Archive for the ‘State Policy’ Category

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 »

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 »

The Secret Formula for Effective Advocacy


April 3rd, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

 

I recently read an book review by Anthony Lewis about a new biography of Justice William Brennan (Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion  by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel .) For those who don’t know, Brennan was a Supreme Court Justice from 1956 to 1990 and was one of the leading progressives who helped shape Constitutional Law throughout that period. He was known as a liberal who could actually get the votes for a majority opinion – not just write powerful dissents. Anthony Lewis explains how Brennan was able to get his colleagues to vote for his opinions.  Lewis’ summary nicely articulates what I believe is the secret formula for effective advocacy:

Brennan’s success “came from intellect, conviction, a strong tactical sense, an eye for the essentials rather than a wish list, and a relationship of good faith and confidence with his colleagues.” 

In my 25 years of advocacy work, I have seen the importance of these qualities time and time again, although I have never seen this formula so neatly summarized.  Anthony Lewis has provided MACDC, and all of us who engage in advocacy, a succinct and helpful guide for our ongoing efforts.

Posted in Book Review, Joe Kriesberg, State Policy | No 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 »

Can Massachusetts Replicate Policy Success Achieved in Other States?


February 23rd, 2011 by Joe Kriesberg

Throughout my years at MACDC, I have been an active participant in a network of CDC associations from around the country. The network – first convened by the National Congress for Community Economic Development and now by the National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations (NACEDA) – provides an opportunity to learn about programs and policies in other states that might be applicable in Massachusetts. (It’s also a great place to commiserate with the very small group of people who do the same work we do at MACDC!)

The Mel King Institute for Community Building was partially inspired by CED training programs in other states and now MACDC is trying to replicate another successful approach that has been well tested in other states.  For years, state and cities around the country have operated so-called “Neighborhood Assistance Programs” that provide tax credits to encourage corporations and individuals to donate more money to selected community based nonprofit organizations that offer high quality programming.  The programs vary from place to place, with some placing more emphasis on community development and others on human services. The size of the credit can range from 30% to100% and from one year to 10 years. And some programs are more competitive than others. In each case, the programs foster stronger partnerships between the private sector and the non profit sector and they leverage public investment with private contributions.

After studying a number of these programs, in particular Philadelphia, New Jersey and South Carolina, MACDC has proposed legislation to create the Community Development Partnership program here in Massachusetts. (We also looked at Virgina, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Deleware.) Earlier this year, Senator Sal DiDomenico and Representative Linda Dorcena Forry, along with 46 other legislators filed this bill for consideration in the State House. We think the bill takes some of the best elements of the different programs around the country and tailors them to the Massachusetts context. Specifically, the bill would provide a 50% tax credit to corporations and individuals who make a donation to community based organizations that have been carefully vetted through a competitive process administrated by DHCD. To qualify, the community organization must first be certified as a CDC under MGL Chapter 40H to ensure that the group is both genuinely community based and has a core mission of community development. Second, the organization must be selected by DHCD for a tax credit award through a highly competitive process in which each organization submits a thoughtful, long term business plan that outlines their goals, strategies and metrics for success. I encourage you to read the legislation and/or our summary of the bill to learn more.

The key idea behind the bill is that local community members can use this program to develop and implement their own local strategies for creating jobs, growing businesses, building homes and otherwise improving their communities. It will support demand driven community development in a way that we have never been able to do before and will increase the scale and impact of our community development efforts throughout the state.

You will be reading more about this exciting new legislation in future blog posts. You can also learn more about how these programs work and other community development initiatives around the country by joining MACDC at NACEDA’s Annual Summit in Washington, DC from May 23 -25.   Please join us!

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

MACDC Convention Inspires Fresh Optimism


October 22nd, 2010 by Joe Kriesberg

MACDC hosted its 5th Biannual Convention on Saturday, October 16, 2010 at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester and once again it was an inspiring and exciting event.  MACDC began hosting Conventions in 2002, shortly after I became the Executive Director, as a way to bring together the full spectrum of leaders in the CDC field – board members, residents, and professional staff; Nonprofit allies, funders and public officials;  long-time leaders and emerging ones; black, brown and white; young and old; urban, rural and suburban. Everyone is welcome.

The Convention is a unique event that combines learning, celebration, dance, speeches, awards, theatre and political action – and it’s my favorite MACDC activity! This was the first year we held the event outside of Boston and more than 400 community development leaders and allies joined us for the day. There were many  highlights.

  • • We hosted a Gubernatorial Candidate Forum with Deval Patrick, Tim Cahill and Jill Stein (Charles Baker was invited but declined to attend) in which they articulated their agenda as it relates to affordable housing, small business development and community development. All three spoke against Question 2 which would repeal the state’s primary affordable housing law. They also expressed support for the Small Business Technical Assistance program and for supporting CDCs as critical community building agents. Governor Patrick summarized his achievements over the past four years by highlighting the $1.2 billion affordable housing bond bill, the two foreclosure bills he signed, and the Affordable Housing Preservation bill that he helped bring to the finish line after 15 years of failed efforts. MACDC and our members take pride in the fact that we helped win passage of all four of these bills.  I was particularly pleased that Governor Patrick was able to join us in Worcester on the same day that he was holding a rally with President Obama in Boston.
  • • As we have for each Convention, we organized the “CDC Roll Call” during which each member highlights one recent achievement. The Roll Call is always one of the most popular parts of the day as it demonstrates the tenacity, effectiveness and enduring optimism of our amazing members.
  • • The Convention also featured artistic expression as the Improv Theatre group True Story Theatre  helped us to share our stories in new ways and the Movement City youth dance group from Lawrence energized the crowd with an inspiring dance performance.
  • • The Convention is also a place for learning and we organized seven workshops on a wide range of topics from youth employment and public health to advocacy, immigration and board development.
  • • We released a new report Community Development Goes Green: How MACDC Members Are Embracing Environmental Sustainability.
  • • Informal networking is another key piece of the Convention and judging from the evaluations we received our members really enjoy the opportunity to meet with their colleagues. This is especially true for CDC board members who have many fewer options to talk with their counterparts across the state.  I think we achieved our goal of providing a morale boost for people working on the front lines of community change.

Finally, the convention is our opportunity to say congratulations and thank you to some of the outstanding leaders in our field. This year, we presented awards to Senator Susan Tucker, Worcester City Councilor Barbara Haller, Harbor One Credit Union, Mossik Hacobian, Dan Gelbtuch, Quynh Dang, Maddie Ribble, Kevin Johnson, Mickey Northcutt, Casey Starr, Courtney Koslow, and Brian Pastori.

Indeed, the awards ceremony provided perhaps the most meaningful moment of the day for me personally. Richard Thal presented the Richard Smith Award to Mossik Hacobian who has served Urban Edge  and the residents of their community for over 30 years. Richard’s inspiring and heartfelt presentation, and Mossik’s generous acceptance remarks, demonstrated how much Mossik means to the lives people in the neighborhood and to all of us in the field. The standing ovation that followed was well deserved and brought a tear to my eye.

Jeanne Pinado and David Thibault-Munoz then presented our Rising Star Awards to seven young leaders under the age of 40. Seeing this diverse group of leaders walk on stage one by one provided powerful evidence that the CDC field is blessed with both experienced  leaders who continue to build on decades of achivement and vibrant, intelligent and innovative young leaders who are ready to build on our field’s legacy and make it their own. At that moment , I felt as optimistic as ever about our future and my tears were replaced by chills as the crowd applauded and cheered.

We are on the move, I thought.  And we are all marching forward together.

Posted in Community Development, Joe Kriesberg, State Policy | 3 Comments »

What’s a CDC? New Legislation Provides an Answer.


August 24th, 2010 by Joe Kriesberg

“What is a CDC?”

I have probably been asked that question 1,000 times since I started working at MACDC in 1993.  It seems like a rather simple question and certainly one that the President of a CDC association should be able to answer.

But it is not so easy.  There are many different definitions in use around the country and many use words like “often,” “usually,” and “may,” when describing a CDC’s structure and activities.  Certain themes emerge – housing development; economic development; community engagement; neighborhood revitalization, etc, but no clear definition exists that is universally used in the field. The resulting confusion creates a problem for those who want to build and strengthen the sector.    

In Massachusetts, we have had a state law define the term since 1975. However, over the past decade or so that law became a dead letter as the definition  became more outdated — one provision of the law required that CDC board members must have 3 year board terms. So if a nonprofit had board terms of 2 years – it was not a CDC! Moreover, the benefits associated with the definition were minimal and there was not even a process by which groups could be officially certified as a CDC so there was no list of who even qualified for those benefits that did exist.

A few years ago, the Massachusetts Community Development Innovation Forum  decided to explore two questions: What is a CDC? And does it matter?

After countless meetings and discussions and research about how the term is used throughout the country, we agreed that it was indeed important to define the term because we can’t grow stronger CDCs if we don’t know who or what they are. We also settled on a new, updated, 21st Century Definition of a CDC that reflects the diversity of our field and the diversity of our communities.

And thanks to legislation signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick on August 5, 2010, our new definition (Section 86) is now officially part of state law.

Our definition boils down to three core elements – the organization’s mission, its activities, and its governance.  Specifically, Massachusetts’ new definition says that a CDC is a nonprofit organization based in Massachusetts that:

  1.  “. . .has as the corporation’s purpose to . . . develop and improve urban, rural and suburban communities in sustainable ways that create and expand economic opportunity for low and moderate income people;”
  2. “ . . . engage[s] local residents and businesses to work together to undertake community development programs, projects, and activities;” and
  3. “[can] demonstrate . . . that the corporation’s constituency, including low and moderate income people, is meaningfully represented on the board of directors . . . “

Our vision is that this definition will encompass a broad range of groups – far broader than the set of organizations traditionally considered CDCs in Massachusetts. We are trying to recognize and validate the different communities, histories, models and strategies that have evolved over time – so long as they share the three core elements above. 

The statute also requires the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development to develop guidelines and procedures for certifying groups as being a CDC. Over time, this will allow us to say specifically who and what a CDC is in our state. It will increase accountability and credibility for the field. And it will enable us to develop an intentional and comprehensive strategy for strengthening and sustaining these organizations over time – thereby creating and ensuring that we have the capacity to empower local residents and expand economic opportunity throughout the Commonwealth.  Such a strategy can learn from and improve upon our past experience in Massachusetts as well as other models like the CDFI and CHDO models developed nationally in the 1990s.

We are thankful to the Legislature and the Governor for enacting this important legislation. The stage is now set for an exciting transformation of the community development system in Massachusetts that builds on its extraordinary history of achievement while laying the foundation for even greater success and impact in the future.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Mel King, Governor Michael Dukakis and many others established the legal, financial and intellectual foundation for the Massachusetts community development field that allowed a nascent movement to grow into a powerful sector that generated $1.67 billion of economic activity over the past seven years. This is their legacy – one that provides new benefits year after year.  Now it is our turn. Today’s community development leaders must work together to bolster, expand, and strengthen the field so our communities and the people who live and work there have the opportunity to work together and with others to create neighborhoods and communities of choice throughout the Commonwealth.

Let’s get to work!

Posted in Community Development, Innovation, Joe Kriesberg, State Policy | 1 Comment »

Unsung Heroes: The Success of Nonprofit Counseling Agencies in Combating Foreclosures


June 7th, 2010 by Don Bianchi

This is a true story. Actually, it is two stories about the foreclosure crisis, both true.

We’re familiar with the first story. In Massachusetts and across the country, the foreclosure crisis continues to decimate families, and communities. The response from loan servicers has ranged from marginally improved at best, to anywhere from woefully inadequate to counter-productive at worst. The programs initiated by the federal government have been too little and too late and too reliant on the voluntary participation of lenders.

According to data provided by the Warren Group to the Boston Globe, the number of homeowners in Massachusetts who lost their properties to foreclosure in April, 2010 (1,372) is 80% more than the number from April of 2009 (764), and the number of foreclosure petitions (the first step in the foreclosure process) jumped 21% compared to April of 2009. Furthermore, lenders are getting more efficient at foreclosure, reducing the time it takes to complete a foreclosure from 9.2 months in October, 2008 to 4.6 months in November 2009.

But there is another story, hidden under the grim headlines of the first story. Nonprofit counseling agencies across the Commonwealth are helping prevent foreclosure, and when necessary they are helping people transition to new housing so they can land on their feet.

During calendar year 2009, according to data collected by MACDC through its GOALs Survey, MACDC Members counseled 5,200 households at risk of foreclosure. The same members reported that, by the end of calendar year 2009, 31% (1,590 households) had achieved a positive outcome (averting foreclosure) by the end of the year. Since it can take many months for these situations to be resolved many of these 5,200 households will eventually achieve a positive outcome in 2010. Furthermore, the percentage of families in Massachusetts achieving successful outcomes within the same year increased from 24% in 2008 to 31% in 2009.

Some of this success is likely attributable to the Obama Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) that was introduced in early 2009. Despite significant problems with HAMP in moving borrowers from temporary to permanent loan modifications, by February, 2010, over 4,000 Massachusetts families had received permanent loan modifications under the program.

The positive impact of foreclosure prevention counseling is further demonstrated by data on the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (NFMC). The most recent findings from an Urban Institute analysis of NFMC showed that homeowners who sought counseling after a foreclosure filing were 1.6 times more likely to get out of foreclosure, and avoid a foreclosure sale, than homeowners not assisted by counseling.

The experience of MACDC members bears out the positive impact of this counseling. Juan Bonilla, the Director of Homeownership Programs at Lawrence Community Works (LCW), tells a story of an elderly man who was not aware until days before his home was to be foreclosed that there was assistance available. With LCW’s help he got the auction postponed and later submitted the documents necessary for a loan modification, which LCW expects to be successful. There was a woman whose lender gave her a trial modification, and at its completion insisted she enter another trial period at a higher interest rate and payment, because the lender mistakenly calculated that her income had increased 25%. Because of the intervention and the persistence of the LCW counselors, both homeowners remain in their homes. Since 2007, LCW has provided foreclosure prevention assistance to approximately 400 families in the region, and 59% of these families have achieved positive outcomes.

At the Neighborhood of Affordable Housing (NOAH) in East Boston, Counselor Smita Das tells the story of a single mother of two young children. After losing her job, she was unable to pay the two mortgages on her triple-decker. With NOAH’s helped she received a trail modification under the HAMP program, and then a permanent modification that lowered the combined monthly payment on her mortgages from $4,500 to just over $2,800.

Michele Morris of Valley CDC in Northampton highlights an important reason for counselors’ success in helping homeowners in crisis: the ability to develop a positive working relationship with the loan servicer’s staff. Homeowners may typically vent their frustration by treating the loan servicer’s staff as an adversary, which is not conducive to getting the family’s loan prioritized and getting the complex servicing errors untangled.

The moral of this story is clear. With all the challenges associated with loan modifications and foreclosure prevention counseling, it remains the fastest and most cost effective method of assisting families facing foreclosure, preserving family wealth, avoiding displacement, and stabilizing neighborhoods. Our frustration and anger about the on-going foreclosure crisis should not obscure the important success that nonprofit organizations are having day after day, one family at a time. We need to dramatically increase support for counseling, not throw in the towel in despair.

Posted in Community Development, Don Bianchi, Foreclosures, Massachusetts, State Policy | 1 Comment »

Lobby Day 2010


April 14th, 2010 by Allison Staton

Photo by Lolita Parker Jr.

There is something inspiring about bringing people to the State House.  As a professional lobbyist I can, at times, take for granted the grand and inspiring dome sitting atop Beacon Hill.  I can find the process of watching bills or the annual budget go through the legislative process to be frustrating.

Yet on Tuesday, April 6th the stunning Hall of Flags filled with people, posters, PowerPoint displays on laptops, brochures and good food.    CDCs from around Massachusetts were represented by board members, staff, community leaders, and more than a dozen youth leaders.  Over 200 people from 38 member organizations came to meet with at least 38 legislators and aides to talk about the importance of ongoing foreclosure relief, fully supporting small business technical assistance and the role of CDCs in neighborhoods and regions throughout the Commonwealth. We also made a strong push for funding summer jobs for youth, with Makeila Layne, Dorchester Bay Youth Force from Dorchester Youth Force speaking to the crowd about the importance of those programs.

I heard people marvel at how beautiful the building is and I reminded them it is their building, they pay for it and the salaries of those working in it.  People talked about how welcoming their Senator or Representatives were.  Leaders brought their communities into the State House and the State House welcomed them.

Photo by Lolita Parker Jr.

Senator Harriette Chandler of Worcester, who was introduced by North High School Sophomore Jasmine Garcia, spoke of the importance of CDCs in her district and the pride she had in sponsoring bills that strengthen resources for CDCs.  Representative Linda Dorcena Forry of Boston spoke of how CDCs build up communities including her own.  EOHHS Secretary Greg Bialecki announced that he was doubling the Small Business Technical Assistant grants for CDCs and other non-profits so their funding was secure through the end of FY11.

And yet, as the lap tops were put away, the tables broken down, and the Great Hall of Flags became a large empty space I was reminded of the power that comes from bringing community leaders into the State House to make their case. My job will be a little bit easier now as I continue to lobby on a daily basis, but more importantly, I am convinced that our event will help build momentum for passing the legislation and budget items that our members and our communities need.

Be sure to enjoy MACDC’s first ever Lobby Day video.  It was compiled and edited by MACDC’s own Jay Rosa using video shot by various folks and the photographs of Lolita Parker, Jr.

Posted in Allison Staton, Community Development, Massachusetts, State Policy | No Comments »

Innovation in Action


April 9th, 2010 by Joe Kriesberg

The other day I read about a new report by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli (with the help of the New York Council of Nonprofits) that found that 87 percent of nonprofit contracts with state government (of more than $50,000) were not approved prior to the nonprofits’ beginning their work. On average, new contracts were approved nine months after the contract start dates and renewals were five months late on average.  New York State is essentially relying on nonprofit organizations being so committed to their mission that they will risk their financial health to continue providing services without contracts. Indeed the entire system appears to depend on this commitment. 

The only thing about this report that might surprise CDC and non-profit leaders is the fact that a state agency finally documented the problem.  All mission-driven organizations confront this challenge all the time – how to balance money with mission. We must often complete substantial work on a project or program before receiving a fee or reimbursement and those payments rarely cover the full cost of delivering the service. Cash flow becomes a chronic challenge and organizations are unable to build up a health reserve fund. The resulting impact on fiscal health can be severe as the Non Profit Finance Fund recently documented in a report on CDC Fiscal Health that was completed as part of the Community Development Innovation Forum.  

Reversing these trends is a primary goal of the Community Development Innovation Forum. We have recently re-activated a group of stakeholders to develop recommendations for how the real estate development finance system can be reformed to better enable non-profit developers to achieve their missions in a financially sustainable manner. 

In the meantime, I have some very good news to report about a recent policy decision that moves us in the right direction. On April 6, at MACDC’s annual Lobby Day, Massachusetts Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Greg Bialecki, announced that he would forward commit $600,000 in FY 2011 funding for the small business technical assistance program so that he could double the size of recent grants to CDCs and other nonprofits and extend the term of their contracts by 6 months. By providing greater funding certainty and stability, the state will strengthen its organizational partners, promote longer term planning, enhance professional and program development and help leverage more private and federal money – without costing the state any extra money. 

 The Secretary’s announcement was in response to problems this program has had in past years when uncertainty about the state budget would cause substantial delays in the RFP and subsequent funding decisions. Groups sometimes had to wait several months into the fiscal year before learning whether they were going to be funded again and at what level.

 Secretary Bialecki’s creative solution was made possible by a generous commitment from Mass Development to provide $600,000 in funding to the program in FY 2010 and now FY 2011. Since these funds are not contingent on legislative approval of the state budget in June, the Secretary had the flexibility to think outside the box and create a solution that will benefit the state, the grantees and most importantly the small businesses that this program seeks to support. Now that is the type of Innovation that is worth celebrating!

Posted in Financial Health, Innovation, Joe Kriesberg, Massachusetts, Small Business, State Policy | No Comments »