How 26 Cities are Using SLFRF Dollars to Support Community Violence Interventions: A Look at the Latest Treasury Data 

By Amanda Kass and Philip Rocco

The U.S. Treasury Department recently released data for the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program that covers spending that’s taken place between the program’s inception in 2021 and June 30, 2023. We examined that data to look at spending trends for our 26 study cities (see previous blog). Since governments have until the end of calendar year 2026 to spend these dollars, we wanted to see what fraction of planned spending has taken place and compare overall spending rates to community violence intervention (CVI) spending specifically. Consistent with our earlier analyses, we find wide variation across cities. 

Do Governments Have Spending Plans for All Their Aid? How Much Has Been Spent?

Before we evaluate how governments are allocating SLFRF aid, let’s first consider how much of this aid governments have planned to spend. In total, the 26 cities in our study were allocated $11.22 billion in SLFRF aid. As of June 30, 2023, they had adopted spending plans for 85% of that aid. However, spending plans varied widely between cities: Philadelphia had approved spending plans for 42% of its aid while eight cities (Austin, Baton Rouge, Chicago, Denver, Jersey City, Memphis, Minneapolis, and Oakland) had approved spending plans for 100% of their SLFRF allocations. There is no deadline for governments to budget for spending; however, all SLFRF aid must be obligated by December 31, 2024 (the Treasury Department recently released new rules concerning the definition of obligation).

Governments have until December 31, 2026, to spend their SLFRF allocations; any unspent funds will have to go back to the federal government. So how much have governments spent thus far? Our 26 cities have spent a combined $5.51 billion as of June 30, 2023, which is 58% of the total planned spending. However, the vast majority of that spending (about 77% of that $5.51 billion) is for one thing: revenue replacement. Revenue replacement––as we have documented in prior posts––presents fewer administrative burdens for local governments than do programs, services, and infrastructure projects, for which spending takes place over months or years. Austin and Oakland plan to use all their SLFRF allocations for revenue replacement. The table below lists the 26 cities, their SLFRF allocation, planned spending, total expenditures (as of June 30, 2023), and the amount spent on revenue replacement.

City	SLFRF Allocation	Total Planned Spending (as of 6/30/2023)	Total Expenditures (as of 6/30/2023)	Total Spent on Revenue Replacement (as of 6/30/2023)	Amount Spent on Revenue Replacement as % of Total Planned Spending Expenditures
Albuquerque	$108,810,857	$94,838,840	$87,581,264	$69,478,936	79%
Atlanta	$170,928,821	$93,928,824	$49,530,108	$0	0%
Austin	$188,482,478	$188,482,480	$51,266,148	$51,266,148	100%
Baltimore	$641,170,126	$469,054,944	$109,923,448	$23,694,540	22%
Baton Rouge	$165,443,198	$165,443,200	$53,660,652	$6,667,603	12%
Boston	$580,329,118	$551,699,968	$227,465,472	$95,000,000	42%
Buffalo	$331,356,932	$331,024,096	$129,284,280	$105,318,512	81%
Charlotte	$141,618,325	$78,799,184	$50,695,280	$21,041,252	42%
Chicago	$1,886,591,388	$1,886,591,360	$1,270,803,456	$1,167,200,000	92%
Denver	$308,048,870	$308,048,864	$99,461,208	$55,234,464	56%
Detroit	$826,675,290	$537,633,280	$82,814,672	$0	0%
Jersey City	$139,971,935	$139,971,936	$139,971,936	$126,112,376	90%
Los Angeles	$1,278,900,928	$1,261,373,696	$1,173,665,664	$1,088,109,568	93%
Memphis	$161,061,490	$161,061,488	$107,429,992	$39,435,656	37%
Milwaukee	$394,226,649	$296,699,104	$135,452,896	$102,581,520	76%
Minneapolis	$271,192,484	$271,192,480	$146,056,704	$122,402,496	84%
Newark	$176,667,606	$152,151,392	$138,589,120	$93,245,000	67%
Oakland	$188,081,700	$188,081,696	$188,081,696	$188,081,696	100%
Philadelphia	$1,395,292,684	$585,000,000	$585,000,000	$585,000,000	100%
Phoenix	$396,080,366	$351,391,648	$183,062,080	$16,865,652	9%
Pittsburgh	$335,070,222	$335,070,208	$167,296,128	$157,210,144	94%
Portland	$207,895,373	$204,245,376	$115,482,656	$38,861,760	34%
St. Louis	$498,076,054	$497,791,008	$71,930,720	$25,610,030	36%
St. Paul	$166,641,623	$164,971,616	$63,841,952	$37,485,880	59%
Stockton	$78,052,072	$62,835,500	$23,893,824	$0	0%
Toledo	$180,948,591	$144,385,232	$61,799,168	$48,368,556	78%
Total	$11,217,615,180	$9,521,767,420	$5,514,040,524	$4,264,271,789	77%

When we exclude revenue replacement, the cities in our study have spending plans totaling $4.18 billion. As of June 30, 2023, these cities spent about 30% of that amount. Again, there is wide variation between cities with the spending rate, ranging from a low of 11% in Buffalo to 100% in Jersey City. A variety of factors can impact the spending pace, including project type (multiyear versus one-time) and whether it’s a new activity. New programs, like a trial basic income program, will take longer to set-up than using SLFRF aid for existing government functions. If the program or service requires grants or contracts to third-parties then the pace of spending can also appear slow in reports because governments often reimburse organizations once the service has been rendered—meaning the activity could be taking place with it appearing that money hasn’t gone out the door. Importantly, cities can change their spending plans between now and the end of 2024. 

What are Governments Spending on Community Violence Intervention Efforts? 

At the heart of our study is the question of how governments are spending SLFRF aid on community violence interventions, which are activities that identify those who are at the highest risk of experiencing gun violence and work to reduce violence through targeted interventions (more about these programs can be found here and here). To answer that question, we analyzed governments planned spending at the project level. 

To understand how we did this analysis, it’s worth remembering how the Treasury Department collects data on the SLFRF program. Governments must report their spending to the Treasury Department at what’s called the “project level” and they must also assign an expenditure code to every project. Governments also provide a project name and brief project description. Large cities, like the ones in our study, must submit this information to the Treasury Department on a quarterly basis, while small communities submit it annually. One of the project codes is “1.11- Community Violence Interventions”; however, our analysis has revealed that not every project assigned to that code is truly a community violence intervention. 

After governments submit the project level data to the Treasury Department, the Treasury Department  in-turn releases this data to the public. We identified projects that are community violence intervention and/or prevention (CVI-CVP) efforts by analyzing the Treasury Department released data (for more information on our methodology see this page). Our analysis in this blog includes only projects that meet our definition of CVI-CVP.

Of the 26 cities, 14 had at least one project we considered CVI-CVP. In total they had thirty-three projects that met our definition of CVI-CVP. The 14 cities plan to spend $164 million on those projects, which accounts for nearly 3% of those cities’ planned spending. 

Of the $164 million in planned CVI-CVP spending, cities have spent approximately $33 million (or 20%) as of June 30, 2023. Again, there’s wide variation between cities: Toledo has spent 77% of its budgeted $780,000 for its “Gun Violence Reduction Initiative” whereas Milwaukee reported no expenditures for its planned $4.25 million on violence prevention efforts. The table below lists the 14 cities, how many CVI-CVP projects they have, and planned versus actual spending for those projects as of June 30, 2023. 

City	# CVI-CVP Projects	Adopted Budget for CVI-CVP Projects (as of 6/30/2023)	Total Expenditures for CVI-CVP Projects (as of 6/30/2023)
Chicago	8	$64,527,224	$16,597,293
Minneapolis	6	$8,993,595	$4,033,927
Baton Rouge	4	$4,250,000	$1,266,669
St. Louis	4	$10,621,812	$429,445
Newark	2	$2,054,000	$954,346
Baltimore	1	$34,144,752	$4,925,748
Boston	1	$1,206,000	$810,697
Buffalo	1	$6,000,000	$358,500
Denver	1	$1,708,300	$161,937
Detroit	1	$10,000,000	$28,900
Memphis	1	$4,250,000	$2,102,164
Milwaukee	1	$4,250,000	$0
Portland	1	$11,239,612	$713,287
Toledo	1	$780,000	$600,000
Total	33	$164,025,295	$32,982,913

The bottom line is that, even among cities where gun violence is a significant problem, and even in cities that have identified community violence intervention as a potential priority area for spending, we find highly uneven levels of investment in CVI strategies. There are a variety of potential reasons for this. On the one hand, as we have documented in earlier posts, CVI strategies are not evenly institutionalized across local governments. In cities where CVI is less institutionalized, advocates of these programs may find it more difficult to compete for SLFRF aid. Even where CVI has a stronger institutional footing, funding a CVI program typically requires a government to execute contracts and grants with community groups and non-profits, which may entail a lengthy RFP process. And even after an award is made, more administrative barriers can occur in the procurement process. As several local officials have told us, there is a tension between the urgent need for violence interventions and the long “runway” required to stand up CVI programs. For example, community-based organizations implementing CVI need advance payment, yet governments may only be set up to do reimbursement. We will report on these implementation challenges in greater detail in future posts. 

Download the data