Comment on William M. Rohe and Rachel G. Bratt's “failures,downsizings, and mergers among community development corporations”: Defending community development corporations or defending communities?

Abstract

An overemphasis on preserving community development corporations (CDCs) may confuse the ends with the means. The end is empowered, self‐sustaining communities of place and identity. CDCs are one means of trying to get there, and there are many communities in which CDCs are helpful, and, indeed, empowering. However, the trends we are seeing—failures, downsizings, and mergers—may tell us that it is time to look for alternatives to CDCs.

If we truly care about poor communities, those of us with the resources to find the best community development models should be searching for them. We do not have good data to show whether community organizing is a better strategy than CDCs for achieving community development, but it is a strategy that merits exploration.     

Failures,downsizings, and mergers among community development corporations

Abstract

Over the past 30 years, community development corporations (CDCs) have become increasingly important actors in low‐ and moderate‐income communities. One prominent view of CDCs is that they have experienced uninterrupted growth since the 1970s. Despite their growth and productivity, however, many are facing serious challenges to their continued viability. When confronted by such challenges, CDCs are likely to respond in one of three ways: go out of business, downsize, or merge with one or more other groups. The major goal of this research was to assess the causes of these failures, downsizings, and mergers.

First, we found that these changes do not appear to be isolated instances; rather, they are prevalent across the country. Second, we identified a number of contextual and organizational factors leading to CDC failures, downsizings, and mergers. Finally we suggest a series of actions CDCs, support communities, and policy makers can take in response.     

Comment on William M. Rohe and Rachel G. Bratt's “Failures,downsizings, and mergers among community development corporations”: Merger does not mean failure

Abstract

In response to the article by Rohe and Bratt in which mergers among community development corporations (CDCs) were viewed as one type of response to organizational “failures,” this comment makes the case that many nonprofit mergers arise from a variety of motivations other than organizational crisis. Mergers are increasingly strategic partnerships in which two or more nonprofits seek mutual advantages, such as a larger market share, better access to capital, and other longer‐term goals.

Mergers are most successful when relatively strong organizations analyze their circumstances and determine that they can best advance their missions through working together. A merger has limited utility in saving an organization in crisis. Rather, it is a tool for advancing the missions of different organizations by combining their strengths. The relationship is best entered into freely, after a great deal of consideration, and with reasonable expectations for both the work ahead and the potential payoff.     

Common‐interest housing in the communities of tomorrow

Abstract

This article offers a broad conceptual framework for understanding the rise of common‐interest housing developments (CIDs), including gated communities, townhouse and condominium projects, and other planned communities. The article begins by describing the CID as an institution and the essential characteristics and varieties of CIDs. Second, the rapid spread of CIDs is attributed to the incentives currently operating on real estate developers, municipal governments, and consumers. Third, this institution is placed in the context of definitions of public and private, and the categories of state, market, and civil society.

The article then presents the eight different “big‐picture” interpretations of this overall phenomenon that could inform the public policy framework within which CIDs are situated. They can be seen as an imperfectly realized version of the “rational choice” or “public choice” model, and reform efforts should be aimed at making choice mechanisms more effective.     

Community development intermediary systems in the United States: Origins,evolution, and functions

Abstract

Acting between the forceful capital market and the state, community development intermediaries are finding ways to assist resource‐poor community development organizations to increase production volume and to gain access to a wider capital and political market.

This article presents a brief historical review of how the intermediary system originated and how it has evolved into different large‐scale models since the 1960s. The philosophies and programs of three major intermediary organizations—the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, The Enterprise Foundation, and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation—are considered. The article concludes by recognizing the contributions of intermediaries while raising issues with their accountability and future direction.     

Building consensus for affordable housing

Abstract

At one time the national goal of affordable housing was a widely held consensus that led to decent housing for millions of Americans. Today, proponents of affordable housing must negotiate with diverse and sometimes hostile parties to secure project approvals. Discussions are frequently adversarial, and stalemate is too often the result. The consensus has collapsed.

If progress toward affordable housing is to be made, proponents will have to recast the way they operate within this new environment. More than new financing plans or recommendations for regulatory relief are needed. Attention must also focus on the processes by which groups address divergent interests and come to agreement. “Principled negotiation,” a form of joint problem solving, when coupled with third‐party intervention, offers a promising and effective means of dealing with this hostile environment.     

From confrontation to collaboration? Banks,community groups,and the implementation of community reinvestment agreements

Abstract

Banks and other depository institutions have signed more than 300 community reinvestment agreements valued at $350 billion in the two decades since the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This article examines the effectiveness of negotiating CRA agreements in Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and New Jersey. After describing the agreements and the procedures by which they are enforced, the article looks at their impact and discusses several factors that could limit implementation of CRA agreements in the future.

The findings suggest that CRA agreements are more effective in some areas than others. They seem most consistently successful in meeting their goals for mortgages, investments in low‐income housing tax credits, grant giving to community‐based organizations, and in opening (and keeping open) inner‐city bank branches. The future of CRA agreements is clouded by several factors, most notably the restructuring and consolidation of the financial service sector.     

Revitalizing inner‐city neighborhoods: New York city's Ten‐Year Plan

Abstract

This article examines the impact of New York City's Ten‐Year Plan on the sale prices of homes in surrounding neighborhoods. Beginning in the mid‐1980s, New York City invested $5.1 billion in constructing or rehabilitating over 180,000 units of housing in many of the city's most distressed neighborhoods. One of the main purposes was to spur neighborhood revitalization.

In this article, we describe the origins of the Ten‐Year Plan, as well as the various programs the city used to implement it, and estimate whether housing built or rehabilitated under the Ten‐Year Plan affected the prices of nearby homes. The prices of homes within 500 feet of Ten‐Year Plan units rose relative to those located beyond 500 feet, but still within the same census tract. These findings are consistent with the proposition that well‐planned project‐based housing programs can generate positive spillover effects and contribute to efforts to revitalize inner‐city neighborhoods.     

Philanthropy and the housing crisis: The dilemmas of private charity and public policy

Abstract

American philanthropy has historically sought to address the nation's housing crisis, especially among the poor. This article compares private philanthropy's response to the housing crisis in two important eras of economic transformation: the period between the Civil War and World War I (the Progressive Era), when the United States was undergoing large‐scale urbanization and industrialization, and the period from the 1980s through today, when the United States became integrated in a global economy and confronted the shock of deindustrialization, widening economic disparities, and deepening urban decay.

Following the historical review, the article focuses briefly on the current housing crisis and the dilemmas that private foundations and nonprofit organizations face in trying to develop a coherent strategy to address the problem. It closes with a proposal for a partnership between private foundations and housing organizations that can address the need to change both public opinion and public policy toward housing.     

廉租住房实物配售与配租的效果研究——基于陕西省XX市的调查

实物配售和实物配租是廉租住房补贴实施的主要方式,实证分析两种补贴的政策效果对廉租住房的开展具有重要意义。本文运用效用分析方法,结合陕西省XX市廉租住房住户随机抽样调查获得的数据,对比分析实物配售和实物配租两种补贴方式的实施效果。研究结果表明,两种补贴方式均提高了受补贴家庭的消费效用水平,但效用增加量的大小与住房消费获得的效用占总消费获得效用的比重r相关:当r小于0.5974时,实物配租的效用增量大于实物配售;当r大于0.5974时,实物配售的效用增量大于实物配租。研究表明廉租住房建设过程中,应当适当考虑其建设地点或完善小区周围的学校等公共设施。现阶段两种补贴方式在廉租住房保障中都能够发挥一定的作用。因而政府通过建设廉租住房解决家庭住房困难问题,可以采取实物配租和实物配售相结合的方式。两种方式的具体选择可以依据住房消费效用占家庭消费总效用的比例来确定。     

社区残疾人保障的现状分析与政策建议

残疾人社会保障离不开社区,社区是残疾人社会保障的重要载体。从社区残疾人保障的主要内容出发,分析了现阶段我国社区残疾人保障存在的问题,并在此基础上提出了完善社区残疾人保障的几点建议:建立完善的社区残疾人保障的组织管理机制是推进社区残疾人保障的首要环节;大力发展社区非营利组织是推进社区保障的依托;健全社区残疾人服务网络,培养专业的社区残疾人工作队伍是发展社区残疾人保障的必要保证。     

The private safety net: The role of charitable organizations in the lives of the poor

Abstract

As welfare reform unfolds, nonprofit social service agencies will increasingly be called upon to help fill the gap between what unskilled and semiskilled mothers can earn in the low‐wage labor market and what they need to meet their monthly expenses. This article draws on in‐depth interviews with low‐income single mothers and multiyear observational studies of two nonprofit social service agencies.

Using these data, the authors show what kinds of resources these agencies provide low‐income single mothers, how mothers mobilize the resources available, to what degree agencies actually contribute to mothers’ cash and in‐kind resources, how agencies distribute their resources, and what effect agencies’ distribution practices have on these women. The analysis shows that although nonprofit social service agencies are a crucial part of many low‐income mothers’ economic survival strategies, they cannot come close to substituting for the eroding public safety net.     

A new look at creative finance

Abstract

In his seminal work, Stegman contended that creative finance is an inefficient means of financing low‐income housing production. As evidence, he cited the high transaction costs associated with the complex financing structures that make a low‐income housing development feasible. In this article, we extend Stegman's work by examining the impacts of creative finance over time. We rely on data gathered as part of an evaluation of 36 housing developments sponsored by nonprofits.

The data indicate that most of the developments in our study remained financially viable in part because of their reliance on creative finance. We find evidence supporting three positive impacts of creative finance: the establishment of long‐term partnerships, the increased community acceptance of low‐income housing developments, and the improved technical skills of organization staff. We also find that none of the long‐term negative impacts are inherent in creative finance and offer four suggestions on minimizing them.     

Threshold effects and the expected benefits of attracting middle‐income households to the central city

Abstract

This article looks at the two primary expected benefits of efforts to bring back, or retain, middle‐income households in the central city: (1) improved fiscal conditions caused by increasing the tax base and (2) decreased socioeconomic isolation of central‐city low‐income households. We examine the causal linkages reputed to produce these two benefits in light of the relatively limited relevant theoretical and empirical research.

Although stressing that this work is only tentative and intended to be provocative, we cautiously conclude that thresholds matter. That is, it is likely that the number of middle‐income households in a given area must exceed a certain threshold for significant benefits to accrue. The geographic scale of this area, the threshold that applies, and the time needed for benefits to appear depend on the particular causal linkage at issue. In the last section, we derive implications for research and policy evaluation.     

The Financial Viability of Housing for Mentally Ill Persons

Abstract

Although persons with serious mental illness experience significant unmet housing needs, basic information on how housing is successfully financed, developed, and operated for them is lacking. It is possible that standard housing rules of thumb may not apply to this population. (For example, community opposition may raise development costs.) This lack of information may be a stumbling block to policy makers, planners, and developers.

This article attempts to close the gap by examining the financial profile of 153 properties developed for persons with serious mental illness by five nonprofit housing corporations between 1988 and 1992. Our analysis suggests that although this housing may require more management attention, it is not fundamentally different from market‐rate housing for low‐income tenants. After more than 10 years, the nonprofit housing developers continue to thrive, and virtually all of the properties continue to serve persons with mental illness, demonstrating that such housing can be successfully developed and operated.     

Working together: Building capacity for community development

Abstract

Community development partnerships (CDPs)—local intermediaries that gather support from foundations, corporations, and the public sector—are giving increased attention to building the capacity of community development corporations (CDCs). This article evaluates CDPs’ efforts to help nonprofit CDCs increase their capacity to revitalize low‐income communities. We identified five types of capacity and conducted interviews and focus groups with CDPs and CDCs across the nation. The nature of capacity and capacity building among CDCs, the ways partnerships help increase CDC capacity, what the partnerships and CDCs learn from each other, and how they could better gauge the effectiveness of capacity‐building support were discussed.

We learned that CDCs and CDPs have forged an effective alliance and continue to work together: Community organizations require help in building capacity, and local partnerships provide the requisite funding, technical assistance, and other elements to help them grow and serve their neighborhoods.     

论社会中介组织对中国社会发展的影响

经过了20多年改革，中国社会的组织结构发生了深刻的变化，各类社会中介组织以前所未有的速度和规模发展起来，在数量和种类大大发展的同时，其组织独立性明显增强而合法性也日益得到确认，在中国社会中承担着越来越多的功能和职责，也成为人们在日常生活中越来越直接和频繁地与之接触或交往的对象。中国的社会中介组织将同政府部门和市场部门一起，直接决定着整个中国社会在新世纪里的发展。