Archive for the ‘Community Development’ Category

« Older Entries

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 »

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 »

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 »

Five reasons why June 1 was a great day


June 21st, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

On June 1, 2011, the Joint Committee on Small Business and Community Development held a hearing at the Massachusetts State House on the Community Development Partnership Act. This bill, which is MACDC’s number one priority this year, would create a donation tax credit designed to spur public/private investment in high performing community development initiatives across the state. The hearing was a critical step in the long process of taking an idea, crafting it into legislation and ultimately getting it enacted into law. So, I was very happy to see how well the hearing went. Why was it a great day?

1. Our members have really engaged with the campaign to pass the CDPA and they helped us generate over 70 letters of support from a wide array of nonprofit organizations, community leaders, municipal officials, private businesses, and local CDCs. We also had four members deliver powerful and compelling testimony about how the legislation would enhance their communities. I encourage you to read the testimony from Gail Latimore, Elizabeth Bridgewater, Danny LeBlanc, and Emily Rosenbaum.

2. Eighteen people testified in person at the hearing, representing an equally broad array of people who understand the importance of community economic development. We heard that day from Mayor Kimberly Driscoll of Salem, Mary Borque, the incoming superintendant of schools in Chelsea, from Tom Kiefer, Executive Director of the Southern Jamaica Plain Health Center, Melissa Hoffer, Vice President of the Conservation Law Foundation, Boston Police Officers Lacey Seighton and Izzy Marrero, and Sean Caron from CHAPA. Their testimony provided powerful evidence that community development does more than build homes and create jobs, it also improves educational and health outcomes, and reduces crime and pollution. As Mayor Driscoll said, community development is essential to creating great cities and great places to live.

3. We were also joined at the hearing by some of our CDC colleagues from New Jersey, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania who came up to tell us about their experience with similar programs in their states. In fact, MACDC originally came up with the idea to draft and file this legislation precisely because of what we learned from our colleagues in other states. This was a powerful reminder of why national networks, like the National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations (NACEDA) are so important to our work. Without NACEDA, these connections, and indeed this bill, would not exist.

4. The hearing also provided an opportunity to partner in a new and deeper way with some of our long time funding partners, including the United Way, the Boston Foundation and LISC. Each of these organizations testified in favor of the bill and have been helping us to advance the legislation.

5. Finally, June 1 was a great day because it offered us an opportunity to talk about the importance of community development on its own terms. Since the CEED program was eliminated nine years ago (CEED was a state budget line item that provided flexible funding for CDCs from 1978 to 2002), MACDC has successfully advocated for many programs and laws related to housing, small business development, foreclosure and economic development. However, this was the first time we were able to break out of those particular silos and talk about comprehensive community development – to talk about communities and neighborhoods, to talk about civic engagement and community participation, to talk about creating great places for families to live, work and play. This is what our members work to achieve every day so it was a thrilling to have the chance to “state our case” to the legislature.

As we move forward from the June 1 hearing we hope to celebrate more great days, including hopefully, a day sometime in the next year when Governor Patrick signs the Community Development Partnership Act into law.

Posted in Community Development, Community Development Partnership Act, Comprehensive Community Development, State Policy | 1 Comment »

Is the Collaboration Trend Getting Old?


April 30th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

Collaboration has become such a popular word in our field that one wonders at times whether it has lost its meaning and importance. Has collaboration become a cliché? Is it a passing fad? Has it been oversold?

I would have to say, from what I am seeing in Massachusetts and around the country, that the answer is an emphatic no!

When the Community Development Innovation Forum was launched in 2008, we established a collaboration working group that produced a report on different models of collaboration around the Commonwealth. The Forum has promoted collaboration as a critical strategy for increasing impact and gaining efficiencies.

Recently, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has published a terrific new report that highlights examples of new collaborations from around the country – including one from Boston (the Fairmount Collaborative in Boston.)  The paper, The New Way Forward: Using Collaborations and Partnerships for Greater Efficiency and Impact, was written by Dee Walsh and Bob Zdenek, two of our country’s leading practitioners. I highly recommend it to all community developers.

Meanwhile, on a recent trip to South Florida to speak at the Annual Summit of the Florida Association of CDCs, I learned about the Broward Alliance for Neighborhood Development (BAND.)  BAND is a coalition of more than 30 CDCs and nonprofit organizations in Broward County (Ft Lauderdale) who are committed to providing decent, affordable housing in their communities. The mission of BAND is to foster non-profits that create quality housing and strong neighborhoods. The goal of the organization is to increase the capacity of its non-profit members so that the varied housing needs of all residents of Broward County are met. BAND members have pooled resources to hire central staff and to secure NSP dollars for their communities.

Back here in Massachusetts the Catalyst Fund for Nonprofits  has announced its first set of grants to nonprofits that are pursuing innovative collaborations and two of the initial grants are going to MACDC members.  A recent article in the Boston Globe describes grants to Chelsea Neighborhood Developers to develop a Family Economic Center and to Urban Edge and Allston Brighton CDC to pursue a joint asset management strategy.

I think it is clear that collaboration is here to stay in the community development sector.

Posted in Book Review, Community Development, Innovation, Joe Kriesberg | No Comments »

A Smarter Way to Reduce Health Care Spending


April 25th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

The first meeting I ever attended on behalf of MACDC – way back in 1993 – was at the Bowdoin Street Community Health Center. The purpose of the meeting was to strategize ways to reduce childhood lead poisoning by building a coalition of community development, housing, environmental and public health advocates to fight for changes in policy and practice that would better protect our children. Over the ensuing years, we successfully won major legislative change, new funding for lead abatement, and a robust effort of abatement, education, prevention and treatment that has nearly eliminated lead poisoning from the Commonwealth (although the risk is still serious in much of our older housing stock.)

The success of that collaborative effort came to mind the other day when I was attending the Health Communities Conference co-sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the Mel King Institute’s Innovation Forum and several other partners. The conference explored the benefits of linking community development to community health efforts as a way to reduce chronic disease and improve wellness. The importance of this effort was underscored by Paul Grogan, President of the Boston Foundation, in his keynote remarks where he highlighted the fact that health care spending is now completely crowding out public investment in virtually every other area – education, recreation, housing, community development, food supports, and public transit. Yet by investing in these other areas we could actually reduce the need for costly medical care and improve the quality of people’s lives. Indeed, providing a homeless family with stable, safe housing might do more to reduce hypertension, asthma, and other chronic illnesses than all the medicine that money can buy.

The Conference included a number of interesting speakers from both the community development and the community health sectors. We heard about cutting edge research that documents that close correlation between socio-economic status and neighborhood quality with health outcomes. We also learned about innovative programs at the ground level that are beginning to make an impact. Materials from the conference are expected to be available soon on the Federal Reserve Bank’s conference web site.

MACDC intends to work with our partners in the public health field to build on the excitement from the conference to explore opportunities for innovation in public policy and community practice. With health care at the top of the priority list in both the State House and Congress, there will be many opportunities to gain traction. Perhaps someday, doctors will have the ability to fight the causes of disease by prescribing rental assistance subsidies, job training and T-passes instead of being limited to simply treating the symptoms of disease with costly medical procedures and pharmaceuticals

Posted in Community Development, Comprehensive Community Development, Innovation, Joe Kriesberg, Public Health | 2 Comments »

How can we drive performance in the Community Development Field?


March 16th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

Performance and accountability are the subject of substantial discussion these days throughout the nonprofit sector. Government agencies, private funders and non-profit leaders themselves are increasingly focused on taking steps to ensure that we fund programs “that work” and stop funding those “that don’t”.   Last week, I wrote about Social Impact Bonds, a new approach for doing this about which I have serious concerns. Today that I want to share an idea that I think has great promise.

Obviousely, no one can disagree with the view that we should “fund what works.” But this statement simply begs the question of what we are trying to achieve. While this may seem easy to determine, in fact it is often not. Most non-profit organizations and programs have multiple stakeholders, each of whom have their own set of goals – goals that are sometimes in conflict, and are almost always different in terms of emphasis, time frame and priority. Balancing the interests of these different stakeholders is one of the key challenges of being a leader in the nonprofit sector.

At the same time, it is precisely this balancing act that I believe drives innovation and ultimately better, and more sustainable, long-term outcomes. Simply put, this complexity mirrors the complexity of the real world so it produces solutions that will work in the real world. Communities and people are complicated. There are no silver bullets or simple solutions to deeply rooted, complex social challenges, and success looks differently to different people. Equally important, all activities and interventions have multiple impacts and externalities – positive and negative – and they all have short term and long term impacts. This is especially true in the community development field where we are trying to have an impact on individuals and families as well as the broader community. I believe that having multiple stakeholders at the table helps to ensure that all of these impacts are considered, and that negotiating these competing interests results in more balanced, creative and effective solutions.

MACDC hopes to promote this framework through our campaign to enact the Community Development Partnership Act. (read summary.) This bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry and Senator Sal DiDomenico and 46 other legislators, (and modeled after similar programs in other states) would use tax credits to leverage private donations to genuine and authentic community based development organizations, i.e. CDCs. Rather than creating static, rigid, or one-dimensional outcome metrics for the program, the CDPA will use three levels of accountability to ensure the program’s success while maintaining local flexibility and driving innovation.

  • -  First, and foremost, community members would have a voice because only those organizations with meaningful community representation on their board of directors would be eligible to compete for the tax credits. This helps to ensure that programs and activities funded are relevant and appropriate to the particular local community.
  • -  Second, state government will have oversight because they will review each application and determine which groups receive an allocation of tax credits. Those applications will specify how the CDC will evaluate and measure success. The state will then collect data and reports to measure progress and outcomes.
  • -  Third, the CDCs will need to convince private sector donors – corporate and individual – to make donations with the tax credit creating an incentive, but no guarantee, that funds will be provided.

We believe that having three levels of accountability increases the likelihood that the CDPA will be successful as compared to a program that is designed to simply meet the needs of a specific funder or stakeholder.  To be successful, CDCs will need to innovate, partner, measure, learn, and adapt. CDCs that don’t will surely lose the support of at least one of their key stakeholder groups – if not all of them – and fall out of the program.

Performance and ensure accountability are core values for MACDC. Look for future blog posts about other ways that MACDC, its members and our partners are seeking to advance those values. And, please, share your own!

Posted in Community Development, Innovation, Joe Kriesberg, Massachusetts, State Policy | No Comments »

New Report is Required Reading for Community Developers


February 25th, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

A new report by Enterprise Community Partners provides an insightful analysis into the financial challenges facing community developers and offers thoughtful recommendations for how to address them at the organizational and system levels. It should be required reading for all community developers and their supporters.

The report, Building Sustainable Organizations for Affordable Housing and Community Development Impact, affirms many of the conclusions and recommendations developed by the Massachusetts Community Development Innovation Forum over the past three years.  Enterprise conducted an in-depth analysis of 10 nonprofit organizations that have faced financial crisis in recent years and examined systemic issues that contribute to financial weakness. The report also identifies the particular strengths and weaknesses facing neighborhood based organizations. Finally, the report offers recommendations for both community development organizations and for funders/lenders.

According to Enterprise, community development organizations should:

  • - Strengthen their financial reporting and management,
  • - Beware of one-time cash receipts and manage them effectively,
  • - Diversity revenue streams, but only by growing strategically into business lines that align with organizational mission and can be profitable in the long-term,
  • - Prioritize financial sustainability to ensure that long-term organizational health is not endangered by a single project or program, even one that has high mission impact, and
  • - Collaborate to reduce costs, improve quality, and expand impact.

Enterprise offers the following recommendations to funders and lenders:

  • - Incentivize long-term ownership and stewardship of affordable housing assets by allowing cash flow to be paid to a project’s sponsor,
  • - Set realistic property and asset management fees and structure deals with sufficient cash flow to pay them, and
  • - Embrace an early warning system to address problem properties and weak organizations quickly before they grow beyond repair.

Here in Massachusetts we are already taking action to implement many of these recommendations. We are promoting the implementation of the Strength Matters TM financial reporting system and providing other training and support to improve financial management. We are offering training for asset management and advocating for increased asset management fees. And we are engaged in an active discussion about how to improve cash flow and reduce reliance on one-time developer fees. And, of course, we are implementing a host of new collaborations. The Enterprise report will hopefully fuel these efforts and secure broader support for making the changes needed to sustain and grow the community development field.

Posted in Community Development, Financial Health, Innovation, Joe Kriesberg | No Comments »

« Older Entries