State and Local Governments are Likely Overstating Their Use of SLFRF Support for Community Violence Interventions
Endnotes Heading link
1 In that analysis we counted any project that a government assigned to the CVI expenditure category as CVI. It is important to note that in taking that approach our analysis does not include CVI or violence prevention projects that governments chose to assign to different expenditure categories. As we have previously explained, governments must assign projects to one, and only one, expenditure category.
2 We thank Molly Clark and Alex Hawley for excellent research assistance on this post.
3 It is important to note that this analysis was based on spending data reported by 1,756 governments, which is a subset of all governments receiving SLFRF aid. The reporting rules vary by government type and population size.
4 To ensure that our coding scheme was reliable, we had two independent evaluators classify each project description. Based on these independent ratings, we calculated a Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for our indicator of CVI and CVP projects. The raw alpha was 0.66, which is in excess of the conventional thresholds for reliability. Following this initial coding, the two Principal Investigators reviewed and resolved all discrepancies and confirmed our final coding decisions with a subject matter expert.
5 Of these projects, two also included other elements that did not meet our definition of CVI or CVP as well.
6 It is possible that governments also used funds they classified as “revenue replacement” to support CVIs. Yet because revenue replacement dollars are not classified with the same level of specificity as other projects, it is impossible to use Treasury data to analyze how funds classified as revenue replacement are supporting CVIs.