RIvLIN. Yes; I believe so. Ms. HOLTZMAN. In light of the fact that grants to State and local governments are going to decrease on a real basis for 1979 while there will be real increases in other sectors of the budget, would you say President Carter's 1979 budget is procity, neutral, or anticity? Dr. RIvLIN. I think with respect to cities, the situation is as I said-approximately a current policy budget. It continues what has been going on. Now a bit depends on the base of your comparison. If you go back to, say, the budget proposed by President Ford for fiscal year 1978, this budget moves more toward city programs because last year the President and the Congress added a largely countercyclical program to benefit cities-public service employment, countercyclical revenue sharing, and a couple of other things. Those `are continued in this budget at roughly current service levels, but they are indeed continued. So it is not a budget that moves against cities in that sense, but ~t certainly cannot be characterized as a budget that moves procity, given where we are now. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Mineta do you have any further questions? Mr. MINETA. Thank you. Since there has been a great deal of dis- cussion about whether or not Federal programs and policies impact negatively on local government; I wonder if what this budget is really trying to do, is to get to a neutral position, so we might be in a position then to start changing policies and programs so that they might all work together and avoid this situation where programs and policies are working at cross-purposes and are counterproductive. It seems to me maybe we must make that kind of move. I am wondering whether or not this budget is that first step in moving to a neutral position. The second step would then be to start targeting resources so they will have a positive effect instead of a negative effect on local government. Dr. RIVLIN. That might be a better question to address to the administration. But my own feeling is that you are probably right. I was not privy to the discussions that went into making up this budget, obviously, but it does appear to be a budget that reflects thinking along those lines in that it seems to say, "Let's hold every- thing until we make up our minds what an urban policy ought to be." And that really means, "Let's go on doing roughly what we PAGENO="0022" 18 have been doing, adding a few things here and there." There is a significant increase, as I noted, for example, in the education budget targeted toward disadvantaged children. That represents a distinct move. But otherwise it is a budget that reflects a policy of: "Let's go on doing what we have been doing until we formulate an urban policy"- which is promised for later in the year. Mr. MINETA. If our economic condition is improving, and the President says we have created 4 million new jobs with a net of 1.8 million off the unemployment rolls-why is there an increased amount available for countercyclical assistance? Dr. RIvraN. I think that might be taken to reflect the view that there are still substantial employment problems, that many of them are in cities, and that cutting back on countercyclical programs-as one might have expected at this stage of the business cycle-would be less than neutral policy. Cutting back on countercyclical programs would be harmful to those governments that have come to depend on it. Mr. MINETA. I happen to support the countercyclical programs but I am just wondering why, given this improved economic condition, there would be an increased amount for those countercyclical pro- grams. Dr. RIvLIN. I think another argument one could make is that even with improving general economic conditions improving, which we do have, we still have substantial structural unemployment problems. Those programs do get at the structural employment problem, not as well as we would like to perhaps, but they are aimed at the long- term unemployed and that is a reason for keeping them. It is in that sense a shift of the rationale underlying the programs themselves from countercyclical to structural as the economy im- proves. Mr. MINETA. Coleman Young of Detroit speaks facetiously of mov- ing from 23 percent unemployment down to 9.8 percent. Dr. Rrvr4IN. Yes. Nonetheless- Mr. MINETA. Dr. Ilivlin, if the budget had included specific figures for home loan guarantees, off-budget agencies, and similar budgetary items, would your analysis have changed significantly? Dr. RrvI4IN. I do not know. Maybe Ms. Cuciti might want to answer that. I think we should answer it for the record. Ms. Cuorri. I would prefer to answer with a full response for the record. [The following information was submitted for the record:] EFFECT OF FEDERALLY OWNED AND CONTROLLED AGENCIES GOING OFF BUDGET Our conclusions regarding the impact on cities of this administration's budget are unlikely to differ if all federally owned and controlled agencies were in- cluded. In fiscal year 1979, the following entities will be off-budget: Federal Financing Bank, Rural Electrical and Telephone Revolving Fund, Rural Tele- phone Bank, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Exchange Stabilization Fund, Postal Service Fund, and U.S. Railway Association. None of these engage in activities that are important to cities. Federal credit activities, only some of which are reflected in budgetary totals, are more likely to affect the course of urban development. Unfortunately, little is known about the distribution of benefits and costs from either Federal loan PAGENO="0023" 19 programs (direct and guaranteed) or the specialized credit activities of Gov- ernment-sponsored but privately owned enterprises. While the administration's budgetary materials provide some financial information on these activities, they are not sufficient to judge whether policy changes are planned that might affect cities. The largest of the credit activities of the Federal Government, and the ones most likely to have an impact on cities, are those that provide either insurance or secondary market support for residential mortgages. Federal Housing Ad- ministration programs are believed to have contributed to the dispersal of metropolitan populations in the past; whether current programs have the same effect is uncertain. Even less is known about the effects of actions taken by secondary market credit agencies, such as the Federal National Mortgage Asso- ciation (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), but it is likely that their policies in part determine the availability of credit in inner-city neighborhoods. HUD's decision to use part of the tandem financing authority of the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) to pur- chase mortgages extended to middle-income families in selected city neighbor- hoods represents one attempt to use secondary mortgage market instruments to aid inner-city redevelopment. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Dr. Rivlin I would like to thank you very much for your excellent testimony. Our next witness will be Dr. Richard P. Nathan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. STATEMENT OP DR. RICHARD P. NATHAN, SENIOR FELLOW, GOVERNMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION Dr. NATHAN. Thank you very much. I have a statement which I will provide for the record. It contains two tables that I think are~ useful. I will read most of it because it is short, but not all of it. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Without objection, your entire statement will be included in the record. You may proceed to read from it or sum- marize it, as you wish. Dr. NATHAN. The phrase "national urban policy," to many people, is synonymous with domestic policy, because so much of our popula~ tion can be classified as urban and since often policymakers take rural problems and needs into account with considering urban policy. One way of thinking about the current period is that the Carter administration is trying to decide what kind of a domestic policy it should adopt to succeed Nixon's "New Federalism," Johnson's "Great Society," and the Kennedy "New Frontier." The reason this is taking so long to decide and that we are receiving so many conflicting signals about what will emerge is a simple one. There is no obvious underlying problem on which right now there is a broad consensus and which could be the centerpiece of a Presi- dential change in direction in domestic policy. The domestic pot is not boiling the way it was because of social issues for the Great Society and because of redtape and fears of overcentralization in the days of the New Federalism. There is a kind of general equilibrium on the homefront. Maybe there should not be, but there is. In my personal view, there is one problem on which national domestic policy should be focused, but our political system does not lend itself easily to doing so. The issue in short is the special needs~ of declining, poverty-impacted core cities, which often have a high proportion of minority citizens. PAGENO="0024" 20 Though the United States does not have a national urban crisis, ~we face a situation in which some-but by no means all-big cities and a few older and large suburban cities are experiencing what can be called urban crisis conditions. "The" job crisis, "the" welfare crisis, "the" crisis in education, "the" drug crisis-all of these come together and are most serious in our old, declining, and isolated core cities and innerring suburbs. Localized though the infection may be, their conditions constitute the domestic problem in this country. For cities that are relatively strong and healthy the question to ask is, Why should the Federal Government be involved in decisions about how those cities develop, what their goals are, what kinds of facilities and services are provided by local government? One of the great sources of strength of American democracy in our Federal system is we put a lot of emphasis on local decisionmaking. For healthy cities it ~eems to me the question is, Why should the Federal Government make decisions about their growth and development goals? The problem is not regions, but cities-distressed cities in the South-New Orleans, which on everybody's indicator shows up as having very serious problems. I have visited New Orleans and this is borne out by observations-and in the West-Compton, Calif., which is a suburb of Los Angeles. There are distressed cities in the South and in the West as well as in the Northeast and Midwest where distressed cities predominate, although there are many cities in the Northeast that are in good condition, Kansas City, Columbus, Ohio, Minneapolis, for example. It seems to me that a national policy of aiding all regions and focused on regions as such, particularly if it involves addition mate- rial expenditures, could just end up exacerbating the special and deep problems of the true hardship cases-Detroit, New York, New Or- leans, Newark, St. Louis, Buffalo, East St. Louis, Yonkers, Camden, and Trenton, N.J., to name some obvious ones. The United States, unlike most other industrialized democracies, has a reasonably good geographic balance of major population and growth centers. This is an asset which in my view obviates the need for massive and expensive new regional growth policy initiatives in the 1979 budget.. . Two important facts about current national policies toward cities need to be stressed. Fact No. 1. Even though Federal grants rise relatively modestly in the proposed 1979 budget by 6 percent, but decline, as you pointed out, in real terms, there has been a tremendous increase in recent years in the amount of Federal grants, especially those provided directly to local governments, namely cities. Traditional views of American federalism and of other federal nations hold that the federal relationship is between the national government and the States. But what has been happening to American federalism, actu- ally since the Truman y~ars, is that the Federal Government in more and more areas, and under more and more Federal programs and regulatory policies, is developing direct relationships with local governments. PAGENO="0025" 21 One way of looking at Federal grants in this budget is to say if you put aside AFDC and medicaid-transfer-type grants-of the: remaining grants to State and local governments, one-half goes to local governments. There is a figure in the budget which Dr. Rivhn did not discuss, that says that $16 billion of this amount goes to urban areas; perhaps we should look at that figure later on. Ironically, this increase in direct Federal grants to local govern- ments occurred very rapidly in a Republican period. It was greatly stimulated by President Carter's $13 billion economic stimulus pack- age for 1977 and 1978-over $10 billion of this money goes to local, governments. All of these issues, the whole stimulus package~ are up again this year. as well as new legislation for mass transit, LEAA, and all of the CETA program, that is, title I, title IV. Ms. HOLTZMAN. If I may interrupt, you just mentioned LEAA is due for reauthorization again this year. Th~ authorization, as I recall, was for a 3-year neriod of time. Dr. NATHAN. I may he mistaken about that. I will have to check. I appreciate your pointing that out to me. Fact No. 2 of the. two points I want to put on the record involves targeting. Federal grant formulas increasingly have been putting emphasis on older and declining cities-that is. poverty impacted, structurally isolated cities, particularly in the Northeast and Mid- west, `but also located in other regions. These hardship cities and suburbs have been receiving large amounts of Federal aid in recog- nition of their special and deeper needs as Federal aid to local governments increases. Recent data show a good fit between the "TJrhan Conditions Index" we use to measure hardship and Federal aid increases over the last 3 years. There is a table at the end of my testimony which develops some data to this effect. In a nutshell, Federal money increasingly has been going where the problems are. This wasn't always deliberate, but it has happened. To the administration's credit, "targeting" has been discussed a num- ber of times by' the President at press conferences, and has been a conscious policy of `his administration-particularly the Secretary of HUD, Mrs. Harris-one that already appears to be having sub- stantial impact. But the shift is a very recent one. Table 2 makes the longrun point. It shows eight cities in the Northeast c~uadrant (the Northeast and the Midwest), and nine cities in the Sun Belt. all big cities-St. Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, and Atlanta; Dallas. Hous- ton, PhOenix, Birmingham, Louisville, Jacksonville, New Orleans and Oklahoma City. From 1972 to 1978, the northern and midwestern cities had in- creases of Federal aid of 354 percent. These are hardship cities. For the same years, 1972 to 1978, the nine southern cities had an average increase of 584 percent. If you look just at the recent period-1975- 78-there has been some shift, although not an overwhelming shift, toward the hardship cities. I don't think we have done enough tar- geting and, `indeed, a quote on the bottom of page 5 of my statement is from a' Presidential news conference where the President made a strong statement to this effect. PAGENO="0026" 22 There is a shift, but over the long haul the most important fact about Federal grants is this: What has been happening to Federal grants is that federalism is changing; more and more Federal grants are provided directly to local governments, primarily to the cities and often targeted on hardship cities, but not to an overwhelming extent. Although there has been this discernible new focus on urban hard- ship conditions, it is a modest targeting effect. I frankly don't think we have done enough. We are moving in the right direction in terms of recognizing the hardship conditions of the most distressed cities under Federal grants formulas. I will skip to page 6. There is an irony in all of this. At the very time that the Carter administration is working on its urban policy, the whole idea of targeting, as indi- cated earlier, is under attack. It is under attack both within and outside of the administration. I had a line in my statement which has been deleted by the typist. It read: "While policymakers fiddle, the interests of the cities may get burned." So now to pop the question. In light of these two developments, do we really want big new urban policies up front? Is it important that -the Government devise a whole system of new departures for urban policy? If, as I am suggesting, we have been making headway in terms of aiding cities-and more particularly aiding the cities that need help -the most-it may well be that we should continue on this twin track. We have an urban policy-an emerging, actually quite sensible, concern about the right problems in the urban sector. This has hap- pened without trumpets and flourishes. Each time a bill comes up in the Congress, concern is expressed in the development of that legis- lation, as in the case for the community block grant program, for urban hardship conditions. What we need to be thinking about is not a big and expensive new urban package, as much as a number of nice but not ostentatious initiatives which build on what has gone before. Above all-and I underlined this sentence in my testimony for the purpose of reading it-the name of the game is formulas. Increased attention has been paid to formula issues over the last few years. This should continue. As already indicated, the community develop- ment block grant program contains an important new dual formula concept which provides more resources to the most distressed central cities and innerring suburbs. What are the missing pieces? I believe the main new item the Carter administration ought to have on its urban agenda in 1978 is a development bank-or "Urbank." I am not convinced from the things I have heard that is the kind of proposal most likely to emerge from the planning process. Block grants provide funds pri- marily for operating purposes and shorter-term capital needs. The missing piece from the urban puzzle is an instrument to meet the long-term economic development needs of hardship cities. Another potentially important item for urban policy in 1978 is a -special jobs fund for older, racially-impacted central cities where -unemployment levels are disastrously high, despite the fact that the PAGENO="0027" 23 6.3-percent unemployment rate for January which was just released an hour or so ago shows further improvement. Such a fund could be administered by a special committee of Cabinet officers to select urgent job projects in the most distressed cities. These apparently are-or were-the main items under considera- tion for the administration's urban policy statement-first, targeting; second, Urbank; and third, some more money for the PSE jobs program. But this is by no means a full urban agenda. Urban policy is not a one-time thing. Welfare reform-now floundering-tax policy- especially the treatment of new investment and other key tax items- and housing policy-about which little has been heard-are other vital ingredients. So are mass transit, water treatment, and sewage facilities, and social services. Those concerned about the problems of the older and declining cities cannot breathe a sigh of relief and go on to something else when the Carter administration's urban policy statement is issued. Constant attention and vigilance are required. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [The prepared statement of Dr. Nathan follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF DB. RICHAnD P. NATHAN The phrase, "national urban policy," to many people is synonymous with domestic policy, because so much of our population can be classified as urban nnd since often policymakers take rural problems and needs into account when considering "urban" policy. One way of thinking about the current period is that the Carter administra- tion is trying to decide what kind of a domestic policy it should adopt to suc- ceed Nixon's "New Federalism", Johnson's "Great Society" and the Kennedy "New Frontier." The reason this is taking so long to decide and that we are receiving so many conflicting signals about what will emerge is a simple one. There is no obvious underlying "problem" on which right now there is a broad consensus and which could be the centerpiece of a Presidential change in direction in domestic policy. The domestic pot is not boiling the way it was because of social issues for the "Great Society" and because of redtape and fears of overcentralization in the days of the "New Federalism." There is a kind of general equilibrium on the homefront. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there is. In my personal view, there is one problem on which national domestic policy should be focused, but our political system doesn't lend itself easily to doing so. The issue in short is the special needs of declining, poverty impacted core cities, which often have a high proportion of minority citizens. Though the United States does not have a national urban crisis, we face a situation in which some-but by no means all-big cities and a few older and larger suburban cities are experiencing what can be called "urban crisis condi- tions." "The" job crisis, "the" welfare crisis, "the" crisis in education, "the" drug crisis-all of these come together and are most serious in our old, declin- ing and isolated core cities and innerring suburbs. Localized though the infec- tion may be, their conditions constitute the domestic problem in this country. For cities that are relatively strong and healthy the question to ask is why should the Federal Government be involved in decisions about how those cities develop, what their goals are, what kinds of facilities and services are provided by local government. One of the great sources of strength of American democ- racy is local decisionmaking. The "problem" is not regions, but cities-distressed cities in the South (New Orleans, for example) and in the West (Compton, Calif.), as well as in the Northeast and Midwest. Although, there are many cities in the Northeast and Midwest that are strong and healthy-for example, Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City. PAGENO="0028" 24 A national policy of aiding all regions-and focused on regions as such-may just exacerbate the special and deep problems of the true hardship cases- Detroit, New York, New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis, Buffalo, East St. Louis, Yonkers, Camden and Trenton, N.J., to name some obvious ones. The United States, unlike most other industrialized democracies has a rea- sonably good geographic balance of major population and growth centers. This is an asset which in my view obviates the need for massive and expensive new regional growth policy initiatives in the 1979 budget. Two important facts about current national policies toward cities need to be stressed. Fact No. 1. Even though Federal grants rise relatively modestly in the pro- posed 1979 budget, there has been a tremendous increase in recent years in the amount of Federal grants, especially those provided directly to local gov- ernments, namely cities. Traditional views of American federalism hold that the Federal relationship is between the national government and the States. But what has been happening to American federalism, actually since the Truman years, is that the Federal Government in more and more areas, and under more and more Federal programs and regulatory policies, is developing direct relationships with local governments. Ironically, the increase in Federal grants-in-aid to local governments occurred at a rapid pace during the Nixon-Ford years. It was greatly accelerated by President Carter's $13 billion "Economic Stimulus Package" (ESP) for 1977 and 1978-over $10 billion of which goes to local units. All of these issues for the ESP are up again this year, as well as mass transit, LEAA, and the rest of CETA. Looking at total Federal grants for 1979, about one-third of all Federal grants to States and cities now goes to local governments. If welfare and medicaid are put to one side for purposes of these calculations, as much as one-half of the rest of all Federal grants to States and localities in the Federal budget goes to local governments. Fact No. 2. Not only is the amount of Federal aid to local governments in- creasing, but there has been an appreciable trend toward greater "targeting," the new code word for helping cities, but unfortunately a concept that is cur- rently under attack. Federal grant formulas have been putting emphasis on older and declining cities-that is, poverty impacted, structually isolated cities, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, but also located in other regions. These hardship cities and suburbs have been receiving large amounts of Federal aid in recognition of their special and deeper needs as Federal aid to local governments increases. Recent data show a good fit between the "Urban Conditions Index" we use to measure hardship and Federal aid increases over the last 3 years. (See table 1.) In a nutshell, Federal money increasingly has been going where the problems are. This wasn't always deliberate, but it has happened. To the administration's credit, "targeting" has been discussed a number of times by the President at press conferences, and has been a conscious policy of his administration, one that already appears to be having substantial impact. But the shift is a very recent one. Table 2 makes the longrun point. It shows eight cities in the Northeast quadrant (the Northeast and the Midwest), and nine cities in the Sunbelt, all big cities-St. Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore and Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Birmingham, Louisville, Jacksonville, New Orleans and Oklahoma City. From 1972 to 1978, the northern and midwestern cities had increases of Federal aid of 354 percent. For the same years. 1972 to 1978, the nine southern cities had an average increase of 584 percent! If you look just at the recent period (1975-78) there has been some shift, although not an overwhelming shift, toward the hardship cities. There is a shift, but over the long haul the most important fact about Fed- eral grants is this: What has been happening to Federal grants is that federal- ism is changing; more and more Federal grants are provided directly to local governments, primarily to the cities and often targeted on hardship cities, but not to an overwhelming extent. PAGENO="0029" 25 Although there has been this discernible new focus on urban hardship con- ditions, it is a modest targeting effect. I frankly don't think we have done enough. We are moving in the right direction in terms of recognizing the hard- ship conditions of the most distressed cities under Federal grants formulas. October 13 at a White Rouse press conference, President Carter, speaking of the Community Development Block Grant bill, said, "I think that the bill that I signed this week, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1977, will provide us with a base or framework on which we can make substantial mi- provements in the urban area. The formulas that are being put forward now, and the Congress is accepting them, will orient more and more of the rehabili- tation money of all kinds to the more blighted urban areas of the country, both rural and urban." Targeting is beginning to make a difference. But it has not made a fundamental and far-reaching difference; we need, as the President said, to do more rather than less. I would reiterate that this is not, at least to me, a regional question. It is a question of focusing on distress whether urban or rural, whether North or South, and recognizing that the deep infections of some of our older core cities are, in my opinion, the domestic problem of the Nation. There is an irony in all of this. At the very time that the Carter administra- tion is working on its urban policy, the whole idea of "targeting", as indicated earlier is under attack. It is under attack both within and outside of the administration. So now to pop the question. In light of these two developments, do we really want big new urban policies up front? Is it important that the Government devise a whole system of new departures for urban policy? If, as I am suggesting, we have been making headway in terms of aiding cities-and more particularly aiding the cities that need help the most-it may well be that we should continue on this twin track. We have an urban policy emerging, actually quite sensible, concern about the right problems in the urban sector. This has happened without trumpets and flourishes. Each time a bill comes up in the Congress, concern is expressed in the development of that legislation for urban problems and particularly urban hardship conditions. What we need to be thinking about is not a big and expensive new urban package, as much as a number of nice but not ostentatious initiatives which build on what has gone before. Above all, the name of the game is formulas. Increased attention has been paid to formula issues over the last few years. This should continue. As already indicated, the community development block grant program contains an impor- tant new "dual formula" concept which provides more resources to the most distressed central cities and innerring suburbs. What are the missing pieces? I believe the main new item the Carter admin- istration ought to have on its urban agenda in 1978 is a development bank-or "Tlrbank." Block grants provide funds primarily for operating purposes and shorter term capital needs. The missing piece from the urban puzzle is an instrument to meet the long-term economic development needs of hardship cities. Another potentially important item for urban policy in 1978 is a special jobs fund for older, racially impacted central cities where unemployment levels are disastrously high. Such a fund could be administered by a special committee of Cabinet officers to select urgent job projects in the most distressed cities. These apparently are-or were-the main items under consideration for the administration's urban policy statement-(1) targeting, (2) Urbank, and (3) an accelerated jobs program. But this is by no means urban agenda. Urban policy is not a one-time thing. Welfare reform (now floundering), tax policy (especially the treatment of new investment and other key tax items) and housing policy (about which little has been heard) are other vital ingredients. So are mass transit, water treatment and sewage facilities, and social services. Those concerned about the problems of the older and declining cities cannot breathe a sigh of relief and go on to something else when the Carter administration's urban -policy state- ment is issued. Constant attention and vigilance are required. PAGENO="0030" ~,, NC~ C~ C~J C~4 COC'J - - - - - (, ~- c~ oo~,-~r-~ O~ CC) CC) ~ U) CD ~ Lu -I C~) > .~ J ~ COOOCD C ~ C~JN.COr1 ~ Lu ~ ~2 C) `~ CD CD 00CC) ~ LC-~C) C'4 ~-CCL)C4 COC'J C)C~C~J C~J ~-CC4 o~r-dahdc~ CC) CC)U) - (C) C~Jcfl ~ ~0~c~o~d (C4 (`4 CC) ~4 ~ C, Lu00 C) `j' i~ - ~ ~ CO CC- CC) CO CD CC4O' co COCC COr'~ c40.3~ C'4(C, )`)-CC CD ,4 ~" ,~ Li~ CDC'JC)) CO~0O ~ 0 ..J CC) C)LC. ~0 !; `4~'4 ~ !i~L~ ~ iL~1 ~ ~CC)CC)CQU)CO~CD CC) C'J CO CC) C) U) I- CC)~CC)oO ICDr-~ C%I,' CC),-) CO (.4 CO COLt) C)C0 CO ~ 0)COCO :~ R"~ E ~3 ~ .5~ ~ C *-~ ~0 .- ~* ~ .~ -_2O_. ~ oE C~ *;~CC~ ~ ~ ~o.~(o .-~0)_ C~ ~ C)C0).C_ E.-~_ ~3~L) C) ~ Lu CO ~ ~ CC) ~ ~ ~ ~ Lu ~ CO t~ ~ 4~ ~ C,~00 ~_Ea ~ I- ~ -J ~" C ~ (0 0) C 0) C) .~ ~ C) C CU CU .E C ~ co~~ ~ O~ C)~;~ .C~ ~C.Dp~(0 ~ C~gC) ~ C)~C)C) CO ~ .CC.DO C/)D - ~ C)~~-)~ ~2~o ~C) ~ CO c.o~ ~ ~Q Lu~ ~t_ U~c'.J -~~`I' ~CO 1..N. 0,..( ~ ~ I ec~ CO C) C coE *C .C .,-4 ~ ~4 C) ~ C) o r~ o ~ #_~ - E~c~ ~ ~1 ~1Q o ~ ..0 0 C4~ CO C,) V)CO C) CO00 C)CO PAGENO="0031" 27 Somewhere in all this we have left the States out. Cities are creations of the States; States really have much more control than the cities, constitutional control, yet there is a Federal-State relation- ship. States have surpluses in their budgets. How can we get a leverage, so to speak, on the States to be more involved with local government ~ Dr. NATHAN. Indeed. Your observation is important. The first thing I should say in responding is that the growth of these direct grants to cities has a counterpart in the terms you suggest; it pro- duces a relative diminution in the importance of the States. Local governments are the creatures of the States. John Shannon of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is fond of pointing out that, although local governments are creatures of the States, they are increasingly becoming wards of the Federal Govern- ment. This is a very basic fact. When things happen to you over a period of years sometimes you don't recognize it. I think the impor- tant thing is that we take account of this change. To answer the second part of your question as to what can be done to bring the States back into urban policy matters, one of the things which occurs to me is that in the design of the right kind of an Urbank there should be several windows. One window should be for big projects for distressed cities, St. Louis, New York, Detroit; and another window would be to provide assistance to State community development agencies. These agencies have been growing and doing new things. For smaller cities and projects in declining neighbor- hoods in less distressed cities, Federal policy should be to work through State development agencies and authorities and help build up their influence. Mr. MINETA. You also seem to indicate that formulas really help in targeting, but it seems to me that formulas really are more of the cookie-cutter approach. So, regardless of how their need differs, communities get the same kind of help. We really don't do enough to target those formulas in terms of substandard housing conditions, in terms of low income and welfare recipients. I am wondering whether or not formulas as currently used don't really get away from targeting. Dr. NATHAN. There is a tendency in the political process toward spreading. Every time a new program comes up, all different kinds of claimants come forward. Whether it is a project grant such as model cities or a block grant such as the community development block grant, there is the tendency toward spreading. It is my view we have to do both things at once. There are some new ideas as to how we can shift formulas to have a bigger im- pact on the most needy cities. Take. for example the new block grant formula which the administration fought very hard to have adopted. I think they deserve credit for this. Cleveland would have gotten $13 million under the old formula. Under the new formula, Cleveland's share-and it is one of the most distressed cities on all the various indexes-would go up to $36 million. So, there are power- ful ways you can change formulas. PAGENO="0032" 28 Someone at a recent Brookings meeting says Urbank is a slogan in search of a program. I think that's all right. This is the way we set up new institutions in the United States. Historically, people think banks have a special aura about them, so we may as well capitalize on that. TJrbank should be a separate institution with project authority each year to provide a package of assistance for selected development purposes in the most hard-pressed cities. In sum, I think targeting is not something we should think about just in relationship to formula grants. The distinctive problems of the declining cities is so much the role of the Federal Government in urban policy that this concern ought to be one we should take into account in both areas. Mr. MINETA. In what way do you see targeting coming under attack? Dr. NATHAN. I have done a fair amount of talking to various groups about the issues you asked me to discuss in this testimony. The best example I can give you is a specific one. I spoke in Okla- homa City before the Southern Growth Development Board. Gover- nor Boren of Oklahoma spoke first. Governor Busby of Georgia finished me off. He said he was very concerned about, and opposed to the community development block grant dual-formula concept. It does not, in his view, take enough account of the needs of other kinds of communities. From what I read in the newspapers, there have been a lot of participants in the administration's urban planning process who have made exactly this point that you have to recognize the needs of other types of communities. My feeling is that Federal policy ought really to focus on the needy communities. As I indicated in my testi- mony, for healthy and strong communities we have a long tradition of revenue-sharing devices and local decisionmaking. Mr. MINETA. Thank you. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Dr. Nathan, what programs do you think need to be targeted? Dr. NATHAN. I think the answer to that is that we should take into account hardship conditions across the board in domestic policy. The same kind of approach in defining the appropriate needs on which the Federal Government should focus attention ought to be applied in the jobs area, in the education area, in the community develop- ment area, mass transit area, water and sewer, all of which are functions for which the Federal Government now provides substan- tial amounts of grant funds which go to local governments. All these areas were discussed by Dr. Rivlin and are the major functional areas of the Federal budget for domestic programs. Ms. HOLTZMAN. The thrust of what you are saying then is that we could solve all the problems of our fiscally distressed or hardship cities, as you call them, if we just targeted all our programs? Dr. NATHAN. I wouldn't want to give the impression we could solve all the programs but it does help the cities to have this kind of focus on their needs. We have been doing research in about 50 or so cities around the country and they have been appreciably aided by these grants. Detroit, someone mentioned earlier, not only their PAGENO="0033" 29 economic but their fiscal situation is much better this year. Other cities have been helped in relieving their fiscal pressures and being able to make some program increases in areas where they want to have initiatives. Federal aid has been very important but it doesn't get at the fundamental economic forces that are at work. These problems, particularly in the cities most severely affected-New York is one-are not going to be solved by the kind of targeting implied in my comments and testimony. Mr. MINETA. Isn't there a polarization between rural and urban areas in trying to develop that type of system ~ Even if you have a city of 17,000, if they have an unemployment problem of 15 percent, it seems to me for that community, it is just as serious a problem as it is for New York and Cleveland, again, where they have a lot of problems. Is there a way of trying to come up with an investment strategy that would be applicable to that rural community with its serious infrastructure problems, high unemployment, declining population, so we can deal with that as well as the Clevelands, the New Yorks, and the Newarks as well ~ Dr. NATHAN. I said in my statement that distress in both urban and rural areas should be focused on in national policy. That is the appropriate national role. We have been experimenting with differ- ent ways to measure hardship needs. It is difficult because of the different layering arrangements, as you know, of governments and finances. I would like to submit for the record an appendix to a report that we have done for HTJD on the community development block pro- gram. This supplement is for 615 cities; it shows how the hardship index we use would apply to these cities and the factors which go into this analysis. It seems to me we could make grant revisions that move in the direction of your suggestion and not only deal with the larger cities but deal with distress in smaller urban areas and also rural areas. [Testimony resumes on p. 68.] [The appendix referred to follows:] 27-196 O-78------3 PAGENO="0034" 30 URBAN CONDITIONS INDEX Reprinted from Decentralizing Community Development a report to the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the Second Program Year of the Community Development Block Grant by Paul R. Domme]. Richard P. Nathan Sarah F. Liebschutz Margaret T. Wrightson and Associates The Brookings Institution Washington, D.C. January 1978 PAGENO="0035" 31 APPENDIX II PROJECTED CDBG ALLOCATIONS TO ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTIONS IN FISCAL 1980, WITH URBAN CONDITIONS INDEX AND INDEX VARIABLES The table that follows lists the 615 CDBO formula entitlement jurisdictions for the third program year and their projected block grants for fiscal year 1980. Columns 6 and 7 list projected grant amounts based on the original allocation formula and the new formula, respectively. If a jurisdictions grant under the new formula is greater than that under the original formula, this means that the jurisdiction benefits from the dual formula approach. Actual grant amounts will change as later popula- tion figures are used to make the allocations, The Brookings urban conditions index (column 1) provides a comparative measure of distress conditions found in each jurisdiction. The index is computed from the following formula: Percent poverty X Percent pre-19140 housing Mean percent poverty Mean percent pre-l91~0 housing 100 + rate of population change 100 + median rate of population change Percentages of poverty and pre-l91~O housing are based on the 1970 census, The index mean is standardized at 100; jurisdictions ranking above that level tend to have greater problems of urban distress than those lower on the scale. For the urban counties listed, the projected 1980 allocations are based on data elements used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine grant amounts for fiscal 1978. Not included are small hold- harmless communities and municipalities who chose not to participate in the program. The urban conditions index for these counties is based on balance- of-county data; that is, the population, poverty and housing data for the entire county minus the population, poverty and housing counts of the central city (or cities) and any suburban cities over 50,000 population. PAGENO="0036" Appendix II. Projected CDBG Allocations to Entitlement Jurisdictions in Fiscal 1980, with Urban Conditions Index and Index Variables ANNISTON SMSA ANNISTON CC BIRMINGHAM SMSA BIRMINGHAM CC JEFFERSON UC FLORENCE SMSA FLORENCE CC GADSEN SMSA GADSEN CC HUNTSVILLE SMSA HUNTSVILLE CC MOBILE SMSA MOBILE CC MONTGOMERY SMSA MONTGOMERY CC TUSCALOOSA SMSA TUSCALOOSA CC ALASKA ANCHORAGE SMSA ANCHORAGE CC ARIZONA PHOENIX SHSA PHOENII CC GLENDALE SC MESA SC SCOTTSDALE SC RECIPIENT A LA RAHA PERCENT PERCENT URBAN POPULATION PERCENT PRE-1960 CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING INDEX (1) POPULATION (2) 1960-75 (3) 1970 (14) 1970 (5) GRANT UNDER GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL NEW FORMULA FORMULA ($ 000) ($ 000) (6) (7) 2814 30,622 -9.0 27.8 39.7 1,016 278 61 276,273 332,372 -19.0 25.3 22.5 13.3 42.7 26.2 8,286 6,278 1,136 12,146u 93 36,602 8.7 18.0 214.0 750 191 50,357 -13.3 20.2 35.0 1,299 15 136,1119 88.5 10.5 10.8 2,132 1,827 1146 196,14111 .8 23.1 27.2 5,1105 2,132 113 153,3143 16.1 23.1 23.8 3,877 102 69,625 9.6 21.6 22.0 1,722 3,877 1,722 2 161,018 2614.0 6.5 3.7 2,050 2,050 21 666,721 51.11 11.6 11.2 11,199 8 7 65,671 99,0113 313.2 193.3 114.0 9.3 9.9 9.1 921 11,199 921 PAGENO="0037" `C C `C -30 `C ~ `CO `C `Cot- C-'C'C `C 0.0'~ .0 C `C `C~3 C .0 `C `C-~O `C `CCC o `CO `C `C COO <& .00 C~-' C C -~O--- 0,c',t-tr~ `C `C `C 0~-~ 0'- C-C- `CC- o `C C- ~ `CO' 33 C' `C `C C'4 0CC C~J CC `C0 C fl(fl `C C' `C t- L~' C').0 `CCC 00 .Z `C C"C C'~ `CO `C r- `C C') .0 `C .0.0 ~.0 C').00 C'.) (`.J - C' `C `C C') C"C C') `C `C 0 `CCC' `C `C `C `C C' `C C- `C C').0 0CC 0' 0 `C 0"C `C (`.J~C'.J CC' `C `- 0 C' t- `C `C C- CC~ 0 C') 0.0 LC'. C) C- 0 `CC' `C `C `C C-'C `C C'.)'- `- `C `C C') t-'C `C C' `C C- `C C') 0 C')'- `C `CC~J `C `C C'. C'. C'. `C C') `C `C'CO `C C'. `- C'. 0 `C C- U'.'- CC'. C-CC `C `- `C `CO `C C- `C U'.'C'C `C `C C') C'.) `CCC' C'.) O'C `C U'.O'C'CC'.-J'C.C~0'O `CO C') `C C') `C `C C- `CO `CO `C'- `C C'.) C- `C C' `C `CCC `- C'. `C `C `CO `C C') `C `CC--CC `C 0 `C `C C- t- `C C') `.0 `C `CCC 0 `C C- `C C- `C ~ `C `CC `C `~ `CCC C- - `C `C C' C') `C `C `C C' `C C-) `C ~ `C `C C') C'. `- C-'C C- C"C `C `C `C ~ `C `C `C `C `C 0 `C `C `C `C C- 0 `C `CC". `C'C'C `C `- `C `C C') `C `C `C C'.) 0 `CO `C `C `C `C 0 0 `C 0 `C `C `C C `C `C `C `C `C -~ C-' 0 C `C C- 0 `C 0 C `C `C `C .-3 `C C `C 0 F-CO `C 0 .0 0 O'C `CO C-O'C `C 0 .0 0 C~ 0 .00 `CO `CO `C 00 `C = `C `C'CO `CO 0 `C `CO `CO `CO'C'CO'CO _3 `C `C `C 3 `C `CO `C C' 0 `C `C `C `C ~3 `C `C = 0 C- `C CC~ `C -00 `C'C `C `C `C `CO ,3C-)~-3 C- `COC- tC `C'C `CO'C,O'C'C'CO'COC-0 0 `C 0 _3 C' `C 0 C-' 0 `C C-') U `C `C `C C'C'C `C 0 C- `C `C `C `C `C `C'CC C-'C 0 3 U .0.0 `C'C `C'CC-CC- `C `C `C C' C-C `C `C `C `C `C `C `C `C `C I `C `C `C `C `C `C `C `C `C 0 `CC-'C `C -3CC -3 `C'C `C `C'C'CO~O'C'C'C00'C0 C- `C `C `C C- `C `C `CC- `CC- C- `C `C `C `C `C = CC- `CC- ~-3 C- 3~ `CC- `C `C 00 `C C- C- `C `C 3 C- `C `C `CC') `C `C `C `C `C `C `C ) `C `C'C'C'C `C `C `C `C `C `C 3- C-C C- `CO `C `C `C `C 0 `C `C .0.0 `CO `C `C `C `C `C `C C- OC- `C C-C~'C `CU C-~3'C `CC~~ `CC- U `C'CC'CCOtC~'CO'C0 `C `C `C 0 I-') `C `C `C `C C- `C ~ U ~-3 O~ C- -~ `C `C 0 C- 0 `C `C `C `C C C- `CC-'C 1'-' `C `CO C'. 0 `C 0 `CC- -~ 0 `C `CO 3< `C `C `C `CC-C'- `CC `C 0 0 / PAGENO="0038" 34 .0 ~- ccjr~ .00 0O00C~Ooc~ c--c-- mr'-~o~0 CN cc)~oc- I- .0.0 ~- .- ~ CN~0 00 NJ - NJ z o+~ .0 Cc.-' 0 Cc) .-) NJrN .00 0.0 ~) 0 .0 N- 0 0 .0- Icc NJ ~ .00 NJ N- ccc N- IN IN 0.0.- NJ 00 000co 1~1-4.0 10 roco 1010 .- - NJ .0.00 4~ IcC (fl coo c..-- 0 1-.00 ZOO (0'- ON- O0Ifl11-N- N-Crc -I-4o- 0 I C/)N-o rco -.0 .0 Cc) .0 o- NJ NJ NJ NJ crc ccc ccc.- NJ .- ccc .- ~ .- NJ .0.00- U. U..0 F-' F-. .0 F-. 00 0 IC) NJ 00' IC\ 0cC 0' coo c-So.0) 0.00 cOO N- NJ 010 N- N- N- 0Cc)N-.0 10)0 N-C~ N-cC 10N-.0NJN-~0C~ 0 NJ 1.00'- E-'OC.JIN 00' coo U~OC~.00 I- 1010 .-10 NJ00.-.0 *.0.0.00fl0,-NJN-.0NJNJO1N0C\)~ o co coo ccc ccc.- ccc- t .- .- .- .- 10 ccc NJ t I NJ ccc- cccco Cc) 00Cc 0 C .00 00 NJ00~--cONJ.0OcOoNJoo10ooINoOco~ L(~ F- - I~I 10 If' - 10 ION-.- 0.0 0.0 `40100 0 NJ NJ.0 - U\ N- N- 0 .0 C'.~)- N-NJ 10Cc INN-O-I00N-NJcccIO.-100..~NJNJNJ100~.J~NJO -0 1--N- N-10 IONJOIIcON-N-OIOccIc)000 OINOIOCcLfccccN-N-rcc 0 - - Cl) 001< * ~ -10 .0cC IN OIOIt~cC~O.010NJ.0.0.0cccNJ0.0.0._NJ. NJ 0 o I-. .0- 1010 COO' 0010 NJ CO 10 CC) NJ NJ NJ 1010 10 NJ co - Cl) 00cc 0 .0 - Cl) o co 0 Cl) .0 F- .0 .0 0 . C.) 0 0 11)0 Cc) coo 0 0 0 Cl) 0 0 -i C') 0 000 0 C/) 0 0 Cl) .0 .0 00 Cl) 00 ococc co o cco 00.0.00 oco coo ocooc') -~ ICc)C/)IU0 0 01') 0011)0 C').0~c~) .00 .0 .0 <00 1/)0 -~ Cc) .0000 Cc)0 Cl) C-) 000 F-- cc ~) C/CO 00 0cc 00.0 Cc).0 Cc) co~ 1/) Cl) Cc) Cc) 000 co 0.0 0< Cc).0.00 .0 =0 Cc)C..O .0 0Cc)0000 .0 F-.Oc0001<00 0.00001.00 C/CO 011)0 11)00 0000000000.0000000<.0 Oocco 1- oo OI 0 co0Cc<0F-.Cc)0001c).0coO .0.0cooco F-co CCI) .0 11)1.00 001/) 00 coOOv)U.0Z.0 Cc)0coooo~-~-.oc--~ F-C.) Oco 00CC) 0.0Cc) co00~).0.0.0.0 0000000Z0000v)cc.0 11)0 00 Cc) co Cc) 00 00 -~ .00 coo o o -) coo coo co 0 Cc) coo o 1.000 Cc) 0 coo 00.0 Cc) Cc. C.. Cl) ~) 0 coOC0Oo.0 000cc ~)0 U. U. U.OC/)c/) 1-0.00 .00 .00 co .0 0 0 1< 0 Cc. .-) .0 0 PAGENO="0039" 35 NO 0 -NO~- o i C/)N-N Co Cl) 0 Cl) 0 0'- C- ZN Cl) 00 0 Cl) N- 0 CoO'- 0 E_- 0 Cl) N O 0 N- Cl)NO I-'- -0000 C_fl Co ~) 0 Co Cl) 000' 0 Cl) ZOCl< Co Cl) OE-0'-- 0 0 000 0 0 0 LC\u~'C_fl `-CoN-NO' oo O'0'CX) C_fl~ 0Co~ C_fl~~JO~ O'Co Oo~('~Co~ CoN-N NOLCICo'- NO 0CC_IN C-CO OCo~'N-~'- Co NO' NJ rnNJ 0 N 0 N N'- N- 0 `-CoCo 00"- t-O'Co NJ C_flCo NO' C_fl NJ NJ Co Co N N `- NJ'- N- C_flCo C/) 0 OOCoNNNJ N-C~ NC_'iO NJCoN-CC_N NJ 0 NJ N NJ NJ Co 0 NJ'- o NJ o ~l) Co I Cl) o N 0 0 Cl) Cl), 0 Cl) 0 o N 0 Co 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 o Co 0 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 Co Cl) 0 0 Co 0 0 000 Cl) Cl) 0 0 Cl) 0 0 C/) 00 0 CoO 00 I 0 0 N N 0 0000 0 00 Cl) 000 Cl) 0 0 Cl) 0 Cl) N 00 Cli 00 CoO 0 0 Cl) 00 Cl) 000 0 N Cl) 00 0 Cl) 0 00 N Cl) Co ) 0= Cl) 0 Cl) Co Cl) Co N N 0 00 Cl) 0(l) Cl) 0 Cl) 00 Cl) Cl) N Cl) Cl) 0 0 -) I 0000 000 Cl) N 0 N ZOO N 0 N N 00 000 Cl)000I-'Co NCl)Cl) (l)Cl)Cl)Cl) OCl)>OoCl) O0CCoCl)ONN0000 0,00 0Cl-ICl)Cl)Cl)Cl) 000 000 01-) ~Cl)C-) ZZ00~~)00Z0OOCo C0 N00000 Cl)CoO Cl)Cl)ZN Cl)OCoCoZO CoCoClCl)Cl)0 0Co0E-) NNN Cl)CoCl) Cl) 000 ONNCl) N )0O 0,-) 000N0000 000 ON>Z>Z 000 o0-JO 00D ClO Cl~CoZo0Z,-)Cl)NO0O N Cl) Cl) Cl) 01-101-10 000 NO Co Cl) 00 ) 0 Co CoO .-) Cl) OCo0O Cl) 1-40 Cl)N'> 0,00Cl)0Cl) 0tl)Cl) ,-)OCl)Cl) ZCl)0Cl)OCl) ZONCoCo00Cl~0ON 0 Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) 0 O~ 0 ,~)O Cl) 0 ON- NZO -~ 0 ~ O Cl~- 0 Cl) _-) 000'-- 00 ,-) 0 ~DN 0 000 Co NOCo ZOO - CoO Cl~- C, ((INC_N `-CoN-NO' OO N-O'Co (NO OCoO INC_fiCo O'CoOO'(NO'N Co N- N Co NCo NO N N N N- Co O'Co 0' 0' N-NO' N- NJCo Co NO' NJ C_NNJ ON ON C_N'- N 0 `-CoCo'- ~-OO O'Co NJ C-Co NC- C_fl `-NJ NJ Co Co N N NJ~ ~- N- ~ `-NJ ON-'- NJN-O'CoN- N-NJ ONN N-CoNCoN- C_NO'N~C-~OONONJ - `-N-Co CoCoNJ'-NJ N-Co ~ON `--N~O"- C_NCoCoN-NNCoNC-Co NJ NJ ~ NJ N Co N `- NJ'- NN-O NON'-Co 00 CoO"- OoNJCoN 0N-O' NJONNO OCo NOO `-O'O'C-Co *O'Co CoCo OCoN- C-C_fl (C_IC-Co OCOCoC_fiCo ONJCoN-NJ0 NJN-O ON `N-N- NCo'-ON CoN- NC_NO NO'OONJ OOC-IONJO'N-NC-'- 0'-N-O'O' NJCo CoC_fiCo O'O'000 NNJ~CoOCoOCo'-N -Co 00'- CoO 00 Co O'0 000' Co N 00 `-N-Co Co'- NO' C_NO NJCo N ON- Co 010 (NLtlOCo NJ 00 NJ ON NJ N- NJ0 O'Co 0 N N 0 NN- `-0 NJ'- C_N (NO' NJN NJC_NCo0 `- `-`-N-NJ N 0 0 Cl) PAGENO="0040" PERCENT PERCENT PRE-19140 I~OVERTY HOUSING 1970 1970 (14) (5) GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL FORMULA ($ 000) (6) PERCENT GRANT UNDER URBAN POPULATION NEW CONDITIONS RECIPIENT 1975 CHANGE FORMULA INDEX (1) POPULATION (2) 1960-75 (3) ($ 000) (7) SAN MATEO SC 23 ALAMEDA IC 211 CONTRA COSTA UI 15 MARIN UC 22 SAN MATEO IC 17 77,878 256,516 3914,737 217,731 3111,8113 32.7 12.8 39.2 50.1 11.5 6.1 10.0 6.5 6.14 6.1 15.8 147.5 13.5 21.7 17.9 907 3,0511 11,685 2,389 907 3,0511 11,685 2,389 SAN JOSE SMSA SAN JOSE CC 11 MOUNTAIN VIEW SC 6. PALO ALTO SC 38 SANTA CLARA SC 53 SUNNYVALE SC 21 SANTA CLARA IC 114 555,707 55,1113 52,277 82,822 102,1162 289,317 * 172.1 78.5 .0 314.0 93.7 40.7 8.6 6.11 6.6 7.6 4.6 6.2 13.9 6.7 214.1 12.5 36.8 111.8 3,6146 7,176 6811 6119 1,097 1,066 3,6116 7,176 6811 925 1,097 1,066 SANTA BARBARA-SANTA MARIA-LOMPOC LOMPOC CC 11 SANTA BARBARA CC 86 SANTA MARIA CC 27 SMSA 211,296 72,125 33,595 68.5 214.9 67.7 10.8 13.2 11.3 6.9 311.6 17.1 14,053 1112 1,310 11,053 1412 1,310 SANTA CRUZ SMSA SANTA CRUZ CC 112 36,807 113.8 16.5 111.8 612 612 SANTA ROSA SMSA SANTA ROSA CC 28 65,087 109.8 11.1 22.6 660 660 STOCKTON SMSA STOCKTON CC 11 117,600 36.2 16.3 3.6 820 820 VALLEJO-FAIRFIELD_NAPA SMSA FAIRFIELD CC 3 NAPA CC 22 VALLEJO CC 57 50,2614 146,557 70,681 235.8 110.0 16.1 9.8 8.9 10.0 3.0 21.8 ?8.2 . 2,1488 7148 576 2,1488 7148 576 COLORADO 1,135 1,135 COLORADO SPRINGS SMSA 29 179,5814 155.8 11.1 27.8 2,382 2,382 PAGENO="0041" DENVER-BOULDER SMSA BOULDER CC DENVER CC ARVADA Sc AURORA SC LAKEWOOD Sc FORT COLLINS SMSA FORT COLLINS cc GREELEY SMSA GREELEY CC PUEBLO SMSA PUEBLO CC CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT SMSA BRIDGEPORT CC FAIRFIELD SC MILFORD SC BRISTOL SMSA BRISTOL CC DANBURY SMSA DANBURY CC HARTFORD SMSA HARTFORD CC EAST HARTFORD SC WEST HARTFORD SC MERIDEN SMSA MERIDEN CC NEW BRITAIN SMSA NEW BRITAIN CC 29 78,560 131 14814,531 2 714,2514 3 118,060 7' 120,350 145 55,9814 73 147,362 122 105,312 URBAN CONDITIONS 1975 PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE PERCENT POVERTY PERCENT PRE-1914O HOUSING * GRANT UNDE1' ORIGINAL FORMULA GRANT UNDER NEW FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX (1) POPULATION (2) 1960-75 (3) 1970 (14) 1970 (5) ($ 000) (6) ($ 000) (7) 108.3 -1.9 285.9 1143.2 123.7 80.0 15.5 -8.8 25.8 19.3 28.7 137.8 ~111.8 27.1 6.8 11.3 _14*14 11.5 13.14 3.6 5.11 14.6 13.9 16.0 13.2 11.5 4 . 1 `4.9 4.7 7.0 16.2 14.3 3.5 6.6 8.14 22.0 141.0 5.0 3.9 6.2 30.7 314.7 `15.14 60.1 30.8 3145 40.7 `45.8 67.0 214. 1 37.3 52.9 514.7 1,087 9,337 575 1,025 1,0314 809 8i~ 2, 014 1 2,880 537 581 712 709 3,639 6114 535 760 1,283 178 11,2,960 214 5B,0811 314 `49,7014 58,560 32 5'4,512 298 138,152 20 514,132 29 66,605 714 57,697 113 78,556 1,083 12, 91414 575 1,025 1,0314 809 815 2,014 1 5,085 537 581 712 716 6,518 6114 911 9014 2,238 PAGENO="0042" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT PRE-19110 GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL GRANT UNDER NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION 1960-75 1970 1970 ($ 000) ($ 000) (1) (2) (3) (1') (5) (6) (7) NEW HAVEN SMSA NEW hAVEN CC 320 126,8145 -i6.6 16.5 69.2 2,960 5,991 WEST HAVEN CC 58 53,002 23.3 7.2 42.~l 6811 718 NEW LONDON-NORWICH SMSA NEW LONDON CC 203 30,1456 -10.9 12.2 63.3 522 1,110 NORWICH CC 11444 111,060 6.6 10.0 65.6 629 981 NORWALK SHEA NORWALK CC 58 76,688 13.2 6.6 42.3 1,059 1,059 STAMFORD SMSA STAMFORD CC 59 105,151 13.11 7.0 140.5 1,1498 1,1498 GREENWICH SC 111 59,566 10.7 3.9 149.3 5112 8116 WATERBURY SMSA WATERBURY CC 139 107,065 -.1 9.5 62.2 1,783 2,876 DELAWARE WILMINGTON SMSA WILMINGTON CC 11411 76,152 -20.5 21.1 71.5 1,980 11,1211 NEW CASTLE UC 111 321,122 52.7 5.3 16.1 3,3112 3,3112 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON SMSA WASHINGTON DC CC 193 711,518 -6.9 16.3 117.0 18,389 23,1151 FLORIDA DAYTONA BEACH SMEA DAYTONA BEACH CC 1143 118,037 28.5 23.1 33.8 1,232 1,232 FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOb SMSA FORT LAUDERDALE CC 12 152,959 82.9 11.9 7.6 2,6~l5 2,6'IS HOLLYWOOD CC 14 119,002 237.7 9.8 5.2 1,762 1,762 BROWARD UC 2 5714,735 167.9 10.6 2.0 7,196 7,196 PAGENO="0043" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE PERCENT POVERTY PERCENT PRE-19110 HOUSING GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL FORMULA GRANT UNDER NEW FORMULA CONDITIONS 1975 1970 ($ 000) ($ 000) RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION 1960-75 (I4) (5) / (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) FORT MYERS SMSA FORT MYERS CC 714 36,170 60.6 17.1 29.14 601 691 GAINESVILLE SMSA GAINESVILLE CC 27 72,236 1113.2 19.7 111.2 1,532 1,532 ~rACKSONVILLE SMSA JACKSONVILLE CC LAKELAND-WINTER HAVEN SMSA LAKELAND CC WINTER HAVEN CC 31 120 131 . 535,030 149,705 18,618 166.1 20.2 114.14 16.8 18.6 20.8 20.9 33.1 30.6 * 11,672 9614 1115 11,672 ` 9614 1415 MELBOURNE-TITUSVILLE-COCOA SMSA COCOA CC MELBOURNE CC TITUSVILLE CC `46 7 2 15,51114 39,821 29,501 26.11 232.3 360.2 17.2 11.8 6.9 114.2 7.5 14.7 365 699 1405 365 699 1405 MIAMI SMSA MIAMI CC HIALEAH SC MIAMI BEACH SC DADE UC 1111 5 76 10 365,082 117,682 911,063 862,565 25.2 75.7 49.0 68.1 20.3 8.6 18.9 11.3 29.9 3.6 25.14 5.8 * 11,388 2,210 2,'450 111,527 11,388 2,210 2,1150 114,527 ORLANDO SMSA ORLANDO CC ORANGE BC 711 8 113,179 273,832 . 28.11 237.8 19.1 11.9 21.0 9.1 2,1428 14,1314 2,1428 ~4,13~l PENSACOLA SMSA PENSACOLA CC 165 614,168 13.1 . 21.8 36.5 1,6014 1,6014 SARASOTA SMSA SARASOTA CC ~12 147,089 38.2 17.14 114.2 9011 9014 TALLAHASSEE SMSA TALLAHASSEE CC 36 83,725 73.8 17.5 114.9 1,6111 1,6141 TAMPA-ST PETERSBURG SMSA ST PETERSBURG CC 611 2314,389 29.3 15.7 22.~4 14,391 14,391 PAGENO="0044" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT PRE-19110 GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL GRANT UNDER NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION 1960-75 1970 1970 ($ 000) ($ 000) (1) (2) (3) (11) (5) (6) (7) TAMPA CC CLEARWATER SC HILLSBOROUGH UC PINELLAS UC 122 20 12 7 280,2110 67,069 297,157 326,105 1.9 93.5 1112.0 115.5 18.5 11.8 12.0 10.6 28.6 13.6 10.2 5.3 6,520 950 11,268 11,1511 6,520 950 11,268 11,1511 WEST PALM 13EACH-BOCA BOCA RATON CC WEST PALM REACH CC PALM BEACH BC RATON SMSA 1 1211 15 12,363 61,1171 313,795 508.6 9.11 1011.5 6.2 16.5 12.9 3.7 35.0 9.8 1117 1,329 5,330 1117 1,329 5,330 GEORGIA ALBANY SMSA ALBANY CC 72 73,373 31.3 211.11 16.11 . 2,259 2,259 ATLANTA SMSA ATLANTA CC DE KALB UC 157 8 1136,057 389,239 -10.5 75.5 19.8 14.9 30.3 11.7 12,7711 3,827 111,650 3,827 AUGUSTA SMSA AUGUSTA CC 1181 5~1,019 -23.5 30.6 51.11 2,095 3,057 COLUMBUS SMSA COLUMBUS CC 77 159,352 36.5 20.2 22.0 11,105 11,105 MACON SMSA MACON CC 103 121,157 73.7 22.5 33.7 3,1457 3,1457 SAVANNAH SMSA SAVANNAH CC 326 110,3118 -26.1 25.8 39.9 3,562 5,823 HAWAII HONOLULU SMSA HONOLULU CC 15 705,381 139.8 8.9 20.0 13,0143 13,0143 PAGENO="0045" 41 C C C C C NJ rfl .- C C C.- C N- C C C C C C C - N- C 3C CC N-CC CCC CNJCCC C CIN CN~C N-N-N~CC~ C 3.3 C C N- C C C -~ C `- NJ ç.J.-~-.-CC C C4~ C 3..- (3 3.3-3 o = C-~ C N~ ~NC C C INC CCC NJCC C C C C ~ (3CCC - CJ-JC - ~CCN N- CC ~ (3 CC (3 CCC C CIN CCN- CN-C CCCCN-~)NJ COO C-CC- ` (3 C N- C - (~-O C `- C N- C N- C CC C C C C N- CCC C C C C C C CS-' Ni C NJ Ni C C CC N- - C C C N- C `- NJ C C C C.- 0 CC C C C C C~ 0 C N-C CC C (-CCC CC'- N-C\JC CC'JCC CJCCNJCCN-CC CC-J(3N- C C C I - N- NJ C C\J `- C C C C C Ci C NJ C C NJ C Ni o C C C Ni I NJ `- C NJ I C NJ I NJ `- `- C N-C C.-30C-' C CO C C C CNiC .~~CCCCCCC.-N-NiCNiN-CNi C CC~ NiCC CNCCCCCN-CCCN-CCCN- CC C _3 C C C C C Ni C C C C NJ C N- C NJ C N- C C C - - C CCC C C C C C .- C C C NJ C C NJ C C C N- NiC C C NJ C NJ C C N- C C C C NJ Nfl NJ C NJ C' C C C - C C C C C `- NJ C CC C CCC'.' NJ C C C C C C C C 0 C C -3 C C C 0 0 I C C C C C C C C -3 = -~ C CO CO C C C 0 CO C CO C C C CC CO C C 0 00 0 0 0 C C C C 0 CO C C 3~) C C C C CO C CCO CZOO COC000C 0 0 0 COC. CO CC 0(30 IC 0 C CCCCCOCCCCCC C 10-3 C (-`0 CC CC.-3 CCC CCC CC CO 0 C C CC C ()C.-3 (3CCC C(3CZC.-3 CCCCCOCCC CCC C C OC CCC CCOC CCCCCCC.CCC~~.CC (3 CC CC C C C CCC CCCC (3OCCCC CCC CCCCC o~I-4C CC C CC C CCC C~CZC CC.~3CCOCOC~3CCCCO(-C C-JO CO C CC C C-JO 00CC OOCCCCC.~3CCCCCCCCC CCC CC 0 CC C CCC COCO COCCCOOCI'J3CCCCOO CCC 00 C C C C .-3 = C C C O C C ,J C (3 0 0 0 C C - PAGENO="0046" RECIPIENT URBAN CONDITIONS INDEX 1975 PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE PERCENT POVERTY PERCENT PRE-1911O HOUSING GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL FORMULA GRANT UNDER NEW FORMULA (1) POPULATION (2) 1960-75 (3) 1970 (11) 1970 (5) ($ 000) (6) ($ 000) (7) KANKAKEE CC 136 27,961 1.1 10.2 58.7 513 791 PEORIA SMSA PEORIA CC 116 125,983 22.1 11.1 514.3 * 2,117 2,1116 ROCKFORD SMSA ROCKFOIID CC 814 1115,1159 111.8 9.3 111.3 2,227 2,2814 ST LOUIS SMSA EAST ST LOUIS SC MADISON UC ST CLAIR UC 609 714 59 57,929 2149,685 223,017 -29.1 11.1 23.1 33.6 8.7 9.14 511.9 140.3 32.5 2,733 14,179 3,793 3,9149 11,179 3,793 SPRINGFIELD SMSA SPRINGFIELD CC 136 87,1418 5.0 10.5 57.8 1,527 2,226 INDIANA . . ANDERSON SMSA ANDERSON CC 75 69,1186 41.6 9.7 116.6 1,136 .1,1711 BLOOMINGTON SMSA BLOOMINGTON CC 514 . 148,955 56.1 10.0 35.6 883 883 EVANSVILLE SMSA EVANSVILLE CC 152 133,566 -5.6 11.9 51.3 FORT WAYNE SMSA FORT WAYNE CC 90 185,299 11L5 9.1 148.1 S 2,553 2,712 11,0311 2,895 GARY-HAMMOND-EAST EAST CHICAGO CC GARY CC HAMMOND CC CHICAGO SMSA 289 162 77 1114,186 168,5146 1014,892 . -23.11 -5.5 -6.1 . 13.14 114.9 6.5 70.7 143.7 147.0 1,0711 4,223 1,613 2,259 14,7214 2,701 INDIANAPOLIS SMSA INDIANAPOLIS CC 59 7114,878 50.1 9.5 39.7 12,033 PAGENO="0047" . URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT PRE-19140 GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL GRANT UNDER NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA ($ 000) RECIPIENT INDEX (1) POPULATION (2) 1960-75 (3) 1970 (14) 1970 (5) ($ (6) (7) LAFAYETTE-WEST LAFAYETTE SMSA LAFAYETTE CC 80 148,8914 15.5 7.6 51.14 637 755 WEST LAFAYETTE CC 66 20,297 60.1 13.0 314.6 3014 3014 MUNCIE SMSA MUNCIE CC 1118 78,329 111.2 13.5 53.5 1,14119 1,11119 SOUTH BEND SMSA SOUTH BEND CC 131 117,1178 -11.3 9.2 511.0 1,877 11,011 TERRE HAUTE SMSA TERRE HAUTE CC 2118 63,998 -11.7 13.2 70.8 1,278 2,688 IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS SMSA CEDAR RAPIDS CC 70 108,9913 18.14 7.6 146.2 1,505 1,6614 DAVENPORT-ROCK ISLAND-MOLI~1E SMSP DAVENPORT CC 106 99,9111 12.3 9.14 514.1 1,576 1,71414 DES MOINES SMSA DES MOINES CC 137 1914,168 -7.1 10.0 544.14 3,137 6,085 DUBUQUE SMSA DUBUQUE CC 1114 61,7514 9.1 8.6 61.8 1,006 1,162 OMAHA SMSA - COUNCIL BLUFFS SC 137 58,660 5.14 11.3 514.3 1,117 1,312 SIOUX CITY SMSA SIOUX CITY CC 172 85,719 -3.9 10.5 67.0 1,1405 2,6149 WATERLOO-CEDAR FALLS SMSA CEDAR FALLS CC 146 11146 14146 WATERLOO CC 1114 1,302 1,14149 33,1814 56.6 8.14 36.2 77,681 8.3 10.6 149.7 PAGENO="0048" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT GRANT UNDER GRANT UNDER CONDITIONS 1975 PERCENT PRE-1914O ORIGINAL NEW RECIPIENT INDEX (1) POPULATION (2) CHANGE 1960-75 (3) POVERTY 1970 (14) NOOSING 1970 (5) FORMULA ($ 000) (6) FORMULA (5 000) (7) KANSAS KANSAS CITY SMSA KANSAS CITY SC OVERLAND PARK SC 111 3* 168,153 81,013 37.9 .. . 13.8 2.14 147.14 11.5 3,1489 598 3,1189 593 TOPEKA SMSA TOPEKA CC 97 119,203 -.2 9.9 41.5 1,897 2,735 WICHITA SMSA WICHITA CC 73 2614,901 14.0 11.1 29.0 14,590 14,731 KENTUCKY CLARKSVILLE-HOPKIN5VILLE HOPKINSVILLE CC SMSA 163 26,288 35.1 214.1 38.9 678 678 HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND SMSA ASHLAND CC 209 27,1456 -12.2 114.3 5'I.8 561i 1,063 LEXINGTON-FAYETTE SMSA LEXINGTON CC 39 186,0148 196.2 16.1 31.2 3,306 3,306 LOUISVILLE SMSA LOUISVILLE CC JEFFERSON UC 2146 9 335,9514 333,310 -144.0 63.8 17.0 6.1 53.2 9.5 8,4415 14,215 13,673 14,215 OWENSBORO SMSA OWENSBORO CC 93 50,788 19.6 13.7 311.6 1,0114 1,O1~4 LOUISIANA V ALEXANDRIA SMSA ALEXANDRIA CC 180 449,1481 22.8 29.7 32.0 1,697 1,697 BATON ROUGE SMSA BATON ROUGE CC 56 * 2911,3914 92.5 18.6 20.7 6,537 6,537 LAFAYETTE SMSA LAFAYETTE CC 514 75,1430 86.7 PAGENO="0049" LAKE CHARLES SMSA LAKE CHARLES CC MONROE SMSA MONROE CC NEW ORLEANS SMSA NEW ORLEANS CC JEFFERSON PARISH UC SHREVEPORT SMSA SHREVEPORT CC MAINE LEWISTON-AUBURN SMSA AUBURN CC LEWISTON CC PORTLAND SMSA PORTLAND CC MARYLAND BALTIMORE SMSA BALTIMORE CC ANNE ARUNDEL UC WASHINGTON SMSA MONTGOMERY UC PRINCE GEORGES UC MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON SMSA BOSTON CC ARLINGTON SC BROOKLINE SC CAMBRIDGE SC FRAMINGHAM SC , RECIPIENT URBAN CONDITIONS INDEX (1) 1975 POPULATION (2) PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE 1960-75 (3) PERCENT POVERTY 1970 (Ii) PERCENT PRE-19110 HOUSING 1970 (5) GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL FORMULA ($ 000) (6) GRANT UNDER NEW FORMULA ($ 000) (7) 89 76,087 20.0 21.7 21.0 2,090 2,090 159 61,016 16.8 30.0 26.11 1,9143 1,9143 3110 12 559,770 399,016 -10.8 91.7 26.2 10.3 119.11 9.5 19,1183 6,398 22,9144 6,398 139 185,711 13.0 21.9 .30.6 14,939 14,939 199 23,3014 10.9 714.1 409 803 195 141,0145 .6 12.3 68.1 7143 1,220 317 59,857 -17.5 111.7 76.1 1,237 3,001 279 18 851,698 311,592 -9.3 66.5 18.0 6.1 60.0 19.9 20,952 3,670 32,338 3,670 1 7 518,691 551,232 67.7 89.7 4.1 5.7 1.2 *8.7 6,4431 6,7140 6,1431 6,7~40 303 29 636725 149,815 -8.7 -.3 15.3 514 77.2 22.5 13,369 568 25,831 1,258 130 52,590 -2.7 8.8 61.5 735 1,823 251 12 1O2,~420 65,5110 147.2 12.8 50 79.7 144.5 1,8111 673 3,820 673 PAGENO="0050" PERCENT PERCENT GRANT UNDER GRANT UNDER URBAN POPULATION PERCENT PRE-1914O ORIGINAL NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION . 1960-75 1970 1970 U 000) ($ 000) (1) (2) (3) (14) (5) (6) (7) LYNN SC 238 79,327 -16.0 10.7 79.8 1,1426 3,8146 MALDEN SC 1149 55,778 -3.3 8.0 76.6 765. 1,739 MEDFORD SC 1214 60,769 -6.5 6.1 80.9 726 2,035 NEWTON SC . 78 88,559 -14.1 14.7 67.5 853 2,1101 QUINCY SC 109 91,14914 14.7 6.8 71.2 1,157 2,153 SOMERVILLE SC 235 80,798 -114.7 9.5 90.1 1,379 3,778 WALTHAM SC 85 56,251 1.5 6.6 55.6 775 1,278 WEYMOUTH SC 12 56,815 17.9 5.5 11.0 678 678 BROCETON SMSA BROCKTON CC 69 95,878 31.7 8.5 145.14 1,360 1,635 FALL RIVER SMSA FALL RIVER CC 262 100,1130 .5 13.5 83.14 1,887 3,3145 FITCHBURG-LEOMINSTER SMSA FITCHBURG CC 188 38,976 -9.14 9.8 714.1 666 1,519 LEOMINSTER CC 79 35,1493 27.1 7.1 59.9 1179 558 LAWRENCE SMSA HAVERUILL CC 179 1414,377 -~4.2 9.1 80.11 676 1,567 LAWRENCE CC 225 67,390 -5.0 11.14 80.0 1,1146 2,1487 LOWELL SMSA LOWELL CC 196 91,1493 -.7 11.2 714.2 1,605 2,860 NEW BEDFORD SMSA NEW BEDFORD CC 292 100,133 -2.3 15.1 80.8 1,995 3,699 PITTSFIELD SMSA PITTSFIELD CC 122 514,893 -5.1 7.14 66.7 723 1,676 SPRINGFIELD-CHICOPEE-HOLyOKE SMSA CHICOPEE CC 81 57,771 -6.1 6.9 146.8 917 1,5147 HOLYOKE CC 283 146,1135 -11.9 114.5 73.11 987 2,091 SPRINGFIELD CC 191 170,790 -2.1 12.14 614.14 2,9211 14,992 WORCESTER SMSA WORCESTER CC 188 171,566 -8.1 9.9 . 71414 2,678 6,117 PAGENO="0051" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT PRE-19140 GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL GR14NT UNDER NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION 1960-75 1970 1970 (5 000) ($ 000) (1) (2) (3) (11) (5) (6) (7) MICHIGAN 145 258 143,338 203 17,215 ANN ARBO.R SMSA ANN ARBOR CC BATTLE CREEK SMSA BATTLE CREEK CC BAY CITY SMSA BAY CITY CC DETROIT SMSA DETROIT CC CLINTON TWP SC DEARBORN SC DEARBORN HEIGHTS SC FARMINGTON HILLS SC LINCOLN PARK SC LIVONIA SC PONTIAC SC REDFORD TWP SC ROSEVILLE SC ROYAL OAK SC SOUTHFIELD SC ST CLAIR SHORES SC STERLING HEIGHTS SC TAYLOR SC WARREN SC WATERFORD TWP SC WESTLAND SC OAKLAND UC WAYNE UC FLINT SMSA FLINT CC GENESEE UC 266 1,335,085 -20.1 2 58 6* 60,697 98,986 79,239 136.3 -11.6 *.. 7 26 511,1211 119,5111 * 686.6 -8.2 2 1111,881 72.2 153 6 76,027 67,298 -7.5 -5.6 12 58,1111 15.8 21 79,191 -1.8 2 75,978 1111.2 7 3* 11' 11 85,9311 86,932 76,626 172,755 12.1 ... .. 93.6 17 5* 16 59,888 92,689 1150,6711 27.1 ... 23.14 39 3'42,822 -12.8 103,5142 53.8 10.5 28.1 1,5141 1,5141 -1.9 15.7 68.9 778 1,368 -11.9 10.5 72.7 7914 1,850 * 29,7011 632 1,181 935 ~492 705 1,082 1,7014 797 861 8614 606 1,0148 687 1,010 2,023 720 1, 119 5,0114 14,936 614,509 632 2,792 935 `492 979 1,082 2,3119 929 861 1,259 606 1,0148 687 1,010 2,023 720 1 , 119 5,0114 14,936 -11.5 12.1 145.6 3,5146 5,870 56.3 5.1 23.8 3,0214 3,0214 114.7 10.2 5.5 3.3 17.0 5.3 2.1 12.8 2.9 11.9 3.8 3.2 3.2 2.8 11.9 3.2 14.7 3.6 14.1 `114 61.8 1.9 39.5 7.1 12.~4 19.0 6.5 117.2 7.7 11.7 22.9 5.6 9.7 3.9 9.1 8.9 19.1 5.3 19.9 32.8 1116 1714,218 19 252,631 PAGENO="0052" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT PRE-19140 GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL GRANT UNDER NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION 1960-75 1970 1970 ($ 000) FORMULA ($ 000) (1) (2) (3) (14) (5) (6) (7) GRAND RAPIDS CC 166 WYOMING SC 30 187,9146 57,918 6.0 26.11 12.1 5.9 62.0 26.7 3,220 (60 `4,805 760 JACKSON SMSA JACKSON CC 273 143,9914 -13.3 12.5 80.8 787 1,918 KALAMAZOO-PORTAGE SMSA KALAMAZOO CC 180 PORTAGE CC 10~ 79,5142 38,6141 -3.1 . . . 12.9 3.14 57.7 11.5 1,1426 360 2,366 360 LANSING-EAST LANSING SMSA EAST LANSING CC 29 LANSING CC 92 50,1425 126,805 67.0 17.6 10.7 9.9 18.8 146.5 701 2,055 701 2,127 MUSKEGON-NORTON SHORES-MUSKEGON HEIGHTS MUSKEGON CC 2014 MUSKEGON HEIGHTS CC 3314 NORTON SHORES CC 19* SMSA 1414,176 15,7145 21,2914 -5.0 -19.5 . . . 12.3 19.2 5.0 67.2 59.8 15.14 809 14141 276 1,14814 7145 276 SAGINAW SMSA SAGINAW CC 2314 86,202 -12.3 13.7 614.1 1,802 3,3314 MINNESOTA DULUTH-SUPERIOR SMSA DULUTH CC 221 93,971 -12.1 11.14 72.6 1,608 3,830 FARGO-MOORHEAD SMSA MOORHEAD CC 50 22,755 -.8 9.6 21.9 1452 `452 MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL SMSA MINNEAPOLIS CC 2314 ST PAUL CC 151 BLOOMINGTON SC 2 HEN11EPIN UC 7 378,112 279,535 79,210 363,053 -21.7 -10.8 56.9 1,8.1 11.5 9.2 2.~7 3.4 68.1 62.14 3.8 12.6 6,8149 14,567 8114 3,554 19,859 10,290 8114 3,5514 ROCHESTER SMSA ROCHESTER CC 50 56,211 38.2 7.9 37.3 731 731 PAGENO="0053" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE PERCENT POVERTY PERCENT PRE-1914O HOUSING GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL FORMULA GRANT UNDER NEW FORMULA CONDITIONS 1975 1960-75 1970 1970 ($ 000) ($ 000) RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION (~4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) ST CLOUD SMSA ST CLOUD CC 914 140,621 20.1 9.9 . 148.14 699 699 MISSISSIPPI BILOXI-GULFPORT SMSA BILOXI CC GULFPORT CC MOSS POINT CC PASCAGOULA CC 91 68 18 27 46,1407 143,126 18,298 30,1403 5.3 142.8 175.9 77.2 15.7 17.8 17.2 12.9 26.0 23.0 12.0 15.3 1,022 963 506 557 1,022 963 506 557 JACKSON SMSA JACKSON CC MISSOURI 109 166,512 15.3 23.7 22.5 14,635 11,635 ~ COLUMBIA SMSA COLUMBIA CC 1414 63,227 72.5 12.6 25.2 1,015 1,015 KANSAS CITY SMSA KANSAS CITY CC INDEPENDENCE SC 151 23 1472,529 111,1481 -.6 78.9 12.5 6.1 51.3 28.14 9,063 1,3141 13,582 1,3141 ST JOSEPH SMSA ST JOSEPH CC 235 77,679 -2.5 13.7 71.14 1,1199 2,550 ST LOUIS SMSA ST LOUIS CC FLORISSANT SC ST LOUIS UC 1487 1 17 5214,9614 70,1465 766,1147 30.0 814.6 33.8 1°.7 3.0 4*14 7~4.9 2.2 22.0 . 16,761 780 9,100 36,380 780 9,100 SPRINGFIELD SMSA SPRINGFIELD CC 96 131,557 37.2 114.0 140.2 . 2,299 2,299 BILLINGS SMSA BILLINGS CC 70 68,987 30.5 11.6 33.7 1,069 1,069 PAGENO="0054" PERCENT PERCENT GRANT UNDER GRANT UNDER URBAN POPULATION PERCENT PRE-1940 ORIGINAL NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX (1) POPULATION (2) 1960-75 (3) 1970 (4) 1070 (5) ($ 000) (6) ($ 000) (7) GREAT FALLS SMSA . GREAT FALLS CC 89 60,868 10.2 10.4 40.0 1,027 1,027 NEBRASKA LINCOLN SMSA LINCOLN CC 72 163,112 26.9 8.8 44.2 2,085 2,265 OMAHA SMSA OMAHA CC 91 371,455 23.2 10.4 46.1 5,914 5,914 NEVADA LAS VEGAS SMSA LAS VEGAS CC 4 146,030 126.7 9.3 3.8 2,154 2,154 REND SMSA REND CC 33 78,097 51.7 8.9 23.7 1,095 1,095 NEW HAMPSHIRE MANCHESTER-NASHUA SMSA MANCHESTER CC NASHUA CC 169 48 83,417 61,002 -5.5 56.0 10.1 6.4 67.6 49.1 1,400 752 2,774 807 NEW JERSEY ATLANTIC CITY SMSA ATLANTIC CITY CC 460 43,969 -26.2 22.0 66.0 1,232 2,882 JERSEY CITY SMSA . JERSEY CITY CC BAYONNE SC UNION CITY SC HUDSON UC 282 155 70 117 243,756 73,574 52,648 156,779 -11.7 -.9 .9 -.3 13.5 9.0 3.7 6.6 78.9 73.0 81.3 75.5 5,530 1,131 1,254 2,439 10,645 2,196 1,929 4,325 LONG BRANCH-ASBURY PARK SMSA . ASBURY PARK CC LONG BRANCH CC 407 131 13,841 31,007 -20.3 18.0 23.1 13.1 60.0 50.3 456 610 805 617 PAGENO="0055" 11) 0 0 0 00 0001- 0 ~ 0000 000 ~0. 51 o~r~ r~-ooc'~o ooc'~'- oo~o ~CoU~ C-tt\ c~ CO 1- C1)0 c'~C0'0' C- C~ oo ~ or-o cfl NO Oco ~ N C'~O (fl C~J cC.- - (`4 Cci ~ `- (`40 (`4 0 Cci ~ C- Cfl cci.- o C\JcC ~ 0 rfl (`4 ~C 0 rCccC COO (`4 Cci NO ICc U'ICc Lt~' Oc'0\CCccO ~fl0C'~O'~ 0NL(~O 0C\IN 0~ NO' - NO'C'J~ `-cC cC CflNL('Cfl0.~ fCc ~ tcc0~ 00CC 0 ~ (`4 1010 .- cC Cci CII 10cC cC cC ~ ICc fCc fCc ~ N N N (`4 CC fCc Cc0 ~(cjcC~CcJ~ 0~OC(CcO'I0CC (`JOD(CcN cONO ~ N Cci Cci'- (Cc~ Cci CC'-O (\J~ Cci (CICcJ ~ (`c 0 i\JLCc I ~ ~ Cci ~ I IC' I I'- (14 1(1 `- Cci 0(11 0fCcC'0~f1O'- 0cCcCfCc('4~O NOcOCCI ~ 1(1cC ((11(1 CI1c0('JN0C~(Cc 0'0~fCc c000'cC `-010 cOCci aD~ NL11CCcI0~ LCcfCc CcC'JfCccO 0'-~ C'4~ OcC'cCN C'co N ~ff( Cl) 11) CC) ~1 (Cc'- >0fCcO'ICO'~0 ~~`-fCc cC NLtlCcJ (ON (Cc fCc C.) o 0 N (`4 ((4 N CO fCc (Cc 1(1 Cci fCc cC COO ~ Cli cC Cci C.' `C Cl) 11) 0 I C/) C.' O 0 0 0 `C `C (1) 1/) 0 0 = 0 `C C/) Cl) 00 C/) * 11)0 * I `C 11. 0 11- 0 0 11. 0 0 0 Cl) * 1/) * ~.oooo ~ 011) C/) 0 0 I~0 0 (0 011)000 Cl) 0 0 1-. Cl) 0 11. 0 0 0 11) 0 01/) 11.0 C~ 0 -~ 00 0*OCC)Q. CC) 00 0000 `C -)0 `COO * c-(C/)0~()0 `CO.-)OOE-'Ci. 0 .-)00 0 0000 11)0 0= *0Z.i1-.I-'OO Cl)OCO'CO *000 0 ~ Cl)I-' 0 0 00 V)O'CCci CC)COc/) 0 0~I-.0 0 1000 Q~ 0 (1)00 COO 0 00(11CC) (1)0 1.. 00 1-' Cl) 00(000 -~ 0>' 0 00 ~) 0 00COO `CO ..i ~110 0100(00 00 `C 0(0 000 01-' ~) 00 111 1-.0000 0'C01-C-cCl)OC00 cl)C..Cl)00 OOCCC.J COCci 00 C0*=OCciI-cioO 111*00000Cl)o1o CciI-cicl)1-C11' `C000 1-COO (-40 COtO'CO.~)0C0 `C(0'C*C'COCl)O CO.~C'C'CCO O 00 *ZQ.Cl)0000 0000011.0000 1-011.11.0 o000 0I- (0 (0 `C = = = 0 11. 11. 1' 0 00' 0 1.).->' 0'-' 0 I Cl) NLC1 CC)O 0"-' 1000'- ci. ci. ZI-. £000 010 N cC COO 00(01(1 01-CO N 01-0 I 0 ~) = cC £0000' 0 0 01-' 0' -~ 0 Cl) 000 `C C-C CO~ 000'- CciZ 00(0 0 0 0 CO 0 CO PAGENO="0056" VINELAND-MILVILLE-BRIDGETON SMSA BRIDGETON CC 226 MILLVILLE CC 97 VINELAND CC 65 NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE SMSA ALBUQUERQUE CC NEW YORK ALBANY-SCHENECTADY-TROY SMSA ALBANY CC SCHENECTADY CC TROY CC BINGHAMTON SMSA BINGHAMTON CC BUFFALO SMSA BUFFALO CC NIAGARA FALLS SC WEST SENECA TOWN SC ERIE UC ELMIRA SMSA ELMIRA CC NASSAU-SUFFOLK SMSA NASSAU UC SUFFOLK UC NEW YORK CITY SMSA NEW YORK CITY CC MT VERNON SC NEW ROCHELLE SC YONKERS SC ROCKLAIID UC WESTCHESTER UC 272 11O~311 207 711,995 287 60,312 2814 60,666 388 1107,160 199 80,773 13 514,1511 30 591,793 -23.6 114.8 85.7 -21.1 10.9 61.5 61.0 3.7 214.5 26.0 5.0 32.2 URBAN PERCENT * PERCENT GRANT UNDER GRANT UNDER POPULATION PERCENT PRE-1911O ORIGINAL NEW RECIPIENT INDEX 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA (1) POPULATION (2) 1960-75 (3) 1970 (14) 1970 (5) ($ 000) (6) ($ 000) (7) 30 279,~401 -1.8 114.1 67.1 1400 633 25,119 53,637 31.5 112.3 10.11 9.8 52.0 140.3 3143 791 382 791 38.9 13.9 12.6 14,978 14,978 -15.0 -8.2 -10.6 13.2 10.0 13.5 714.7 81.3 81.0 1,990 1,097 1,107 5,081 3,052 2,538 Oi 399 23 114 222 1714 105 86 16 58 37,320 1114,021 931,535 7,1481,613 67,687 71,8141 192,509 193,7314 2314,309 15.6 87.6 3.8 27.0 6.0 18.7 -19.8 7.9 88.0 -3.9 -10.9 -6.5 1.0 83.6 17.6 8, 1432 1,1406 5147 6, 1414 1 757 1,566 9,878 1714,170 1,233 1,0145 2,816 1,997 2,619 214,293 3,657 5447 6 , 14241 1,999 2,161 9,878 255,919 2,630 2,086 11, 5214 1,997 3,869 114.7 9.3 7.5 7.2 4*1~ 6.1 62.1 71.1 56.0 51.14 27.8 147.8 PAGENO="0057" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT GRANT UNDER GRANT UNDER CONDITIONS 1975 PRE-1940 ORIGINAL NEW RECIPIENT INDEX (1) POPULATION (2) CHANGE 1960-75 (3) POVERTY 1970 (4) ROUSING 1970 (5) FORMULA ($ 000) (6) FORMULA ($ 000) (7) POUGHKEEPSIE SMSA POUGHKEEPSIE CC 287 31,608 -17.5 12.8 79.0 558 1,531 ROCHESTER SMSA ROCHESTER CC GREECE TOWN SC IRONDEQUOIT TOWN MONROE UC SC 266 8 20 23 267,173 76,1401 60,1614 271,6714 -16.1 57.0 8.7 86.2 12.0 2.8 2.7 6.9 ` 79.5 19.0 32.9 25.5 14,935 629 1487 2,282 12,8143 629 667 2,282 SYRACUSE SMSA SYRACUSE CC ONONDAGA UC 265 27 182,5113 289,380 -15.5 40.2 . 13.5 5.2 70.8 30.2 3,1114 3,126 8,314 3,126 UTICA-ROME SMSA ROME CC UTICA CC 110 297 .49,014 82,443 -5.1 -17.9 8.2 13.2 54.3 79.0 701 1,547 1,272 4,148 NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE SMSA ASHEVILLE CC 177 59,591 -1.0 18.0 51.0 1,339 1,743 BURLINGTON SMSA BURLINGTON CC 60 37,586 13.2 9.6 30.1 616 616 CHARLOTTE-GASTONIA CHARLOTTE CC GASTONIA CC SMSA 48 79 281,417 49,343 39.6 32.4 14.8 13.6 19.3 32.5 5,235 997 5,235 997 FAYETTEVILLE SMSA FAYETTEVILLE CC . 118 . 65,915 39.9 19.4 18.9 1,613 1,613 GREENSBORO-WINSTON GREENSBORO CC HIGH POINT CC WINSTON-SALEM CC SALEM-HIGH POINT 75 114 107 SMSA 155,848 61,330 141,018 * 30.3 -1.2 26.9 23.6 11.7 13.6 20.7 33.1 28.5 2,551 1,288 2,551 1,364 PAGENO="0058" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION . PENCENT PERCENT PRE-1914O GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL GRANT UNDER NEW CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA FORMULA RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION 1960-75 1970 1970 ($ 000) ($ 000) (1) (2) (3) (11) (5) (6) (7) RALEIGH-DURHAM SMSA DURHAM CC RALEIGH CC WILMINGTON SMSA WILMINGTON CC NORTH DAKOTA FARGO-MOORHEAD SMSA FARGO CC OHIO AKRON SMSA AKRON CC SUMMIT UC CANTON SMSA CANTON CC STARK UC CINCINNATI SMSA CINCINNATI CC HAMILTON UC CLEVELAND SMSA CLEVELAND CC CLEVELAND HEIGHTS SC EUCLID SC LAKEWOOD SC PARMA SC CUYAHOGA UC COLUMBUS SMSA COLUMBUS CC FRANKLIN UC DAYTON SMSA DAYTON CC 91 52 101,2211 1311,231 29.3 42.9 17.3 12.8 33.6 211.8 2,356 2,251 2,356 2,251 191 53,818 22.3 25.2 39.5 1,360 1,360 81 56,058 20.1 8.6 790 826 179 27 251,7147 2111,969 -13.3 26.9 11.6 5.2 57.d 27.11 11,1153 2,7119 9,6146 11,058 211 311 101,852 219,009 -1O.~l 20.9 12.2 11.6 66.2 37.6 1,873 2,558 3,953 2,558 289 22 1112,5614 1118,196 -17.9 314.9 17.1 14.5 59.3 28.2 10,536 11,860 19,577 14,860 1400 638,793 -27.1 17.0 73.3 16,020 39,1490 913 17 82 10 114 51,1111 63,307 65,395 98,883 1112,199 -17.3 .5 -1.1 19.14 35.6 5.5 11.1 5.14 3.6 3.6 72.7 17.3 614.1 13.2 21.6 533 685 701 968 3,8117 2,273 879 2,132 968 3,8147 106 535,610 13.6 13.2 39.0 9,8314 9,8314 15 321,797 52.14 5.0 18.8 3,239 3,239 213 205,986 -21.5 13.7 52.1 14,595 9,7814 PAGENO="0059" . RECIPIENT URBAN CONDITIONS INDEX (1) 1975 POPULATION (2) PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE 1960-75 (3) PERCENT POVERTY 1970 (14) PERCENT PRE-1914O HOUSING 1970 (5) GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL FORMULA ($ 000) (6) GRANT UNDER NEW FORMULA ($ 000) (7) KETTERING SC MONTGOMERY UC 5 1~4 69,9149 310,179 28.14 48.2 3.1 14*14 7.1 19.0 611 3,218 611 3,218 HAMILTON-MIDDLETOWN HAMILTON CC MIDDLETOWN CC SMSA 1514 100 66,1469 148,0014 -8.1 114.0 11.1 10.8 514.2 1414.9 1,222 825 2,085 825 LIMA SMSA LIMA CC LORAIN-ELYRIA SMSA ELYRIA CC LORAIN CC 205 58 81 51,372 52,14714 814,907 .7 19.9 23.2 12.0 7.1 10.0 73.14 141.2 142.3 9614 7314 1,376 1,1493 7314 1,376 MANSFIELD SMSA MANSFIELD CC 117 56,916 20.3 11.14 52.8 9149 1,0140 PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA MARIETTA CC SMSA 2514 16,1714 -1LO 114.2 - 73.3 296 576 SPRINGFIELD SMSA SPRINGFIELD CC 196 77,317 -6.5 12.5 62.6 1,14143 2,628 STEUBENVILLE-WEIRTON STEUBENVILLE CC SMSA 2146 28,280 -13.0 114.8 61.8 579 1,1614 TOLEDO SMSA TOLEDO CC 123 367,650 15.6 107 56.8 6,028 . 7,280 YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN SMSA WARREN CC YOUNGSTOWN CC 105 275 60,1486 132,203 1.14 -20.7 9.6 13.8 147.1 67.14 9714 2,612 1,363 6,2814 OKLAHOMA LAWTON SMSA LAWTON CC 51 76,1421 23.9 17.14 15.14 1,679 1,679 PAGENO="0060" URBAN PERCENT POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT PRE-19140 GRANT UNDER ORIGINAL GRANT UNDER NEW FORMULA CONDITIONS 1975 CHANGE POVERTY HOUSING FORMULA (5 000) RECIPIENT INDEX POPULATION 1960-75 1970 1970 (5 (7) (1) (2) (3) (Ii) (5) (6) OKLAHOMA CITY SMSA OKLAHOMA CITY CC MIDWEST CITY SC NORMAN SC 814 6 37 365,916 50,105 59,9148 12.8 39.0 79.14 13.9 9.2 13.1 29.1 3.7 21.3 7,110 779 909 7,110 779 909 TULSA SMSA TULSA CC . 57 331,726 26.8 11.9 25.9 5,5145 5,5145 OREGON EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SMSA EUGENE CC SPRINGFIELD CC 36 19 92,1451 33,1432 * 81.14 70.44 12.14 9.8 22.3 13.5 1,3143 465 1,3143 465 PORTLAND SMSA PORTLAND CC 176 356,732 ~I4.3 12.6 57.2 6,173 12,016 SALEM SMSA SALEM CC 544 78,168 59.1 10.6 344.5 1,063 1,063 PENNSYLVANIA ALLENTOWN-BETHLEHEM-EASTON ALLENTOWN CC BETHLEHEM CC EASTON CC SMSA 1146 11~4 329 106,6214 73,827 29,263 -1.6 -2.1 -8.14 9.2 8.6 15.3 66.5 55.5 814.2 1,1469 967 560 3,2114 1,877 1,2314 ALTOONA SMSA ALTOONA CC 211 59,692 -144.0 9.2 814.0 1,088 2,765 ERIE SMSA ERIE CC 186 127,895 -7.6 11.0 66.8 2,082 14,2814 HARRISBURG SMSA HARRISBURG CC 1478 58,2714 -26.9 20.3 73.6 1,500 3,900 C;' JOHNSTOWN SMSA JOHNSTOWN CC -25.8 114.9 814.7 829 2,14014 398 140,01414 PAGENO="0061" U) U) ,J0 U) U) U) 0 U) U) 0 N- N)ZU) U) 0~ < U~-~ U) _) U) << 1~ EQ U) N)N)U) U) U) 0 ~ <0 U~-~ C, U) U) U) U)'- N) O-- o U)t-U) U) U) U) 17'- U)U)0'- ZN) U) U) 0 0 U) N- ~ U)0,- N) 0 U) U) U) N) ON- U)E-Z I- o <<0 U) U) ~J U) U) ~ 0 U) 0 U) U) U) 0 U)0 U) U) 0 0 0Q~ U) N) 0 <00 U)U)Q~ 0 <0 U) 0 U) 0 U) 0 N) U) U) U) 0 .E U) U- N) 0 - 0 U) U) U) U) U) U)OOU)O U)U) U)< <0 N)0 U)U)U) `-`U- N)U)U)U)U) U) U) O~-)>00--) U)0 U)U~ U) U) U) U) U) ~) U) U) U) <0 U) U) EU) _) U) U) N) U) U) 0 0 U) U)N)~- N)O0 U) D-U)0~]U)0U)Q0'U)U)E OU)N)U) L~U) U)OU) Q~E <00 U)U)U) U)N)N)U)U) -)U)N)0U)U~ U) = N) EU) U) <-) U) U) U) U) U- 0 U) -) U) U) N) U) ~) ')-' < 0 = N) U) N) 0 ,_) U) U- U) U) >-` 57 U)U) U)N-'-'- NJQONJU)U)U)NJ0'-U) cOU)Q'-C'JU) U)Q U) N-C' C'JN- `-~U)'- 0N-C't-U)NJON-U)0U) CNJO,-U) NJC7 N- `-CC NJ U) `- ~ NJ U) Nj NJ `-NJ U) U)~ cN U) U) U)U) ~ U) NJ NJ NJ N- NJ U) NJ U) - - N- U) 00 U) U)Q NJ NJ C U) U) NJ NJ U) U) N- U) 0 .- N- CU) U)U) 0NJ C~U)C'U)U)U)U)N-U)0U) ,-U)U)U)C~U) U)U) N- C'U) U) ` `-U) N- U) U)U) U) 0 0 NJ NJ U) NJ NJ `-CC NJU)0C~ U)U)U)U)U)U)U)C~U)N-'- U)'ONJU)U) C7'U) U) NJN- C7'U) NJU)OU) U)'C~'-U)N-0U)U)U)N- U)OU)C'-- U)- CC `-U) N-U) U)COC'N- U)U) U)U)U)U)NJU)U)U) t-NJCCU)U)U) QU) CC CCU) U)U) NJU) ``- `-U)CCCC CU) U)NJ CU) N- CU) NJU) N-U) U)U) C' U)U) U))- 0'U)'- U) U)U)U)U)N-U)U) U)U)U)N-0N- NJU) U) U)U) NJ~- U)ONJC U)U)U)0U)'-U)U)U)'-U) `U)U)U)NJU) C'U) U) O'C I U) `-- I U) U) I U) NJ- NJ NJ I `- t - NJ II II I I I I C7'U) CU)CU) CCNJU)U)U)U)U)U)N-U) `U)U)CCNN- NJN- U) N-U) U)NJ `-CCU)O 0U)CCNJCCcNNJU)U)NJN- U)00U)U)NJ C'U) - U)NJ U)' U)U)0C U)C'-U)U)OU)NJU)U)'- U)U)U)NJU)U) U)U) C' U)U) IOU) U)U)N-U) U)0U)U)U)C-U)U)ç'JO' CONJN-OC'U) ~-C U) U)U) C'U) ` U) 017' N- U) 0 U)U) U) NJU)U)U) U)' NJ CC U)CC 0 N- U) 0 U) 0 U) N) C' J 0 U)