Are You a Data Geek or a Data Poet?


February 2nd, 2012 by admin

By: Julianna Tschirhart
Program Coordinator, The Mel King Institute for Community Building

I have a confession to make: I am a data geek. I have been known to kill time by looking at the American Fact Finder website, exploring various zip codes in the New York Times Interactive Census Map, or planning hypothetical journeys on Google Maps. I find something fascinating about the link between numbers and geography, and it was comforting to know that I was in good company at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s Data Day last Friday, Jan. 27th.

Data Day is an annual conference co-sponsored by MAPC, the Boston Indicators Project at The Boston Foundation, and Northeastern University. The conference objective is to “help organizations and municipalities expand their capacity to use technology and data in innovative ways to advance their community and organizational goals” (About Data Day). The conference topic this year was “Using Data to Drive Community Change,” and over the course of the day, it became clear to me that data are powerful tools to wield in our fight to build equitable communities. In a combination of panels and workshop-sessions, I learned of the various initiatives of participating sponsors to make data more accessible, easy-to-use, and impactful in an effort to achieve a more equitable Greater Boston and nation.

One example is the MetroBoston DataCommon, a partner program of MAPC and the Boston Indicators Project, which offers a platform to analyze data and make maps on a novice to expert level. Users can check out preexisting visuals in the Regional Map Gallery on topics from public safety to education, or create their own maps by selecting preexisting data sets or importing their own. Adding to this democratization of data for the public, MetroBoston DataCommon gives users the option to edit or add to the maps made by others. Allowing your visualization to be public enhances the collaborative nature of the data exchange promoted by the website.

Using data to tell the stories of our communities was a prominent theme at Data Day. “Numbers are narrative” remarked John Davidow, Executive Editor of WBUR during the morning panel on the connection between data and storytelling. Data used skillfully can lure in listeners, give evidence to support claims on social justice issues, and help connect people to one another. In conjunction with the democratic media available at all our fingertips—Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. —data become even more influential tools for community builders. With data and grassroots storytelling, people can create a buzz and get legislators and other important players to take note of their issues.

The world of journalism and community organizing is changing. Advances in technology are allowing us access to the data we need to achieve equity in our communities. When we have the capability to translate reliable data into a narrative, we can create a movement. Rather than be content to look at data as a data geek, simply in awe of the numbers, I urge everyone to take advantage of the data available to us and become ‘data poets’—utilizing numbers to tell your community’s unique story and bring about change!

For more on data and community organizing, consider the upcoming Mel King Institute training, Making Use of Local Census Data.

Follow the Mel King Institute on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook.

Posted in Joe Kriesberg | No Comments »

Could 2012 be the best year for Massachusetts CDCs since 1982?


January 3rd, 2012 by Joe Kriesberg

Starting in the mid 1970s, Mel King and other visionary leaders of the community development movement worked systematically to build a support infrastructure for CDCs in Massachusetts. They understood that such a system could grow what was then a nascent movement of community based development organizations, largely in Boston, and transform it into a robust, statewide field that could achieve impact at scale. So they created CEDAC, CDFC, the CDC Enabling Act, Chapter 40F, the CEED program, LISC and ultimately, in 1982, the Massachusetts Association of CDCs. These institutions laid the foundation for what quickly became one of the strongest community development sectors in the country and left a legacy from which we continue to benefit today – 30 years later.

The past few years have seen a similar wave of system building for the community development field. Starting with, and emerging from, the Community Development Innovation Forum that MACDC launched with LISC in 2008, we have seen the creation of the Mel King Institute for Community Building, the transformation of CDFC into the Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation, and the modernization of the 1977 CDC enabling law into Chapter 40H, which creates, for the first time, a formal CDC certification process. We have also seen a wave of efforts to lift CDC practice in areas as diverse as community engagement (LISC’s Resilient Communities/Resilient Families program), financial management (MHP’s efforts to promote Strength Matters) and asset management, real estate development and small business development (through programs at the King Institute.)  And we have formed new cross-sector partnerships between the community development movement and sister movements in transit equity, smart growth, public health, and energy, enabling us to move toward more comprehensive and systemic change.

These efforts have the potential to culminate in 2012 with the passage of the Community Development Partnership Act. This ground breaking and game changing legislation would leverage up to $12 million in new, private philanthropy for high impact community development efforts. The program is “community centric” rather than “real estate centric,” opening the door for CDCs to pursue broad, comprehensive community development strategies. The legislation has garnered widespread support both inside and outside the State House, with House Speaker Robert DeLeo recently indicating serious interest in moving the legislation forward. If we can pass the CDPA this year, in 2012, it will allow us to build on all the great work of the past three years and the past thirty-plus years and take it to a level of scale and impact we have never seen. And by passing it this year, we can ensure the program is implemented by the Patrick Administration and its outstanding new Undersecretary for Housing and Community Development, long-time friend Aaron Gornstein.

While the economy continues to struggle and our communities fight to recover from the recession, we have a chance to do something big, bold, meaningful and lasting by passing the Community Development Partnership Act.

And when we come together this fall to officially celebrate MACDC’s 30th Anniversary we will not only be able to celebrate our field’s extraordinary history, but also its exciting and bright future.

Posted in Community Development, Community Development Partnership Act, Comprehensive Community Development, Innovation, Joe Kriesberg, LISC | 1 Comment »

Bulldozing Out of Foreclosures


January 3rd, 2012 by Don Bianchi

On December 18th, CBS’ 60 Minutes broadcast a story entitled There Goes the Neighborhood about the impact of abandoned properties due to foreclosures and declining home values.  The piece focuses on Cleveland, Ohio where Cuyahoga County officials have demolished more than 1,000 homes this year – and plan to demolish 20,000 more – rather than let the blight spread and render nearby homes near worthless.

Although I grew up just outside of Cleveland, I’ve lived away long enough to appreciate that I am in no Dec 18 story about impact of foreclosures in Clevelandposition to make an informed judgment about whether the decision to demolish these homes is in the interest of Cleveland’s citizens.  I know that the market context in Cleveland is very different than in Boston, and perhaps the neighborhood is served by demolishing vacant homes before they become vandalized and blighted, or worse.  Deeding the resultant vacant lots over to abutters for open space or community gardens may well help stabilize the value of surrounding properties.

However, there is something so sad that all these homes, many of them sound structures, are being demolished, especially when so many people in Cleveland don’t have a decent home.  Beyond that, I believe that aggressive demolition as a defensive response to homes becoming vacant represents a failure in public policy nationwide.  We, as citizens, are collectively responsible for this failure.

First, stable homeownership requires appropriate financing, and we failed to provide the necessary oversight and regulation of the lenders, brokers and appraisers who knowingly sold predatory loan products to families who could not afford them.  Second, when homeowners got into trouble, whether due to the loan products they bought or the economic calamities they faced, they appealed to lenders who too often refused to modify loans to payment levels borrowers could afford and adjust principal amounts to reflect a home’s current value.  We have failed to enact laws that can require lenders to negotiate in good faith with borrowers, and to enact federal bankruptcy reform that will allow homeowners to restructure their debts.

Third, when foreclosure occurred, we failed to protect the residents, both renters and owners, from being evicted.  Fourth, we failed to enforce building codes to require the foreclosing lender to better maintain the properties they acquire after foreclosure (or control prior to foreclosure).  And fifth, we failed to provide the funding and technical assistance so that nonprofit organizations and individual homebuyers can acquire, renovate, and maintain foreclosed properties so they become an asset to rather than a blight on the neighborhood.

By the time the City of Cleveland, or any other City, is faced with the option of leaving a vacant home to deteriorate or demolishing the home before it deteriorates, we have already lost five opportunities to intervene.  Unless we are assured that there is sufficient quality, affordable housing to meet everyone’s needs- and I don’t know of a place where we can have that assurance- demolishing homes rather than preserving and improving them represents a fundamental failure in public policy: in laws and regulations, in code enforcement, in resources, and in political will.  The public tools are there if we choose to prioritize them.

Posted in Don Bianchi, Foreclosures, Homeownership, Housing | 1 Comment »

Five (six) websites to bookmark in 2012


December 26th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

With so much information available to us all the time, most of us could use some help sorting through the noise to find interesting and helpful information on the internet. While there are countless websites related to community development and affordable housing, here are five (well, O.K., six) that should be on your list:

1. The Institute for Comprehensive Community Development provides information, stories, and tools for practitioners looking at comprehensive community development strategies, a movement that is gaining momentum across the country.

2. Shelterforce magazine remains the pre-eminent publication in our field and its website offers a host of interesting stories, links and blogs that thoughtful community developers should be reading on a regular basis.

3. Non profit quarterly  is not geared to community developers per se, but it is essential reading for anyone in the nonprofit sector who is trying to adapt to changes in foundation fundraising, government programming, non-profit competition, regulation, human resources or any of the other challenges facing the “third sector.”

4. Community-wealth.org seeks to provide the web’s most comprehensive and up-to-date information resource on state-of-the-art strategies for democratic, community-based economic development. The resources offered here include directories, breaking news, publications, and conference information, as well as cutting-edge initiatives from cities, states, community development corporations, employee-owned firms, land trusts, non-profit organizations, co-ops, universities, and more.

5 (and 6.) Finally, I could not write a blog like this without promoting our own websites at MACDC and the Mel King Institute.  Both websites offer important information for community developers in Massachusetts, including updates on important policy issues, professional development opportunities and the dates of important events in our field.

You can find more helpful websites here.

What websites do you find helpful? Please post your ideas in our comment section so others can see your suggestions!

Posted in Joe Kriesberg | No Comments »

Ticking Time Bombs


December 19th, 2011 by Allison Staton

Back in October, in the pouring rain, a group of people got on a small school bus and drove around different neighborhoods in Worcester. The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business had sponsored a tour to examine community economic development throughout Massachusetts. The tour took legislators, municipal officials, small business owners, housing advocates and others to Springfield, Beverly, Kingston, Brewster and Boston.

But an organizer from Main South CDC in Worcester said something on the bus that cold rainy day that predicted a sad story in months to come.

Casey Starr knelt on the school bus seat so everyone could hear her as she talked about the transformation of the Kilby-Gardner-Hammond neighborhood across the street from the leafy green campus of Clark University. She told tales of crime, vacant homes and frightened residents. During the tour she pointed out new homes with solar panels, a gleaming Boys and Girls Club and tree lined streets. Even under the gray clouds the neighborhood was inviting and bright. But this transformation did not happen overnight. It is part of a multi-decade plan to revitalize nearly eight acres of inner city streets and vacant industrial land. It was led by community residents and Main South CDC.

As the bus was leaving the neighborhood, she pointed out several homes which were the opposite of inviting and bright. These privately owned houses were falling apart. Casey told of frequent 911 calls because of squatters’ illicit activities. She told of concerns when the crime spills into the neighborhood and the fear of a fire starting in one of the buildings. Her face changed as she said “we worry that something really terrible could happen.”

A few months later, that terrible something happened in another neighborhood of Worcester. On December 8th a fire roared through a blighted property in the Oak Hill neighborhood, killing a firefighter and injuring his partner. The Oak Hill neighborhood surrounds Worcester Academy, a private day and boarding school founded in 1834 that sits on an elegant campus encased in grand iron gates. Outside those gates is a neighborhood reeling from foreclosures, struggling to keep small businesses open and coping with crime and poverty.

The fire in Arlington Street building that killed the firefighter was blocks from the leafy private school campus. A building that had generated frequent calls to 911, that had squatters and caused neighbors to worry had become the place where “something really terrible” actually happened.

The transformation of neighborhoods like Main South and Oak Hill continues – led by dedicated neighbors unwilling to give up. But it takes time, resources, and capacity to reclaim blighted buildings that are dragging down neighborhoods. Blighted buildings that are really ticking time bombs. Time bombs that can devastate.

Posted in Allison Staton, Community Development | 2 Comments »

Four key ideas that I heard at the New England Housing Network Conference


December 3rd, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

The New England Housing Network held its annual conference in Needham, MA yesterday and the speakers and workshops provided a tremendous amount of information and insight into the current state of affairs in Washington, DC.  

Four ideas that stood out for me:

1. It’s bad – but it could get worse:  The budget situation in Washington is terrible with significut cuts on the way in FY 2012 and further cuts likely in the coming years. The Super Committee’s failure to reach a deal means automatic cuts of about nine percent in FY 2013, but those cuts might actually have been worse had the Committee reached a deal.  Under the default plan, the military will aborb a much greater share of the cuts than under any other likely budget scenario.  And long term budget pressure will likely force deeper cuts in housing and community development funding, absent a broad budget deal that includes both new revenue and reductions in spending on health care.

2. Revenue, revenue, revenue :  All of the national housing advocates made it clear that housing programs, and more importantly the people those programs serve, will be hurt badly without an increase in revenue.  Housing advocates will need to speak out on the need for more tax revenue issue and not simply lobby for our own programs.

3. Housing is a platform for “care” as well as “opportunity:”  MIT Professor, Xavier Briggs, spoke at lunch about the emerging data that documents how the Moving to Opportunity program achieved dramatic outcomes for low income families in the areas of public safety, health, and mental health.  These outcomes dramatically improve the quality of life for these families and reduce the need for public expenditure in other areas, in particular health care. Briggs emphasized that these results are important, even if families did not always see a dramatic increase in their income or economic security. Briggs encouraged housing advocates to more strongly and effectively articulate the value of housing as a platform for “care” as well as “opportunity.”  If we can better document how housing investments reduce the cost of health care, we may be able to win more support – and more dollars – for our agenda.  Look to hear much more about this topic in the coming months.

4. Mortgage Finance Reform is happening:  While advocates are forced to largely play defense on budget issues, and most legislation is stuck in gridlock, our national advcocates do believe that Mortgage Finance Reform will happen – probably in 2013 after the election.  This could be the biggest and best opportunity in the near future to advance progressive housing policy (and block regressive policies) so advocates should be fully engaged in this debate now as the proposals advanced in 2012 will form the basis for legislation in 2013.

To learn more about these and other issues discussed at the conference, click here.

 

 

 

Posted in Financial Health, Housing, Joe Kriesberg | 1 Comment »

Must See T.V.


December 3rd, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

60 Minutes did a very powerful piece on family homelessness recently.  I can’t say anything that would add to what the kids in this segment have to say about their lives, their parents and their dreams.  I simply ask that you watch it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389750n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

Posted in Joe Kriesberg | No Comments »

What is on the other side of the CDFI coin?


November 20th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

Increasing the suply of capital to low and moderate income communities has been a central goal of the community development movement since its inception. From the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit in 1986, to the establishment of the CDFI fund in 1995, to the New Market Tax Credit in 2000, advocates have won significant changes in public policy that have dramatically expanded the capital available to our communities. While there can be no doubt that this has been of huge benefit to our communities, I have often wondered whether we are so focused on the “supply side” that we have neglected to support the “demand side.”  You see, for every community development loan or investment, there must be a qualified borrower in which to invest. CDFIs can’t succeed without good borrowers.

The reality that lenders and borrowers are the two sides of the same coin became readily apparent in 2008 and 2009 when the tax credit market froze and both CDCs and CDFIs alike found themselves in a bind together, as the financial challenges of each sector negatively impacted the other. (Of course, many groups function as both a CDC and a CDFI – truly the same coin!)

So I was very pleased to read a recent article on the Living Cities Blog by  John Moon called In The Works: Understanding How Investments Get Made in Low-Income Communities… Or Don’t.  According to Moon, Living Cities is finding “that communities need not merely dollars, but also an effective capital absorption ecosystem.”

Moon continues: “What do we mean by capital absorption? Capital absorption describes the process by which capital flows to support the needs of low-income communities, either through direct investment or through financial intermediaries. Effective capital absorption requires a sufficient supply of capital moving from market, government or philanthropic sources to a set of capable borrowers. The borrowers then use the capital to strengthen a community’s vitality through the development, preservation or expansion of assets such as affordable housing, small businesses, health clinics and grocery stores. When looking at how to improve the level and quality of investments in low-income communities, the unit of analysis needs to be the capital absorption ecosystem. Traditionally, the field has focused on simply increasing capital sources, improving the capacity of particular financial intermediaries, or concentrating efforts at the project level.”

Among the borrowers that are needed, of course, are high-functioning, resident led community development corporations.  Yet, while CDFIs have grown tremendously since the launch of the CDFI fund, the federal government does not have any comparable system of support for CDCs – nor do most states.  Many, although not all, CDCs are undercapitalized, which limits their ability to pursue a community led agenda and their ability to leverage capital investments. The result, I fear, is a  capital absorption ecosystem (a.k.a. a community development ecosystem) that is growing out of balance. This imbalance – if it continues to grow – threatens to undermine both the CDFI and the CDC sectors and more importantly the communities we all seek to serve.

I believe that the Community Development Partnership Act, now under consideration by the Massachusetts Legislature, would provide CDCs with a system of support similar to the CDFI fund, thereby creating a better supply/demand balance in our “capital absortion ecosystem.”  MACDC is working hard to win passage of this legislation as soon as possible. We are also advocating for other changes in policy and practice that will help CDCs become stronger financially and thereby better able to leverage private and public investment. As policy makers, investors, foundations and practitioners look to increase the flow of capital to our communities, they need to strengthen both the lenders and the borrowers in order to create a healthy ecosystem that can significantly move the needle on economic opportunity and equity.

Posted in Community Development, Community Development Partnership Act, State Policy | No Comments »

What do Roxbury and Arlington have in common?


November 20th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

In many ways, the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston and the suburban town of Arlington, Massachusetts are very different. Roxbury is a low income urban neighborhood with per capita income of about $16,000 and 86 percent of the population comprised of people of color. By contrast, Arlington has a per capita income of $44,000 and 86 percent of the population is white. And, of course, they sit on opposite sides of the Charles River.

Yet, earlier this month, I was able to attend celebrations in both communities where the similarities resonated as much, if not more, HCA-Celebrates 25 Yearsthan the differences. In Arlington, more than 300 people crowded into the Town Hall to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Housing Corporation of Arlington.  HCA has helped over 400 families avoid homelessness, built 58 affordable apartments, and now has 32 more apartments under construction at Capitol Square Apartments. Most importantly, HCA has engaged local residents who are determined to make Arlington a welcoming home for everyone – long time residents and newcomers, rich and poor, white and people of color. It is a challenging task given the realities of our housing markets, but the people in Town Hall that night seemed undeterred. Governor Patrick sent a wonderful video message to the mark the occasion, calling HCA a “model CDC” and noting that “Community Development Corporations play a vital role in our communities. By being the bridge between state and local government and between public and private entities, CDCs take ownership of their community and work to lift up everyone.”

In Roxbury, I attended the 45th anniversary of Madison Park Development Corporation,  the oldest CDC in Massachusetts. A full house crowded into the newly redeveloped Hibernian Hall to recall the many achievements of the CDC since 1966 and to highlight the group’s current work to build housing, spur economic development, and promote culture and the arts. Madison Park’s history, recounted in a wonderful video,  inspired the growth of the community development movement across the Commonwealth and the Country. Over the years, Madison Park became a vehicle for enabling local residents to define the future of their own community, building over 1,000 affordable homes, renovating important commercial buildings in Dudley Square and supporting programs that celebrated the history and the vibrant cultural community in Roxbury.

Roxbury and Arlington are certainly different communities with different challenges and different assets. But they also have much in common. Both communities have long and proud histories dating back to before the American Revolution; both communities are blessed with residents and leaders who are dedicated to making their neighborhoods better for everyone; and both communities have organized, and sustained, resident-led CDCs that, in the words of Governor Patrick “understand that economic and social diversity requires the support of everybody in the community. And that in a community each of us has a stake in our neighbor’s dreams and struggles as well as our own.”

Posted in Community Development, Joe Kriesberg | 2 Comments »

Are we getting too smart for our own good?


November 10th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

I greatly enjoyed Russ Douthat’s column in last week’s Sunday New York Times called “Our Reckless Meritocracy.”  Reflecting on former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine’s fall from grace, Douthat notes that many super smart and super successful leaders in business and politics have “led us off a cliff — mostly by being too smart for [their] own good.” Douthat continues,

“In hereditary aristocracies, debacles tend to flow from stupidity and pigheadedness: think of the Charge of the Light Brigade or the Battle of the Somme. In one-party states, they tend to flow from ideological mania: think of China’s Great Leap Forward, or Stalin’s experiment with “Lysenkoist” agriculture. In meritocracies, though, it’s the very intelligence of our leaders that creates the worst disasters. Convinced that their own skills are equal to any task or challenge, meritocrats take risks that lower-wattage elites would never even contemplate, embark on more hubristic projects, and become infatuated with statistical models that hold out the promise of a perfectly rational and frictionless world.”

While Douthat’s article focuses on the impact of this pattern in business and politics, I wonder if the nonprofit sector might face similar risks. I’m skeptical that simply being smarter by using “evidence based models,” and “data driven programs” and “business metrics” and “triple bottom line investments” will suddenly transform persistent social challenges that have plaqued human society for hundreds, if not thousands of years.  Proposals like Social Impact Bonds, which presume an ability to measure social impact with such precision that we can create meaningful investment vehicles based on that data, strike me as an example of becoming “infatuated with statistical models that hold out the promise of a perfectly rational and frictionless world.” In the community development world, financial innovation has generated more and more complicated financial tools that may add more complexity than value, and also make it harder for local residents and non-professionals to fully enage in the community development process. 

I am certainly not saying that innovation, evaluation, evidence and data are not important. I am not a climate change denier or someone who rejects science, expertise and knowledge.  The nonprofit sector absolutely needs to make better use of emerging tools. We should absolutely strive to learn more about the cause and cure of social ills and apply that knowledge diligently.  I have no doubt that we can do a better job than we have in the past at fighting social challenges and problems. But I also agree with Douthat’s conclusion:

“In place of reckless meritocrats, we don’t need feckless know-nothings. We need intelligent leaders with a sense of their own limits, experienced people whose lives have taught them caution. We still need the best and brightest, but we need them to have somehow learned humility along the way.”

Posted in Community Development, Innovation | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries