News Affirmative Action - good or bad?

[KingNothing]

As it relates to profit-seeking entities (both private colleges and companies).

Good?
Bad?
Short-sighted?
Misguided?
Incomplete solution?
Just what we need?

There is one rule in this thread: don't make others feel bad for their opinion.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Picking one word would be misguided.

Proportionally representing a group may get extra grants, so from a profit point of view it's a good thing. For the individual it may give them acess to opportunities beyond their means, so forthem a good thing.

Still the thought of being a 'token-x' and not being chosen for my personal merit would bother me. Give it any name you want it's still discrimination.

 

[KingNothing]

I like the way you think (including the 'smelly classmate' thread).

 

[Proton Soup]

completed?

 

[DR13]

It doesn't follow socioeconomic logic. Rather, it follows correlation as opposed to causation.

It is widely known that the majority of poor people are minorities. Also, it is widely known that poor people tend to have worse educations. The problem is people say, "Look! A lot of minorities have bad educational opprotunities! We should help them get into college!" This is only half true. More minorities get a bad education because more minorities are poor; I would rather be rich and black or hispanic then poor and white. The correct policy would be to give a leg up to those who come from a poor background, reguardless of race.

 

[KingNothing]

completed?

Umm..what?

 

[Drakkith]

I agree with DR13. Basing something on RACE is simply wrong IMO. A friend of mine used to work at a movie theatre who were continually missing 1 person because they had to hire a minority. The problem was, no one of that minority was applying for the job. So they lacked a person for over a year or so.

 

[DR13]

A friend of mine used to work at a movie theatre who were continually missing 1 person because they had to hire a minority. The problem was, no one of that minority was applying for the job. So they lacked a person for over a year or so.

I thought quotas are illegal and that only preferance can be given. Or is this only for colleges?

 

[Drakkith]

I thought quotas are illegal and that only preferance can be given. Or is this only for colleges?

No idea. I only know what my buddy told me.

 

[Dale]

You should always hire or admit the best qualified individuals available. Any other policy is irrational.

 

[KingNothing]

I thought quotas are illegal and that only preferance can be given. Or is this only for colleges?

Oh no, there are definitely quotas, at least in some industries. Construction, for example: the state of MN has to contract XX% of their contracts to females every year. I met a 'self-made millionaire' who was a female construction contractor. She made a fortune by playing the game: she would charge 2-5 times more than average for a project, and the state would hire her to fill quota. Even when there were people standing in line to do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

 

[DR13]

You should always hire or admit the best qualified individuals available. Any other policy is irrational.

I think that we should differentiate the difference between hiring for a job and admittance to a university. I believe that they are two separate debates. While I agree that the best qualified person should be hired for a job, this is not necessarily true for a university. If you have wealthy kid who has had every perk in life competing against an inner city kid who had a myriad of obstacles to overcome, it makes sense to take this into consideration. Education breaks the cycle of poverty. Look at the GI Bill. It was the basis of the middle class for a long time.

 

[DR13]

Oh no, there are definitely quotas, at least in some industries. Construction, for example: the state of MN has to contract XX% of their contracts to females every year. I met a 'self-made millionaire' who was a female construction contractor. She made a fortune by playing the game: she would charge 2-5 times more than average for a project, and the state would hire her to fill quota. Even when there were people standing in line to do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke has a lot to do with the policy of universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

 

[rootX]

It doesn't follow socioeconomic logic. Rather, it follows correlation as opposed to causation.

It is widely known that the majority of poor people are minorities. Also, it is widely known that poor people tend to have worse educations. The problem is people say, "Look! A lot of minorities have bad educational opprotunities! We should help them get into college!" This is only half true. More minorities get a bad education because more minorities are poor; I would rather be rich and black or hispanic then poor and white. The correct policy would be to give a leg up to those who come from a poor background, reguardless of race.

If a Hispanic gets educated or at least out of the gutter, he will likely pull few others from his community or have a positive impact on them. So, it might be of more advantage pulling out a Hispanic than a White. (This might be a faulty argument but worth consideration)

 

[Drakkith]

I think that we should differentiate the difference between hiring for a job and admittance to a university. I believe that they are two separate debates. While I agree that the best qualified person should be hired for a job, this is not necessarily true for a university. If you have wealthy kid who has had every perk in life competing against an inner city kid who had a myriad of obstacles to overcome, it makes sense to take this into consideration. Education breaks the cycle of poverty. Look at the GI Bill. It was the basis of the middle class for a long time.

There's a difference here though. Saying that you cannot go to a university because you are too rich, that's simply stupid. However, you CAN give out scholarships based on income. The rich kid "probably" (but not always) can pay their way through college thanks to their family, so overall they don't need the scholarships as much. It's not 100% fair, as it's entirely possible a rich kids parrents might not pay anything at all and make him work through college.

 

[DR13]

If a Hispanic gets educated or at least out of the gutter, he will likely pull few others from his community or have a positive impact on them. So, it might be of more advantage pulling out a Hispanic than a White.

My point was more towards middle-to-upper class minority vs lower class white. If we are comparing lower class minority vs lower class white, then I would say that *if all other factors are equal*, go with the minority.

 

[DR13]

There's a difference here though. Saying that you cannot go to a university because you are too rich, that's simply stupid. However, you CAN give out scholarships based on income. The rich kid "probably" (but not always) can pay their way through college thanks to their family, so overall they don't need the scholarships as much. It's not 100% fair, as it's entirely possible a rich kids parrents might not pay anything at all and make him work through college.

It is not saying that you can't go to a university because you are rich. It is saying that we can look at the two applicants and, although the poorer student has lower marks, we can infer that if the poor kid had the same advantages as the rich kid, then the poor kid would have done better than the rich kid. That seems like fair logic to me.

For scholarships, there should be need based and merit based scholarships.

 

[Drakkith]

My point was more towards middle-to-upper class minority vs lower class white. If we are comparing lower class minority vs lower class white, then I would say that *if all other factors are equal*, go with the minority.

Can you elaborate on why you believe this?

 

[Proton Soup]

Umm..what?

if affirmative action has not yet done its job, then what do you think still needs to be accomplished? how will you measure it and say it is done?

 

[Drakkith]

It is not saying that you can't go to a university because you are rich. It is saying that we can look at the two applicants and, although the poorer student has lower marks, we can infer that if the poor kid had the same advantages as the rich kid, then the poor kid would have done better than the rich kid. That seems like fair logic to me.

For scholarships, there should be need based and merit based scholarships.

I don't agree with your logic. Being poor doesn't immediately make you do worse than a rich person. There are PLENTY of people that are dirt poor who work their way through school, do great, and end up doing well for themselves.

A scholarship going to a poorer person only helps them AFFORD a college. I agree with your view that there should be a need for one and that the person needs to have the merit for it.

 

[DR13]

Can you elaborate on why you believe this?

If you have two equal candidates and the only difference is white vs minority, the minoity should win the tiebreaker. Any sociologist will tell you that white people have the advantage. Because the minority has had to put up with more crap in life, then they should get it.


I think that I should note that I am white and come from a financially secure background.

 

[DR13]

I don't agree with your logic. Being poor doesn't immediately make you do worse than a rich person. There are PLENTY of people that are dirt poor who work their way through school, do great, and end up doing well for themselves.

A scholarship going to a poorer person only helps them AFFORD a college. I agree with your view that there should be a need for one and that the person needs to have the merit for it.

I don't agree with your first point. Sure a supe hard working poor kid will do better than a slack off rich kid (maybe even a middle of the road rich kid). But I thnk that we should look at this realistically. Take the rich kid with a 3.7 and a poor kid with a 3.3, which one is the better candidate? It is necessary to realize that the poor kid would have done better if he/she had the same resources as the rich kid. This is a commonly accepted position in the social sciences. It is necessary to look at the middle, not the outliers.



As an aside: One thing that just dawned on me is that the poor white student *may* have experienced more discrimination than the minority. If they are from the inner city, then their school and neighborhood was probably mostly made up of minorities. This makes the white kid the minority. I wonder which is at the true disadvantage? Is there a formal study on this?

 

[Proton Soup]

If you have two equal candidates and the only difference is white vs minority, the minoity should win the tiebreaker. Any sociologist will tell you that white people have the advantage. Because the minority has had to put up with more crap in life, then they should get it.


I think that I should note that I am white and come from a financially secure background.

yeah, you really need to define what a minority is. what is the most successful ethnic group in the US? are they majority or minority?

 

[ideasrule]

I think the ethics of affirmative action are similar to those of taxation. Modern democratic governments tax the rich much more heavily than they tax the lower classes, and use the money to support welfare for the poor. There's nothing inherently wrong with rich people that would justify taking more of their money, but society has decided that keeping as many people as possible out of poverty is more important than the slight injustice done to the rich. Affirmative action is similar in that it tries to distribute academic/employment opportunities more evenly and minimize socioeconomic gaps in society. Excessive affirmative action is obviously unfair, just as excessive taxation is unfair, but I don't think a government that completely neglects to help its least fortunate citizens succeed is desirable.

On the other hand, it's important to consider how much quality is sacrificed in the name of equality. If obviously-incompetent candidates are consistently being accepted into jobs or universities, that's not good for either the current economy or the future (which will be decided by the university students). This is complicated by the fact that the most accomplished people, the ones who most profoundly change the world, are not likely to be the minorities who get accepted due to affirmative action--they're likely to be rich privileged kids familiar with the upper classes of Western society.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't agree with your first point. Sure a supe hard working poor kid will do better than a slack off rich kid (maybe even a middle of the road rich kid). But I thnk that we should look at this realistically. Take the rich kid with a 3.7 and a poor kid with a 3.3, which one is the better candidate? It is necessary to realize that the poor kid would have done better if he/she had the same resources as the rich kid. This is a commonly accepted position in the social sciences. It is necessary to look at the middle, not the outliers.

Is this because the kid was better off, or because of the quality of the education? (Or both) I just don't see there being a gurantee that a poor person will do just as well as a rich person given the same resources. I guess this is just a generalization?

 

[Drakkith]

If you have two equal candidates and the only difference is white vs minority, the minoity should win the tiebreaker. Any sociologist will tell you that white people have the advantage. Because the minority has had to put up with more crap in life, then they should get it.


I think that I should note that I am white and come from a financially secure background.

I guess it just depends on where you want to draw the line between fair for the individual, and good for the society. Though I will say that I don't believe that giving it to a minority makes it better than giving it to a white person.

I also think that we are getting into a larger conversation on how "fair" life was for each person.

Edit: I guess I'll say I'm from a family where my dad dropped out of high school in 9th grade and went from driving a semi to being something like a national region manager at a software support company. He got a raise a few years back that was MORE than I currently make in the military. Never went to college, taught himself everything he knows. We used to be on food stamps for a while when I was a kid because my dad was out of work due to a surgery.

 

[KingNothing]

Affirmative action is similar in that it tries to distribute academic/employment opportunities more evenly and minimize socioeconomic gaps in society.

One of my main gripes is the use of the term "equal opportunity". It doesn't make sense. In a lot of cases, the minority is several times more likely to get the job based purely on minority status. I don't think it's fair to call that 'equal opportunity'.

 

[Drakkith]

One of my main gripes is the use of the term "equal opportunity". It doesn't make sense. In a lot of cases, the minority is several times more likely to get the job based purely on minority status. I don't think it's fair to call that 'equal opportunity'.

The problem is that you can't look ONLY at that aspect. Is it fair that certain races have been discriminated against in the past and are still are today? Do you help them to make up for that even though it isn't fair to certain other people? ETC.

 

[DR13]

I just don't see there being a gurantee that a poor person will do just as well as a rich person given the same resources.

You're kinda missing my point. If a poor kid does the same or just a little worse than a rich kid with much less resources, then it is safe to assume that they would have done better if given equivelant resources. This is what should be taken into account when considering college admissions. I would consider this a form of socioeconomic based affirmative action. Hopefully this clears everything up.

 

[DR13]

I also think that we are getting into a larger conversation on how "fair" life was for each person.

But I would say that this is the base issue of affirmative action. How do we make up for injustices? How do we measure who has faced the worse injustice?

 

[turbo]

Oh no, there are definitely quotas, at least in some industries. Construction, for example: the state of MN has to contract XX% of their contracts to females every year. I met a 'self-made millionaire' who was a female construction contractor. She made a fortune by playing the game: she would charge 2-5 times more than average for a project, and the state would hire her to fill quota. Even when there were people standing in line to do the same job at a fraction of the cost.

Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.

 

[Evo]

Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.

When Affirmative Action came out there was definitely a quota for hiring minorities. Where I worked, it was ridiculous, first hardly anyone could pass the required test for employment, so my company waived the tests for them, then they were unable to pass training. See Below.

On September 24, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin by those organizations receiving federal contracts and subcontracts. In 1967, President Johnson amended the order to include sex on the list of attributes. Executive Order 11246 also requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), under the Department of Labor, monitors this requirement for all federal contractors, including all UC campuses, and has developed regulations to which these contractors must adhere. For federal contractors employing more than 50 people and having federal contracts totaling more than $50,000, compliance with these regulations includes disseminating and enforcing a nondiscrimination policy, establishing a written affirmative action plan and placement goals for women and minorities, and implementing action-oriented programs for accomplishing these goals. In addition, an official of the organization must be assigned responsibility for implementation of equal employment opportunity and the affirmative action program.

Affirmative Action was mishandled, you can't just throw unqualified people into a job. If the government wanted to increase income and employment for minorities they should have set up training and education for them so that they could qualify for the jobs they wanted.

 

[KingNothing]

Do you have any factual support for this claim? If so, it would be nice to have a citation or two to back it up.

I met this lady (her named was Cat) at one of those "female presidents" type conferences, basically it was a bunch of women saying how awesome they are. My GF's mom was a self-made millionaire as well, and I'd run into a lot of rather eccentric individuals that way.

I didn't look it up and frankly I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[DR13]

Affirmative Action was mishandled, you can't just throw unqualified people into a job. If the government wanted to increase income and employment for minorities they should have set up training and education for them so that they could qualify for the jobs they wanted.

But that was not the problem that AA was meant to address. The idea was that widespread racism was keeping minorities out of jobs that they were otherwise qualified for (which happened in the 60's). The problem is that the concept of AA has been changed over time.

I met this lady (her named was Cat) at one of those "female presidents" type conferences, basically it was a bunch of women saying how awesome they are. My GF's mom was a self-made millionaire as well, and I'd run into a lot of rather eccentric individuals that way.

I didn't look it up and frankly I wouldn't know where to start.

Antecdotes are not evidence. And frankly, you just seem to be bashing any woman who has had professional success.

 

[Drakkith]

You're kinda missing my point. If a poor kid does the same or just a little worse than a rich kid with much less resources, then it is safe to assume that they would have done better if given equivelant resources. This is what should be taken into account when considering college admissions. I would consider this a form of socioeconomic based affirmative action. Hopefully this clears everything up.

How do you know? Is there any evidence backing this up? I don't agree that you can just assume that someone WILL do better just by giving them "resources" (whatever that means).

If you base something off of how well someone does you CANNOT take other factors into it. There is simply no gurantee that those other factors actually made that person do as well/bad as they did.

If you want to base something off of how wealthy someone is, then fine. I have no problem with offering scholarships to people that couldn't afford to go to a decent college otherwise.

I DON'T agree with saying just because you are a certain race you should automatically get something over someone else, all things being equal. Not only do I see it as completely unfair, I also don't think it does any good. I think it perpetuates the idea that certain races are "special" or whatever.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.

Lol...I feel the same way.

 

[DR13]

How do you know? Is there any evidence backing this up? I don't agree that you can just assume that someone WILL do better just by giving them "resources" (whatever that means).

If you base something off of how well someone does you CANNOT take other factors into it. There is simply no gurantee that those other factors actually made that person do as well/bad as they did.

If you want to base something off of how wealthy someone is, then fine. I have no problem with offering scholarships to people that couldn't afford to go to a decent college otherwise.

I DON'T agree with saying just because you are a certain race you should automatically get something over someone else, all things being equal. Not only do I see it as completely unfair, I also don't think it does any good. I think it perpetuates the idea that certain races are "special" or whatever.

Your last paragraph I'm fine with.

To your first paragraph. Better resources means going to a good school as opposed to an inner city school strapped for cash. Suburban and private schools also attract the better teacher because of the friendlier enviroments. Wealthier kids can afford private tutors, not only for classes, but for the ACT and SAT as well. And I haven't even started on how more of an emphasis is placed on education in the upper and middle classes compared to the lower class.

To your second paragarph. Seriously? It is not unreasonable to say that a if a kid had better teachers and access to tutors and lived in an environment that valued education then that kid would have better scores.

 

[DR13]

I'm looking forward to the day white people can demand reparations for all the years of being racially profiled against in "politically correct" movements.

I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.

 

[Drakkith]

To your second paragarph. Seriously? It is not unreasonable to say that a if a kid had better teachers and access to tutors and lived in an environment that valued education then that kid would have better scores.

Being wealthy in and of itself doesn't give you better teachers or mean that you live in an environment that values education. If the parents are willing to spend the money that have more options, which generally includes access to private schools and such, but only if they choose that. My own school had people that were on welfare practically going to school with people whos parents were making 100-200k a year. Does that mean that the richer kids should get shafted when it comes to comparing their performance to the poorer kids? I don't think so. And if both went to the same school, then how can you say that either of the students had an advantage just based on wealth? Wealth doesn't mean that those kids automatically have a better environment.

I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.

Slavery has nothing to do with this. (It is NOT slavery that causes discrimination nowadays.) It was discrimination that started AA. And guess what, I can easily say that I am being discriminated against. Does that mean that other races ARENT? No. But does the fact that discrimination happens to them more so than it does to me make it fair to deny me jobs and opportunities JUST based on my race? Not in my opinion. Looks to me like you are simply making things MORE unfair for everyone. Is hiring someone based on their race and not their skill and work ethic fair to them? Not to me. It doesn't encourage them to actually work hard or do their best and reinforces the idea that their race is inferior and needs help. All in my opinion of course.

 

[drankin]

I hope that you are half kidding. I hate PCness as much as the next guy, but let's not start comparing it to slavery.

I think his point is that reparations for slavery is rediculous no matter what you compare it to.

 

[DR13]

Being wealthy in and of itself doesn't give you better teachers or mean that you live in an environment that values education.

Yes, it does give you better teachers. The best teachers are not going to want to teach in the inner city schools that have metal detectors at the enterances and students who do not want to learn. Also, smart kids can be teased in the inner city when they want to learn (some of my friends went through this). This is what I mean by an environment that is hostile towards education.

 

[Drakkith]

Yes, it does give you better teachers. The best teachers are not going to want to teach in the inner city schools that have metal detectors at the enterances and students who do not want to learn. Also, smart kids can be teased in the inner city when they want to learn (some of my friends went through this). This is what I mean by an environment that is hostile towards education.

Smart kids can be teased just about anywhere. And I don't agree that the "best" teachers automatically go to the more wealthy areas. I went to a school with 200 people, K-12, and had good and bad teachers. When I moved to a much bigger and wealthier city, the teachers were exactly the same. Some bad, some good.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is NOT a gurantee that wealth equals a better student. In general wealthier people do get a better education. But looking at each individual you cannot say that they will automatically do better with access to more resources. This goes back to the good for the individual vs good for the whole issue.

 

[DR13]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is NOT a gurantee that wealth equals a better student. In general wealthier people do get a better education. But looking at each individual you cannot say that they will automatically do better with access to more resources. This goes back to the good for the individual vs good for the whole issue.

Well duh. Of course there is no guarantee. On a case-by-case basis there will be discrepancies. However, governmental policy is made for the general case. And when evaluating two individuals it is reasonable to take into account their backgrounds.

 

[Drakkith]

Well duh. Of course there is no guarantee. On a case-by-case basis there will be discrepancies. However, governmental policy is made for the general case. And when evaluating two individuals it is reasonable to take into account their backgrounds.

I can see where you can say in general a person would do better with more resources, however I cannot see how giving one person a job/opportunity because of their race is better than giving it to the most qualified person. Like I said above, I think it hampers things more than it helps.

 

[DR13]

I can see where you can say in general a person would do better with more resources, however I cannot see how giving one person a job/opportunity because of their race is better than giving it to the most qualified people.

I agree. That is why I have said to not base decisions on race. What I am talking about is more applicable to college admissions. Though the rich person may seem more qualified because of their higher scores, the poor student may actually be more qualified because if they had the better resources then they would have had better scores. I hope this thuroughly clears up my point.

 

[Drakkith]

I agree. That is why I have said to not base decisions on race. What I am talking about is more applicable to college admissions. Though the rich person may seem more qualified because of their higher scores, the poor student may actually be more qualified because if they had the better resources then they would have had better scores. I hope this thuroughly clears up my point.

I understand it, but if you are basing things on scores, then I still don't agree that you should give it to the poorer person or the minority.

 

[DR13]

I understand it, but if you are basing things on scores, then I still don't agree that you should give it to the poorer person or the minority.

By scores I mean GPA and ACT which are heavily influenced by circumstance (as I mentioned earlier). I am not saying you should always give it to the poorer person. I am just saying that it is something that must be considered.

 

[lisab]

By scores I mean GPA and ACT which are heavily influenced by circumstance (as I mentioned earlier). I am not saying you should always give it to the poorer person. I am just saying that it is something that must be considered.

That's true, standard test scores are very influenced by environment. Some of my daughter's friends did not grow up hearing standard English at home, did not have books around, did not have homework help...at least one didn't even regular meals and was never told when to go to bed. All that really matters WRT scholastic achievement.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the ethics of affirmative action are similar to those of taxation. Modern democratic governments tax the rich much more heavily than they tax the lower classes, and use the money to support welfare for the poor. There's nothing inherently wrong with rich people that would justify taking more of their money, but society has decided that keeping as many people as possible out of poverty is more important than the slight injustice done to the rich. Affirmative action is similar in that it tries to distribute academic/employment opportunities more evenly and minimize socioeconomic gaps in society. Excessive affirmative action is obviously unfair, just as excessive taxation is unfair, but I don't think a government that completely neglects to help its least fortunate citizens succeed is desirable.

On the other hand, it's important to consider how much quality is sacrificed in the name of equality. If obviously-incompetent candidates are consistently being accepted into jobs or universities, that's not good for either the current economy or the future (which will be decided by the university students). This is complicated by the fact that the most accomplished people, the ones who most profoundly change the world, are not likely to be the minorities who get accepted due to affirmative action--they're likely to be rich privileged kids familiar with the upper classes of Western society.

The incentive to hire minorities is tax credits:

WOTC:
http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/

and Welfare-to-Work:
http://www.uses.doleta.gov/pdf/brochure.pdf


on the other hand, Earned Income gives the money to the employee:
http://www.employmentincentives.com/federal_incentives/federal_incentives.htm
also note the Disabled Tax Credit and Veterans

Next are the Federal "Empowerment Zones" and "Renewal Communities" - spend a few hours on the HUD site - you'll learn a lot (IMO).
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/rc/index.cfm

"HUD's Initiative for Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities (EZ/RC)
The Empowerment Zone tax incentives and the Renewal Community tax incentives are worth approximately $11 billion to eligible businesses of all sizes in Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities. These incentives encourage businesses to open, expand, and to hire local residents. The incentives include employment credits, a 0% tax on capital gains, increased tax deductions on equipment, accelerated real property depreciation, and other incentives.

In the Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities, the most widely used Community Renewal tax incentive is the employment credit, which provides tax benefits to businesses that employ residents from the designated areas.

The EZ/RC tax incentives were provided as a tool for the designees to stimulate job creation and retention and business investment in buildings and equipment. The interagency partnership between HUD and IRS is essential because HUD has the economic development expertise and IRS has the tax expertise. This resulted in securing data provided by IRS on claim trends from 1997 through 2008. "