Post on 07-Feb-2023
751
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE VOLUME 18 ISSUE 4© 2007 METROPOLITAN INSTITUTE AT VIRGINIA TECH. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Reassessing the Role of Housing in Community-Based Urban Development
Edwin Melendez and Lisa J. ServonMilano The New School of Management and Urban Policy
AbstractInthisarticle,weusearandomsampleofurbancommunitydevelop-
ment corporations (CDCs) to determine whether distinct types exist and,if so, toestimate theirprevalence in the industry.The typicalurbanCDChas a diversified portfolio of economic and social development activities,includingcommunityorganizing,and is likely tohaveahousingdevelop-mentprogram,althoughnotnecessarilyalargeonebecauserelativelyfewarehighproducers.
Large-scalehousingproducers,definedinthestudyashavingproducedatleast500unitsduringtheprevious10years,comprise18percentofCDCs.Alargeorganizationalcapacity,anaffiliationwithnationalintermediaries,thetrainingofstaffandtheadoptionofcomputers,thelengthofexecutivedirectors’tenure,andtheshareoffundingdevotedtohousingprogramsarethemostimportantfactorsincreasingtheoddsthataCDCwillbelongtothegroupofhighproducers.
Keywords: Community development corporations; Housing; Nonprofitorganizations
IntroductionForthepastseveralyears,scholarshavedebatedtheissueofwhatthe
appropriatemodelofacommunitydevelopmentcorporation(CDC)shouldbe (Bratt1997;Stoecker1997;Vidal1997)andevenhowtocharacterizecurrentandpastmodels.Specifically,manyresearchershavediscussedanar-rativeinwhichCDCshaveevolvedfromsmall,locallybasedorganizationsprovidingavarietyofservicesintolargeorganizationsthatfocusprimarilyonhousing,whileothershavediscussedamorerecentshiftinemphasistogobeyondhousingdevelopment(Brophy&ReillyLLC2001;Berndt1997;
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
752 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
BrattandRohe2004;Faux1971;GittellandWilder1999;Marquez1993;PeirceandSteinbach1987;Perry1987;ReingoldandJohnson2003;Rohe,Bratt,andBiswas2003;Rubin1994,1995;RubinandRubin1992;Stoecker1994,1997;VidalandKeyes2005;Zdenek1987).Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,aCDCisdefinedasanonprofit,community-basedurbandevelop-mentorganizationthatengagesineconomicdevelopmentactivitiessuchashousing production, commercial property development, business develop-ment, and/or job creation for the benefit of community residents (Bogart2003;Cowan,Rohe,andBaku1999;GittellandWilder1999;GreenandHaines 2002; National Congress for Community Economic Development[NCCED]1999;RomeoandLampkin2002;RosenandDienstfrey1999;Rubin 2000; Stoecker 1997; Stoutland 1999; Vidal 1992, 1997). DespitegeneralagreementonthebasicdefinitionofwhatconstitutesaCDC,modelshavebeenpositedwithoutsufficientdataandanalysistotesttheirvalidityandprevalenceinthefield.
Some of the most prominent voices in recent discussions portray anindustrywherenonprofitsponsorshipofcommunity-leveldevelopmenthasinducedhousingtobecomethedominantactivityofgrassrootscommunitydevelopmentorganizations.Housingproduction,inturn,propelsadynamicwhereitbecomesdifficultfortheseorganizationstoengageinotheractivi-tiesortobemoreresponsivetootherprogrammaticmission-orientedactivi-ties.Onthebasisofthispremise,someauthorsproposethatthisapproachtodevelopmentshouldchange(Stoecker1997,2003;Vidal1997)orthatitfunctionsquitewell(Bratt1997).
One narrative in the community development field is that during theformative years of the 1960s and 1970s, CDCs had broad social changemissionsthatencompassedawiderangeofactivities(Eisenberg2000;Git-tellandWilder1999;Halpern1994;Harrison1974;PeirceandSteinbach1987; Perry 1987; Stoutland 1999; Vidal 1992; Zdenek 1987). This nar-rativemaintainedthat,asthefieldmatured,CDCsbecamemorenarrowlyfocusedonhousingandeconomicdevelopmentandincreasinglyprofession-alized.Thewayinwhichthefielddeveloped—whichwasadirectresponsetopublicandprivatefundersandintermediaries—madetheseorganizationslessresponsivetotheirconstituentsandlessconcernedwiththesocialjusticeandchangemissionsthathadledtotheircreationinthefirstplace.
Stoeckerrepresentsoneview,claimingthatthepoliticaleconomyoftheprevalentCDCmodel sets up an“antagonistic relationship”betweenusevalue and exchange value (1997, 5). Further, the fact that the capital onwhichCDCsdependcomesfromoutsidetheneighborhoodsinwhichthey
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 753
workmeansthatCDCscannotnecessarilyservetheinterestsof“thecom-munity.”1Inarelatedcritique,FitzgibbondiscussesthedifficultyofCDCs’beingaccountabletoarangeofconstituenciesincluding“thepublicatlarge,thegovernment,donors,clients,andtheirownemployees”(1997,34).Ques-tioning theviabilityandusefulnessof“theCDCmodel,”Stoecker (2003)maintains thatalthough“communityorganizingandcommunitydevelop-menthavecomplementarygoals,theyarebasedonpotentiallycontradictoryworldviewsandoccupypotentiallycontradictorysocialstructurallocations”(493).Thewayoutofthisdilemma,recommendsStoecker(2003),istosepa-ratethefunctionsofcommunity-basedurbandevelopment:tocreateonesetoforganizations—CDCs—thatwilllimittheiractivitiestodevelopmentandanotherthatwillfocusonorganizingandempoweringthecommunitiesinwhichtheywork.2
Analternativeviewof theCDCmodelproposes that thisdualnatureasdeveloper andasorganizer andadvocate for the community facilitatesaccesstoexternalresourcesandiscriticalforCDCstofulfilltheirmission.Vidalarguesthat“thefoundationofthemovementisthecadreofCDCsthathavedemonstratedtheirabilitytomakeadifferenceintheircommunities.Accesstopoliticalandfinancialsupportfromoutsidetheneighborhoodiscriticaltotheirabilitytodothis”(1997,431).3Inotherwords,thefactthatCDCshavebeenabletoengageoutsidersintheissuesaffectingpoorcom-munitiesisapositiveaspectoftheirwork.HertakeonthefactthatCDCs’financial resources come from outside the community is markedly differ-ent from Stoecker’s (1997). Rather than separating housing developmentfromotheractivities,Vidalarguesthat“themovement’sfuturevitalityliesinfurtherdiversification,organizationaladaptationtonewroles,andiden-tificationofadditionalpartnersand stakeholders” (1997,429).However,theevidenceonwhetherCDCsshouldbemorecomprehensiveorspecializedis mixed. Although some researchers caution CDCs about the dangers ofcomprehensiveness (SteinbachandZdenek1999;Walker andWeinheimer1998),Rohe,Bratt,andBiswas,intheir2003studyofmerged,failed,anddownsizedCDCs, recommenddiversification.For them,diversificationof
1Bratt,inarejoindertoStoecker(1997),rightlypointsoutthat“anygiven‘community’iscomposedofcompetinginterestsandneeds”andthatitisverydifficulttodetermine“whoseinterestscomprisethoseof‘thecommunity’”(1997,24).
2Stoecker(1997)acknowledgesthatmanyCDCsdosomekindoforganizing(collabora-tive,etc.)butprivilegesconfrontationalorganizinginhiswork,becausehebelievesittobetheonlytypethatcanchallengecurrentstructural inequities.Fitzgibbon(1997)alsonotes thatorganizationsfocusedoncommunityorganizingfaceparticularchallengeswhenitcomestodefiningtheircommunity.
3Emphasisadded.SeealsoVidalandKeating2004.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
754 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
activities,geographicarea,clientele,andfundingsources“makesanorgani-zationlessvulnerabletochangesinbothfundingprioritiesandcommunitydesires”(2003,60).4
Any discussion of the role and activity of CDCs must also take intoaccountthepolicycontextinwhichtheirworktakesplace.Inthe40-oddyearsthatCDCshaveexisted,publicpolicyhasprovidedincentivesinvari-ous,oftenincongruous,directions.Theearlypartofthecommunitydevel-opmentmovementwasclearlymarkedbyamorecommunity-participatoryandadvocacy-drivenpolicyframework.Althoughtheserootsareimportant,thepassageofCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrantsbrought localpoli-ticstotheforefrontthroughtheallocationoffunding,andtheCommunityReinvestment Act brought banks and other financial institutions into themainstream of the community development industry. These forces clearlypulledCDCs’organizationaldevelopmenttowardabroadersetofprogramsasopposedtoanarrowhousingfocus.
TheLow-IncomeHousingTaxCredit(LIHTC),whichwasenactedin1986andmadepermanentin1993,introducedtheneedforamoretechnicalgroupofCDCsthatcouldstructurecomplexfinancialtransactionstotakeadvantageof suchan important federal subsidy to theaffordablehousingindustry.5TheevolutionofCDCsthatcouldtakeadvantageoftheLIHTCtodevelopaffordablehousinginsignificantwayswasinparttheresultofthesupportprovidedbyintermediaryorganizationsthatfacilitatedsyndication,suchasLocalInitiativesSupportCorporationorLISC(anditsaffiliatetheNationalEquityFund)andEnterprise(anditsaffiliatetheEnterpriseSocialCorporation).Alsoimportantwastheavailabilityofprivatesectorconsul-tantswiththeexpertisetomanagethecomplexitiesoftransactionsinvolvingmultiplesourcesoffinancingandtaxcredits.6FeesfrommanagingprojectsfinancedbytheLIHTC,inturn,providedresourcesforstaffandoperational
4Inanearlierstudy,RohesummarizedexistingworkandconcludedthatCDCs“followacomprehensiveapproachtodevelopment,respondtocommunityneeds,leveragefoundationsupport,andtargetlow-incomeandmoderate-incomeareas”(1998,177).
5Rosen and Dienstfrey report that the “CDC-based production system is marked byextremeconcentrationofcapacity”(1999,445),with10percentoforganizationsproducinghalfofallhousingunits.
6RosenandDienstfrey(1999)assert that thesuccessof the“CDC-basedhousingsys-tem”(454)ispartlyduetointermediaries’mobilizationofcapitalforprojects,predevelopmentfinancing,technicalassistanceforstructuringcomplexfinancialfinancing,impactonorgani-zations’capacitydevelopment,and,asaconsequence,theenhancementoforganizations’legit-imacywithfunders.Walker(1993)attributesCDCs’enhancedcapacitytoundertakehousingandcommunitydevelopmentprojectstotheassistanceandactivitiesofintermediaries.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 755
capacityandhelpedinstitutionalizeandstabilizeCDCs.Theconvergenceofthesevarious incentive structures for thedevelopmentofaffordablehous-ingand the interactionwithamultiplicityof localneedscalling forothereconomicandsocialinitiativesshapedtheprogramactivitiesofcommunitydevelopers.Inconjunctionwithotherhousingprograms,theLIHTCclearlyinducedspecializationinhousingamongasignificantnumberoforganiza-tionsinthefield.
BeforemakingnormativeassertionsaboutwhatCDCsshouldorshouldnotdo,itisimportanttoestablishthestatusquoandtogeneratesomehypo-thesesabouthowwearrivedatthecurrentsituation.WehaveconstructedacomprehensivedatasettoexaminesomeofthekeyhypothesespositedaboutCDCsandthecentralityoftheirhousingactivities.Itisimportantthatthisdebatebe informedbyaccurate,morerepresentativedatabecausepoliciesandfundingprioritiesareconstructedaroundassumptionsthatmayormaynotbetrue.Itisinthiscontextthatwestatethecoreresearchquestionsforthisstudy:1. TowhatextentareCDCsproducersofhousing?
2. What is the relationship between housing production and other pro-grammaticactivities?
Wearealsoparticularlyinterestedinorganizationsthatproducearel-atively large amount of housing. With respect to these organizations, wewouldliketoascertaintheanswerstotwointerrelatedquestions:1. Whatarethecharacteristicsandprogrammaticactivitiesofthoseorgani-
zationsthatproducearelativelylargeamountofhousing?
2. What factors may contribute to specialization as a (large) housingproducer?
To theextent that the fieldhasevolved towardamorecomplex rela-tionshipbetweenhousingproductionandotherprogrammaticactivities,wewill need to rethink assumptions, expectations, and evaluation models totakeintoaccountthenatureofthefieldasitexists(Chaskin,Joseph,andChipenda-Dansokho1997;Kubisch1996;SviridoffandRyan1996).
Our findingsbothconfirmsomeearlier researchandbegin toanswersomeoftheenduringquestionsabouttheseorganizations.Specifically,wefind that today’s typical nonprofit community-based, urban developmentorganizationislikelytohaveahousingprogram,althoughnotnecessarilyalargehousingdevelopmentprogram,andadiversifiedportfolioofeconomicandsocialdevelopmentactivitiesthatincludecommunityorganizing.How-
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
756 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
ever,wefindthatthefieldismorediverseintermsoftheroleofhousingdevelopment in a broad portfolio of CDCs’ programmatic activities thanearlierresearchwouldleadustobelieve.
WeclassifiedCDCsintofourtypesonthebasisofouranalysisofhous-ingproductionandotheractivitiesdata:Thefirsttypeconsistsofthefully20percent thatproducenohousingwhatsoever.The second type, on theoppositesideofthespectrum,consistsofthe18percentthatwecall“highproducers.”TheseCDCshaveproducedatleast500unitsduringthepast10yearsandarecharacterizedbyhigherbudgetsandstaffanddiversifiedeconomicdevelopmentandsocialservicesportfolios.Theremaining62per-centare“medium”producers,whichwedivideintoamiddlegroupof40percentthatengagesinlittleornootherhousingactivity(thethirdtype)andamiddlegroupof22percentthatengagessignificantlyinhousingproduc-tion,albeitnottotheextentthatthelargehousingproducersdo,andengagesextensivelyinotherhousingactivities(thefourthtype).
Oneofourmoreinterestingfindingsisthateventhoughweidentifyagroup of CDCs specializing in housing production and another group ofmiddle producers carrying a significant portfolio of other housing-relatedactivities,alltypesofhousingproducershave,forthemostpart,adiversifiedportfolioofeconomicandsocialdevelopmentprograms.AnothersignificantfindingisthatmostCDCshaveamodesthousingproductionandhousingactivities portfolio or no housing activities at all. These core findings arebasedonasurveyofcommunity-basedorganizationsthatengagedinatleastoneofabroadsetofeconomicdevelopmentactivitiesthatdefineaCDCandthusmetourinclusioncriteria.
Although it is generally accepted that the organizations that do com-munity-basedurbandevelopmentarediverse,weprovidedataabouthowonetypeoforganizationdiffersfromanother.Specifically,wecreateatypol-ogyoforganizationsbasedonhousingproductionandotherhousing-relatedactivities.UnderstandingthevarioustypesofCDCs,andtheirprevalence,shouldenablepolicymakersandfunderstocreatemoretargetedinterven-tionstobuildcapacityandsupporttheprogramsandactivitiesoftheseorga-nizations. This work would be particularly useful in areas where there isa mismatch between the need for affordable housing and the capacity ofexistingorganizationstoprovideit.Understandinginafine-grainedwaythecharacteristics of relatively large-scale housing producers may enable thiskindofcapacitytobebuiltinareasthatlackit.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 757
Method and dataThisstudyisbasedona2003telephonesurveyof393urban,commu-
nity-based development organizations (CBDOs) across the nation.7 OurmainobjectiveindefiningtheuniverseofnonprofitorganizationsthatcouldpotentiallybedefinedasCDCswastohavethemostcomprehensivelistpos-sible.Theuniverseforthestudyconsistsoftwopanels.Thefirst,intendedtoprovideauniversefortheselectionofarandomsampleofcases,includesalloftheorganizationsidentifyingcommunitydevelopmentactivitiesintheInternalRevenueService(IRS)Form990datasetcompiledbytheNationalCenterofCharitableStatistics(NCCS),not-for-profitdevelopersextractedfrom the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s LIHTCDatabase, andorganizations from lists providedbynational intermediaryorganizations(LISC,theEnterpriseFoundation,Seedco,andtheNeighbor-hood Reinvestment Corporation), and regional associations of CDCs.8 Asecond, nonrandom panel comprising organizations included in the Vidal(1992)studywasalsoaddedtoalloworganizationsandtheindustrytobecomparedovertime.9Intotal,theuniversefromwhichtodrawthesampleforthestudyincluded8,358organizations,asdescribedintable1.Fromthisuniverse,weselectedarandomsampleof992organizationsandadded110organizationsthatsurvivedfromtheoriginal130intheVidal(1997)study,foratotalof1,102.10Animportantdesignfeatureofthisstudyisthatabouthalfof the randomsample cases came from theLIHTCorNCCS listsoforganizations,mostofwhicharepresumednottobeaffiliatedwithnationalintermediaryorothermembershiporganizationsofCDCs, the traditionalsourcesforearlierstudies.11
Thefirststepwastodevelopasurvey,includingscreeningquestionsfordetermining organizations’ eligibility for inclusion. The survey combinedquestionsfromearlierstudies(GlickmanandServon2003;Vidal1992)and
7TheCommunityDevelopmentResearchCentercontractedwiththeCenterforSurveyResearchandAnalysisattheUniversityofConnecticuttoconductthesurvey.
8The total numberof cases collected from theseorganizationswas39,076.A total of28,296wereineligibleforvariousreasons:Theorganizationswereforprofit,wereduplicates,orwerelikelytobe“paper”organizations—entitiesthatwerecreatedfortaxpurposesandhadcontactinformationsimilartothatofotherorganizationsinthedataset.
9ThecomparisonofCDCs’dataovertimeisbeyondthescopeofthisarticle.10Weaddedthe110organizationsfromtheVidal(1997)studytogeneratedatafortwo
pointsintimeforasubsampleofCDCs.ThiswillallowustoassesschangesinCDCcharac-teristicsandproductionovertimeandtocomparethesecharacteristicsofarandomsampleoforganizations.
11Forexample,theNCCED(2005)censusofCBDOsconsistedofamailsurveyoforga-nizations listedonvariousmembershipandothermailingrosterscompiledbynationalandstateorganizations.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
758 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
newquestionsdesignedtoaddressaspecialtopicinthefield:CDCs’man-agementculture.Thesurveyconsistedofthefollowingsections:1. Screeningquestions,whichdeterminedwhethertheorganizationwould
bepartofthestudy
2. Organizationalcharacteristics,whichfocusedonoperationalbudgetandfundingsources,organizationalresources,socialprograms,connectionstootherorganizationsandagencies,andpoliticalandsocialcapital
3. Programsandactivities,whichaskedabouthousingdevelopmentpro-grams, commercialpropertydevelopment, andeconomicdevelopmentprograms
4. Anorganizationalsection,whichfocusedonleadershipandstaff,man-agementculture,andrelationshipswithotherorganizations
Wealsoaskedaboutsocialandothernoneconomicprogramsandactivi-ties,andaboutcommunityorganizingandadvocacy.
Becausetheyqualifyorganizationstobepartofthestudy,thescreeningquestionsareacriticalpartofthequestionnaire.12FollowingVidal(1992),wedefinedaqualifyingorganizationasanonprofit,urban,community-based
Table 1.DataSources,Sample,CompletedInterviewsandProjectedCases
Percent Includedin Adjusted ProjectedDataSources Eligible Sample theSample Interviews Yield Cases
Nationalintermediaries 4,160 379 9.11 92 0.23 943
Regionalassociations 1,558 111 7.12 32 0.25 384
Notaffiliated(NCCS,LIHTC) 4,852 502 10.35 181 0.39 1,900
Rebuildingcommunities 110 110 100.00 88 0.80 88
Total 10,680
Duplicatesacross 2,322 multiplelists
Completedinterviews 393
Partialinterviews 20
Othereligibles,including 106 aproportionofthe unknowneligibles
Total 8,358 1,102 13.18 519 3,315
12ThescreeningquestionsareincludedasappendixA.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 759
entity thatengages inat leastoneofabroadrangeofeconomicdevelop-mentactivities,suchasdevelopingoradministeringhousing,developingoradministeringcommercialproperty,orsupportingordevelopingbusinessesorcommercialenterprises.Wealsorequiredthattheorganizationbeengagedinatleastoneneighborhood-basedactivity.Weexcludedorganizationsthatdidnotengageinoneoftheseeconomicdevelopmentactivitiesordidnotfocustheirworkinatleastonetargetedneighborhood.Thisdefinitionalsoexcludedanypublicagencythatperformsasalocalorcommunity-focuseddevelopmentorganization.Similarly,thosecommunity-basedorganizationsthatengagedonlyinsocialservicesoradvocacyandorganizingbutdidnotengageinatleastonecommunityeconomicdevelopmentactivitywerenotincluded.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatmanyofthesurveyedorgani-zationsprovidesocialservicesalongwiththeirothereconomicdevelopmentactivities.
Thedefinitionofanonprofit,urban,CBDOadopted for the study islargelyconsistentwiththedefinitionsadoptedbyearlierstudies.Inparticu-lar,theNCCEDmailsurveyissentto“community-baseddevelopmentorga-nizationsservinglowandmoderateincomeareas”and“activelyengagedinproducingorfinancingaffordablehousing,developingcommercialorindus-trialspace,operatingabusiness,orprovidingcapitalloanstosupportotherbusinessenterprises”(2005,1).ThisdefinitionofaCBDOisverysimilartoourdefinitionofaCDCanddiffersfromourdefinitionprimarilyinitsinclu-sionofcommunity-basedfinancialinstitutionssuchascommunitydevelop-ment financial institutions (CDFIs).Ourdefinition ismore restrictiveandincludesonlyorganizationsthataredirectlyengagedinhousing,commercialrealestate,andeconomicdevelopmentactivities.
WhatmakestheCDCuniqueamongcommunity-basedorganizationsisthehybridlegalformthatallowsittofunctionasaquasi-businessandquasi-nonprofit.NotonlyistheCDCeligibleforanumberofgrantsfromgovern-mentsandfoundations,butitcanalsogeneraterevenuesfromitsinvestments,ownproperty,collaboratewithfor-profitdevelopers,andreceivetaxcredits(Bogart2003;GreenandHaines2002;Rubin2000;Vidal1992).Thedualnatureoftheorganization,asaneconomicdevelopmentagentordeveloperandasanonprofitwithabroadersocialmission,iswhatdifferentiatesCDCsfromothercommunity-basedorganizations.AsRubinstates,“Community-baseddevelopmentorganizationsintermediatebetweentheempatheticworldofsocialserviceprovidersandthedog-eat-dog,bottom-linementalityoffor-profitdevelopers”(2000,2).
ThenextstepinthestudywastoestimatethetotalnumberofurbanCDCsintheUnitedStates.Asillustratedintable2,screeningresultedinthe
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
760 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
eliminationof463organizations;mostofthem(338)didnotmeettheinclu-sion criteria as operationalized in the screening questions. In general, theresponserate is thenumberofcomplete interviewswitheligiblereportingunitsinthesample.Althoughcurrentprofessionalguidelinesprovidevariouscalculationsforresponserates,weestimatedarateof79.5percent,assumingaproportionalallocationofunknowncases,and61.6percent,makingthemoreconservativeassumptionthatalltheunknowncaseswouldhavebeeneligibletoparticipateinthesurvey.13Ifeveryorganizationinthenonrandomportion of the cases is assumed to be eligible, we estimated the responseratetobe79.3percent.Therefusalrateistheproportionofalleligibleorpotentiallyeligiblecaseswherearespondentrefusestocompleteorbreaksoffaninterview.Assumingthatallunknowncasesintherandomsampleareeligiblerespondentsyieldsarefusalrateof7.2percent.Arefusalratethatapportionsunknowncasesaccordingtothesameestimate(41percent)usedforresponseratesyieldsarefusalrateof3.8percent.Therefusalrateforthenonrandomsampleis3.0percent.Onthebasisoftheseresponseandrefusalrates,weconcludedthatthestudyyieldedarepresentativesetofcasesanddatafromtheuniverse.
Weusedtheinformationfromthescreeningofcasesforinclusioninthesurvey toestimate the sizeof theurbanportionof the industry.Thepro-jectedtotalnumberofcasesorurbanCDCswasestimatedbymultiplyingthenumberofcasesfromthevariouslistsoforganizationsincludedintheuniverseforthesamplebytheproportionofeligiblecasesresultingfromthescreening.Then, thepredictednumberofurbanCDCswasused todeter-minetheoverallprobabilityofselectionandtheweightsforindividualcases(theinverseoftheprobabilityofselection).Accordingtotheseprocedures,the estimated number of urban CDCs is 3,315. Although this estimate issimilar to theNCCED (2005)projections,our studymethoddiffers fromothermajorsurveysandstudiesoftheindustry(GlickmanandServon2003;NCCED1999;RomeoandLampkin2002;Vidal1992;WalkerandWein-heimer1998) in some importantdimensions,whichprobablyaccount formuchofthedifferenceintheestimatedsizeoftheindustry.Thetwostudiesthathaveobjectivesmoresimilar tooursareNCCED(2005)andRomeoandLampkin(2002).
13FortheNot-for-ProfitRandomSample,eligibilitywasconsideredunknowniftherewasnoanswerorifnocontactwasmadeafternumerousattempts;ifcontactwasmadewithanansweringmachineorvoicemail,butnohumancontactwasmade;orifanonprofitrefusedtotakethesurveybeforeeligibilitywasdetermined.Partial interviewswere included intheanalysisandaretreatedasinterviewsforcalculatingtheresponserate.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 761
OursurveydiffersfromtheNCCED(2005)studyinatleastthreeimpor-tantmethodologicalordesigndimensions.14First,incontrasttooursurvey,which includedonlyurbanorganizations, theNCCED(2005) surveywassenttobothruralandurbanorganizations(a10-pagesurveywasmailedtomorethan7,000organizations).Inadditiontomailresponses,180surveyswerecollectedfromnonrespondents.Intotal,999organizationsrespondedtothesurveyand,asindicatedintable3,thetotalnumberofCDCsispro-jectedat4,600,orabout4.5timesthenumberofrespondents.15Second,ourstudyisbasedonatelephonesurveyofarandomsampleofurbanCBDOs.Thisallowedustoscreenorganizationsandtocollectdataontheaccuracyoryieldofthevariouslistsusedtocompiletheuniverseforthestudy.Third,thesampleforourstudywastakenfromamorecomprehensiveuniverseofpotentiallyqualifyingorganizations.
Althoughtheuniverseforourstudyisroughlythesamesizeastheorigi-nal lists of organizations in the NCCED (2005) study, we excluded ruralorganizations(basedontheZIPcodelistedforthemainoffices)andsup-
Table 2. SurveyResults
Totalsample 1,102
Randomsample 991
Ineligible 463
Unknowneligibility 165
Unscreenedrefusal(unknowneligibility) 38
Partialinterviewsandothers 20
Completedinterviews 305
Responserate(withproportionalallocationoftheunknowns) 79.5%
Responserate(assumingallunknownsarenoteligible) 61.6% Nonrandomsample 111
Refusal 3
Completedinterviews 88
Responserate 79.3%
Totalcompletedinterviews 393
14NCCEDhasproducedfivereportsonthetrends,characteristics,andcontributionsofCDCsorCBDOs(1989,1991,1995,1999,2005).Themostrecentsurvey,whichwaswrittenbyCarolSteinbach,wasimplementedbytheUrbanInstitute,withtechnicaldesignandadmin-istrationassistancefromAspenSystemsCorporation.
15IfonlyurbanCDCsareconsidered,theNCCED(2005)surveyestimatedtheirnumberatabout3,400,afigurecomparabletoourestimate.The3,400figureincludesurbanCDFIsaswell.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
762 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
plemented the lists providedby intermediaries andother industry sourceswithcasesfromtwopotentialsourcesofnonaffiliatedorganizations,therebyexpanding theuniverseofcases for inclusion.Thus,ourestimatespertainonlytourbanorganizations,whereastheNCCED(2005)studyprojectionsincludebothurbanandruralCDCs.
Otherstudiesoftheindustryarelesscomparabletoourresearchdesignandmethod.TheRomeoandLampkin(2002)studyisbasedondatafromtheForm990 that nonprofits use to report to the IRS.Their estimateof9,307organizationsissubstantiallylargerthanours.Thedifferencecorre-spondsinparttoaselectionofprogramsratherthanorganizations,withoutcontrolling forduplicate entries, and inpart toa selectionof casesbasedonthekeywordslistedbytheorganizationsontheirForm990,insteadofactualscreening.However,weusedthedatasetoforganizationsfilingForm990tosupplementtheuniverseoforganizationsfromwhichweselectedthesampleforthestudy.16TheotherthreeprimarystudiesontheCDCindustry(GlickmanandServon2003;Vidal1992;WalkerandWeinheimer1998)arerestrictedtoaselectionofcitiesandorganizationsanddonotintendtoberepresentativeofthefieldasawhole.Insum,byintegratingthecollectionoflistsusedbytheNCCED(2005)studyandorganizationaldatafromthesamesourceusedbytheRomeoandLampkin(2002)study,weassembledamorecomprehensiveuniverseoforganizations.Selectingarandomsamplefromamorecomprehensiveuniverseandscreeningqualifyingorganizationsforinclusioninourstudysupportamorereasonableestimateofthesizeoftheindustry.
Table 3. Earlier Studies of the Community Development Field
Author/Year Method Definition Scope Estimate
NCCED(2005) Mailsurvey Housingandeconomic National 4,600 development
RomeoandLampkin(2002) NCSSdatabase Housingandeconomic National 9,307 development
Vidal(1992) Sitevisits “Mature”CDCs 30cities N=130WalkerandWeinheimer(1998) Sitevisitandsurvey “Accomplished”CDCs 23cities N=163GlickmanandServon(2003) Survey PartnershipCDCs 20cities N=218 andcomparisongroup
16Wearethankfultotheauthorsforsharingthedatasetandforhelpinguscompiletheuniverseforthisstudy.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 763
Analysis: Findings and discussionGiventheaforementioneddebatesonthefocusofCDCs’activities,weset
outtodeterminewhatCDCsactuallydofromaprogrammaticperspective.ThereisnoapriorireasontoassumethatoneparticulartypeofCDCwouldemergeorthatCDCswouldclusterintodistinctivegroups.Usinghousingdevelopmentandhousingactivitiesastheprimarydiscerningvariables,ouranalysis revealeda typologyof fourdistinct typesofurbanCBDOs.ThistypologyenablesustoconfirmsomeearlierresearchonCDCs,suchasthefactthatmostofthemproducehousingorengageinhousingactivities.Ourworkaddsvaluebypinpointing the specific typesofhousingactivities inwhich they engageand theprecise amountsofhousing theyproduce.WealsomovebeyondearlierstudiesbypaintingamuchmoredetailedpictureofCDCs’activities.Thispicturepromptsustoquestionthecontinuedrelevanceoftheterm“communitydevelopmentcorporation.”Itmaybemoreusefultobreakthiscategorydownintomorespecificgroupsbasedonourfindings.
TypologyofhousingproducersOurstudyinvolvedusingclusteranalysistoillustratethevarioustypes
ofhousingproducersandthediversityofportfoliocompositionacrossthefourtypesofCDCsweidentified.First,becausehousingproductionisthemainfocusofouranalysis,weusedanaverageof50unitsproducedorreha-bilitatedannuallyduringtheprevious10years,oracumulativetotalof500units,asanindicatorofalargeproducer.Onempiricalgrounds,thisnumberseemedtodifferentiatelargeproducersfromotherCDCs.17Becausehousingproductioncouldbedefinedintermsofeitherthetotalunitsrehabilitatedordevelopedasnewconstructionorintermsofthetotalnumberofunitspro-ducedforhomeownershiporrental,wedecidedtoincludetheorganizationsthatmettheminimumthresholdbasedoneitheroneofthesedefinitions.18
After defining the group of large housing producers, we integratedseparateorganizationswithnohousingproductionduringtheprevious10
17Wetestedvariouscutoffpointsincombinationwiththeclusteranalysis(tobeexplainedlater).Differentcutoffpointsdidnotproduceabettergroupingoforganizationswhenother(thanproduction)housingactivitieswereconsidered.
18WefollowthedefinitionofoutputusedbyVidal(1992,66):“CDCsengagedinhousingdevelopmenthaveeitherrehabilitatedexistingunitsorbuiltnewones.”However,byincludingorganizationsthatmeetthe500thresholdineitherofthesetwomeasures,wereconcilesomeinconsistenciesinthedatareportedbytheorganizationsaboutthenumberofunitsbuiltorrehabilitatedandwhethertheseunitswereconstructedtobesoldtothepublic,builtasrentalunitskeptby thedevelopingorganization,built foraclientorganization,orownedby thedeveloperbutmanagedbyanotherorganization.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
764 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
yearsandcreateda secondgroupofCDCs.We labeled the secondgroup“non–housingproducers.”19Thoughthesetwoextremeswereobviouscut-offsfromthedistributionofthesamplebasedexclusivelyonlevelsofhous-ingproduction, theremainingmiddlegrouppresentedamorechallengingtask.Thequestion thatwe facedwaswhether the remainingCDCscouldbedividedintoone,two,ormoregroupsandwhatthecut-offpointswouldbeifwedeterminedthatthereweresubstantialdifferencesinthecases.WeusedclusteranalysisofCDCs’participationinother(nonproduction)hous-ingactivitiestodividethemiddlegroup.ClusteranalysisallowedustofirstdifferentiatestructuresandthentodeterminethenumberofgroupingsthatwouldmaximizethedegreeofassociationbetweenCDCsiftheybelongtothesamegroupandtominimizeassociationacross theresultinggroups.20WeusedEuclideandistance toestimate thegeometricdistanceamong themultiplehousingactivitiesavailablefromthesurvey(listedintable4).21
Themeansforthevariablesusedintheclusterprocedurefortheresult-ing groupings are shown in table 4. Ultimately, we divided medium pro-ducers into two groups. The first consisted of those with lower housingproductionandfewerhousingactivities,andthesecondhadhigherhousingproductionandamoreactivehousingprogram.Thoseinthesecondgroupwiththehighestaverageofhousingproductionanddevelopmentalsohaveahigherincidenceofengaginginthefollowingprograms:homeownershipandloanscounseling(2.36to0.79),tenantrightscounseling(0.65to0.40),repairof existingunitsandclean-upcampaigns (1.62 to0.84), andotherhousingactivities.
Basicdescriptiveandproductiondataforthefourtypesofhousingpro-ducersarepresentedintable5.Thegroupoforganizationsproducing500ormoreunitsduringthepreviousdecade(highproducers)isthesmallestgroup,with an estimated581organizations representing18percentof the total.AlthoughlikeearlierstudieswefoundthatmostCDCsproducehousingor
Table 4.MeansfortheVariablesUsedtoGeneratetheTwoClustersofMediumProducers
19Asinthecaseofthelargegroup,thecut-offpointforthisgroupprovedtodifferentiateorganizationsintermsoftheirprofileofactivitiesotherthanhousingproduction.
20Clusteranalysiswasusedtotestwhetherthegroupingresultingfromexperimentsthatincludedbothproductionandotherhousingactivityvariableswouldyieldsimilarresults.Wefoundthatcombiningproductionandhousingactivitydataminimizedthelogicalimportanceattributedtoproductioninouranalysis.Housingproductionwasreducedtoonemoreele-mentamongequalswhendeterminingthegroupings.Whenweseparate intotwosteps theprocedurefordevelopingthetypology,theresultinggroupings(oftwo,three,orfourtypesofCDCs)didnotshowthesamedifferencesinproductionandnonproductionactivitiesasthosereportedinthearticle.
21Euclideandistanceiscomputedasdistance(x,y)={Σi(Xi-Yi)2}–whereXiisthevalueof
variableXatobservationi,andYiisthevalueofvariableYatobservationi.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 765
engageinhousingactivities,fully21percentproducenohousingatall.22Thelargest categoryofCDCs (40percent) consistsofmediumproducers thatengageinfewotherhousingactivities.Theremaining22percentaremediumproducersthatdoengageinotherhousing-relatedactivities.Thisgrouphassubstantialhousingactivities thatoftenexceed the levelofnonproductionactivitiesofthehighgroup.
We find important differences in housing production and ownershipamongthefourtypesoforganizationsoverthepastdecade.Bydesign,highproducershavethemostmeanandmedianlevelsofunitsofhousingbuiltorrehabilitatedorcurrentlyowned.Theseorganizationshavehousingproduc-tionorownershipthatismorethan10timesthatofmediumproducers.Forexample,over theprecedingdecade, themean for rental andhomeownerunitscompletedwas1,088unitsforhighproducersversusameanof127formediumproducerswithhousingactivitiesand106forthosewithfewhous-ingactivities(table5).Thedifferenceinthemedianandmeanlevelsforhighproducersindicatesthatthisgroupisfurtherbifurcated,withaselectgroupoforganizationsachievingsignificantscaleinhousingdevelopment.Identi-fyingthisclearlydistinctgroupofhighproducersisanimportantfinding.Whatdoestable5’sdistributionofCDCsacrossthefourcategoriestellusaboutthecommunitydevelopmentfield?First, it ischaracterizedbygreatdiversityamonghousingproducers.OnewaytoassesswhetherthesefourgroupscanbeconsideredCDCtypesor“models”istoassesstheiroverallportfolioofhousingandnonhousingactivities.
Table 4.MeansfortheVariablesUsedtoGeneratetheTwoClustersofMediumProducers
Cluster
Activity 1 2
Homeownershiploansandcounseling(0–3) 0.79 2.36
Repairexistingunitsandclean-upcampaigns(0–2) 0.84 1.62
Rentalconversionandhousingacquisition(0–2) 0.29 0.62
Propertymanagement(0–1) 0.53 0.57
Tenantsrights,counseling,oradvocacy(–1) 0.40 0.65
22Thisfindingdifferssignificantlyfromthe1991and1995NCCEDreportsandfromVidal(1992),allofwhichfoundthat90percentofCDCsengagedinhousing.WeattributethisdifferencetotheinclusionofabroadergroupoforganizationsaddedfromtheNCCED(2005)datasettotheuniverseforthestudy.Althoughtheycarryoutcommunityeconomicdevelop-mentactivities,theydonotproduceanyhousingandengageinminimalhousingactivities.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
766 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
ToassessCDCs’housingactivityportfolio,welistintable6bygrouptheproportionofCDCsthatengageineachoftheninehousingactivities.Whilehousingactivitiesaregenerallyhighlycorrelatedwithhousingproduc-tion,thisgeneralfindingdoesnotapplytotherankingofactivitiesbetweenthehighproducersandthemediumproducerswithhighhousingactivities.Thelatteroutrankallothergroups,includingthehighproducers,insevenoftheninehousingactivitiesweinquiredabout,withtheexceptionofcondo-miniumconversionandpropertymanagement.Thesetwoareexceptionsinotherwaysaswell.Condominiumconversionisanegligibleactivitythat,forexample,only6percentofthehighproducerscarryintheirportfolio.Con-versely,propertymanagementisoneofthehighest-rankingactivitiesforallthegroupsrelativetootherhousingprogramming.Housingpreservation(asindicatedby“weatherizationand/orrepairofexistingunits”),homeowner-shipcounseling,andpropertymanagementaretheactivitieswiththehigh-
HousingProducers
Medium Medium High NotaProducer Producerwith Producer Produceror inthePast FewHousing withHousing Developerof Group 10Years Activities Activities 500orMoreUnits Total
Validnumber—sample(%) 77 152 83 81 393Validnumber—weighted(%) 698 1,317 719 581 3,315Frequency—weighted(%) 21 40 22 18 100
500ormoreunitsinthe 0 0 0 100 18 past10years(%)
500ormorerehabilitationand 0 0 0 83 15 newconstructionunitsinthe past10years(%)
500ormorehomeownership 0 0 0 79 14 andrentalunitsinthe past10years(%)
Mean10-yearsumofrental 0 106 127 1,088 261 andhomeownershiphousing unitscompleted(%)
Median10-yearsumofrental 0 60 84 850 57 andhomeownershiphousinghousing unitscompleted(%)
Mean10-yearsumofnew 0 114 137 1,441 328 constructionandrehabilitation housingunitscompleted(%)
Median10-yearsumofnew 0 80 95 903 78 constructionandrehabilitation housing units completed (%)housingunitscompleted(%)
Table 5.DescriptiveStatisticsofFourTypesofCDCHousingProducers
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 767
estproportionofCDCsparticipating.Thenonproducercategorydoesnotengageinmuchhousing-relatedactivity.
Overall, thesedatarevealgreatvariationamongurbanCDCs’portfo-lioofhousingactivities,withthemediumproducerswithhousingactivitieshavingthehighestoverallengagementinhousingactivitiesotherthanhous-ingdevelopment.Takentogether,thesesignificantvariationsinhousingpro-ductionandother(nonproduction)housingactivitiesvalidateatypologyofCDCsbasedontherelativeimportanceofhousingintheiroverallportfolio.
TheprevalenceofnonhousingactivitiesinCDCs’portfoliosThus farwehaveassesseddifferences among the four typesofCDCs
basedonhousingactivities.An importantquestion that follows fromourreview of the literature is whether housing production is associated withamoreor lessdiversifiedportfolioofactivities.Togauge the intensityofeach category’s involvement in various non-housing-related activities, wecreated a scale of the various activities that comprise the organizational
HousingProducers
Medium Medium High NotaProducer Producerwith Producer Produceror inthePast FewHousing withHousing Developerof GroupHousingActivity 10Years(%) Activities(%) Activities(%) 500orMoreUnits Total(%)
Weatherizationand/or 8 55 92 68 55 repairofexistingunits(%)
Residentialclean-uporpaint 6 29 70 49 37 campaigns(%)
Conversionofrentalunitsto 1 5 0 6 3 co-oporcondominium(%)
Housingacquisitionto 4 24 62 51 33 preventdisplacementor preserveaffordability(%)
Propertymanagement 10 53 57 73 48 services(%)
Administrationofloan 6 19 72 55 34 Funds(%)
Anti–Predatorylending 9 19 71 56 35 campaignorprogram(%)
Tenantsrights,counseling, 12 40 65 58 43 oradvocacy(%)
Homeownershipcounseling(%) 11 42 94 79 53
Table 6.TypeofHousingProducersbyHousingActivity
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
768 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
portfolio.23Anexaminationoftheportfoliocompositionofthefourtypesof producers reveals that CDCs engage in a substantial amount of non-housing-relatedactivityandthat,forthemostpart,theyarenotnarrowlyfocusedonhousing.
Table7showsthescoresforvarious indexesofnonhousingeconomicdevelopmentandsocialserviceandeducationalactivities.Asagroup,CDCsengageinawiderangeofcommunitydevelopmentactivities.However,con-trarytoexpectationsbasedontheliterature,thedatasuggestthatspecializa-tioninhousingproductionandactivitiesisnotassociatedwithalessdiverseprogram portfolio. In all activities except incubator programs, large andmediumproducerswithhousingactivitieshaveahigherindexofnonhousingactivitiesthannonhousingproducersormediumproducerswithfewhousingprograms.Infact,mediumhousingproducerswithhousingactivitiesexhibitthehighestscoresinthreeofthefournonhousingactivitiescategories.Thedata in table7also suggest that theportfolioofnonhousingproducers issomewhatlessdiversifiedthanthatofhousingproducersandthathousingproductionmightactuallybethefoundationforamorediversifiedcommu-nitydevelopmentportfolio.Thesefindingsclearlycontradictthecontentionthathousingspecializationisassociatedwithlessengagementinothercom-munitydevelopmentactivities(GoetzandSidney1994;Stoecker1997).
Further,examinationofbudgetdataclearlyrefutesthenotionthathous-ingdevelopmentandotherhousingactivitiestypicallyprevailoveramorebalancedportfoliowherenonhousingactivitiesplayasignificantrole.Rather,anexaminationofthebudgetallocationdataforcoreeconomicdevelopmentactivities includinghousing (presented in table8) supports theperspectivethatthereissignificantdiversitywithinthefield.Thereportedhousingbud-getasapercentageoftheoverallbudgetforthethreecategoriesofCDCsthat produce housing was approximately 33 percent (not shown in table8).24 Housing may represent the largest portion of their budgets, but the
23Thegroupingofvariablesisbasedonfactoranalysesconductedforeachofthetypesofactivities(socialandeducational,economicdevelopment,andhousing).Forexample,thescaleidentifiedas“homeloansandcounseling”includesthethreeyes/novariables:administrationofloanfunds,anti–predatorylendingcampaignorprogram,andhomeownershipcounseling.The loadingof thesevariables inthefactoranalysis indicatedthat theseactivitiesareoftenimplementedbytheorganizationsascomplementaryactivities.
24As is thecasewithotherstudies, thedatareportedhereareaffectedbythefact thatCDCsbudgetinverydiverseways.Theinformationusedinouranalysiswasobtainedbyask-ingCDCswhattheir“totalannual(coreoperating)budget,excludingconstruction”wasforthepastfiscalyear.Inaddition,respondentswereaskedtoindicateforavarietyofspecifiedfunding sources, includingother sources, “the approximatedollar amountof funding theyprovidefor[their]coreoperatingbudget.”Inafewcases,thetotalofthesefundingsourceswassuperiortothereportedoperatingbudget.Inthosecases,weusedthehighestvalueinourbudgetanalysis.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 769
lion’sshareisusedforotheractivities.The21percentofCDCsthatdonotproducehousing tend togivepriority toeconomicdevelopmentactivities,whichaccountfor27percentoftheirbudget;forotherCDCs,expendituresforeconomicdevelopmentprogramsrepresentedasmallfractionoftheover-allbudget.Atthesametime,housingclearlyremainsimportanttothefield.ThesefindingslendcredibilitytoVidal’sassertionthat“CDCsthattrulyareinterestedindoing‘only’housingarefewandfarbetween.Muchmorecom-monaretheCDCsthathaveabroadmissionofcommunityimprovementandtothatendengageinavarietyofcommunityimprovementactivities”(1997,430).
CharacteristicsofhighproducersGiventhefindingofawell-definedgroupof18percentofCDCsthat
producearelativelylargeamountofhousingcomparedwithotherCDCs,wewantedtogainabetterunderstandingofthecharacteristicsassociated
HousingProducers
Medium Medium High NotaProducer Producerwith Producer Produceror inthePast FewHousing withHousing Developerof Group 10Years Activities Activities 500orMoreUnits Total
Socialandeducationalactivities
Jobtrainingandeducational 1.39 1.32 1.94 1.87 1.56 (scale0to5)
Socialservices 0.80 1.13 1.57 1.18 1.16 (scale0to5)
Allsocialandeducational 2.19 2.45 3.51 3.05 2.72 activities(scale0to10)
Economicdevelopment
Incubator(scale0to6) 1.67 0.58 0.94 0.88 0.94
Venturecapital(scale0to3) 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.13
Communityequity(scale0to3) 0.19 0.09 0.26 0.13 0.15
Commercialdevelopment 0.43 0.25 0.30 0.42 0.33 (scale0to1)
AlleconomicDevelopment 2.39 1.03 1.61 1.65 1.55 scale(0to12)
Totalofnonhousingactivities 4.58 3.48 5.12 4.70 4.27 (scale0to22)
Table 7.Social,Educational,andEconomicDevelopmentActivitiesbyTypeofHousingProducers
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
770 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
withhighproduction.Thisisimportantbecauseofpersistentconcernsaboutscalabilityandbecauseofthepresumptionthatlargerproducerswouldhavegreater expertise and resources. Specification of these characteristics mayalsofacilitatesupportforthecreationandstabilityofthesetypesoforgani-zations.Asnotedpreviously,wefindthatmostCDCsengageinarelativelydiverserangeofactivities.Ifthenonhousingactivitiesportfoliois“compre-hensive” (a conceptwidelyused in the field), thequestion thenbecomes:Whatarethetypesofactivitiesthataremoreconducivetohousingproduc-tionoraremoreassociatedwithhighhousingproduction?Weusealogisticregressionmodel to explain theodds thataCDCwillbelong to thehighgroup.Thelogisticregressionequationisasfollows:
logit(P)=α+β1X1+…+βiXi (1)
wherelogit (P) is the log of the odds that a CDC will belong to thehighhousingproducergroup(Highhpd),αistheconstantoftheequation,andβisthecoefficientofthepredictorvariablesX.ThedependentvariableHighhpd(0,1)equals1iftheorganizationcompleted500ormoreunitsofnewconstructionorrehabilitationor500ormorerentalandhomeowner-ship units over the past 10 years. Table 9 specifies the definitions of thevariablesincludedinthemodelandsummarizestheirmeansandstandard
HousingProducers
Medium Medium High NotaProducer Producerwith Producer Produceror inthePast FewHousing withHousing Developerof Group 10Years Activities Activities 500orMoreUnits Total
Housingbudgetaspart 6 33 36 40 28 oftheannualbudget(%)
Economicdevelopment 27 2 3 4 7 budgetaspartof theannualbudget(%)
Commercialproperty 6 2 1 3 3 developmentbudget aspartofthe annualbudget(%)
Table 8. EconomicDevelopmentBudgetCategoriesasPercentageoftheTotalBudget
Note:Thereportedbudgetsarecorrectedtobeconsistent,becausenotallCDCsreportedallthebudgetinformation(between5and18percentofCDCsineachgroupdidnotatleastreportonebudgetcategory).Incaseswithdifferencesinthetotalbudgetreportedandthesumofthebudgetbycategories,weusedthesumofthebudgetbycategoriestoreportpercentages.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 771
deviations.Forinstance,about20percentofCDCshavealargecapacityasmeasuredbyalargestaffandbudget,42percentareaffiliatedwithnationalintermediaryorganizations,and72.8percentofboardmembersofthetypi-calurbanCDCarelocalresidents.
Table10presentstheresultsfortwotypesofmodels.Thefirstisabaselinemodelwithcontrolvariablesfororganizationalcapacity.FollowingVidal’s(1992)analysisofmatureCDCsandtheworkonCDCcapacitybyGlick-manandServon(1999,2003),weassumethatorganizationalcharacteristicsinfluence the “scale of their physical output” (Vidal 1992, 90–91).Thesecharacteristicsincludetheorganization’ssizeasmeasuredbylargebudgets
Table 9.DefinitionofVariablesforSurveyLogisticRegressionModel
StandardDefinition Mean Deviant
Dependentvariable
Highhpd Housingproducersandthedevelopersthathave 0.18 0.38 produced500ormoreunitsinthepast10Years
Independentvariables
large Largecapacity,asdeterminedbyhavinga 0.20 0.40 budgetof$1millionorhigherandastaffsize of26ormore
age AgeoftheCDC 21.5 13.3
loghstok LogofthehousingstockintheareaservedbytheCDC 10.4 1.62
affil Affiliationwithnationalintermediaries 0.42 0.49
comptrai Staffcomputertraining 0.30 0.46
prctbres Localresidentsasapercentageoftheboard 72.8 33.2
tenure Tenureoftheexecutivedirector(years) 9.27 7.76
staffturn Professionalstaffturnover(basedonthetotalofpart-time, 11.0 18.0 full-time,andvolunteerprofessionalstaff)(%)
phousb Housingbudgetasapercentageofthecorrected 22.9 34.7 annualbudget
prctbbus Representativesoflocalbusinessesandfinancial 29.4 23.5 institutionsasapercentageoftheboard
housact Housingactivity(scale0to9) 3.40 2.46
jobtraedu Jobtrainingandeducation(scale0to5) 1.56 1.33
socserv Socialservices(scale0to5) 1.16 1.54
econdev Economicdevelopment(scale0to12) 1.22 1.90
orgact Numberofcommunityorganizingand 2.16 1.41 advocacyactivities(scale0to4)
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
772 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
andstaffs, the importanceof theprogramarea(asmeasuredbyhousing’sshareofthetotalannualbudget),andthegroup’sexperienceandleadershipstability(usingtheageoftheorganization,professionalstaffturnover,andthetenureoftheexecutivedirectorasproxies).Otherorganizationalvari-ablesaretheproportionofrepresentativesoflocalbusinessesandfinancialinstitutionsandlocalresidentsontheCDC’sboardandtheproportionofemployeesreceivingcomputertraining.Finally,thebaselinemodelincludescontrolvariables for thesizeof themarketwhereCDCsoperate (asmea-suredbythehousingstockofthetargetarea)andforwhethertheCDCisaffiliatedwithanational intermediary(an indicatorofnetworkcapacity).Toestimatethesecondlogisticregressionmodel,weaddtothecoremodelorbaselineequationsomevariablestomeasuretheimportanceoftheport-folioasadeterminantofhighhousingproduction.Inadditiontohousingactivities,variablesforprogramactivitiesincludejobtrainingandeducation,socialservices,economicdevelopment,andthenumberofcommunityorga-nizingandadvocacyactivities.
Inthecontextofthesemodels,theoddsratioisawayofcomparingtheeffectofagivenvariable in theodds thataCDCwillbelong to thehighhousingproducer groupversus theodds that itwill belong to anyof theother groups, controlling for, or net of, the relative effects of other vari-ablesinthemodel.Thebaselinemodelshowsprimarilytwothings:first,thatresourcesandorganizationalstabilityincreasedtheoddsthatanorganiza-tionwillbelongtothehighgroupand,second,thattheboardsofdirectorsofthisgrouparecomposeddifferentlyfromtheboardsofothersuchorga-nizations.Astothefirstfinding,boththevariablethatcombinesstaffsizeandbudget(large)tocontrolforresourcesandthespecializationinhousing(asmeasuredbytheshareofhousingactivitiesfromthetotalbudget)have,asexpected,greaterthan1andsignificantoddsratiosforlargehousingpro-ducers.Havingalargecapacityincreasestheoddsofbelongingtothehighgroupbya factorof5.409,whilea1percent increase in theshareof thebudgetdevotedtohousingincreasestheoddsbyafactorof1.018.25Largestaffandbudgethavethehighestoddsamongallothervariablesforbelong-ingtothehighgroup.AlthoughtheageoftheCDCisnotasignificantfactorin the equation, other variables used as proxies for organizational stabil-ityimprovetheoddsofbeingalargehousingproducer.Highprofessionalstaffturnoverreducestheoddsofbeingahighproducer(0.964),whilethetenureoftheexecutivedirectorsincreasestheodds(1.033).Affiliationwith
25Anoddsratioof1impliesthattheCDCisequallylikelytobelongtoeithergroup.Anoddsratioofgreaterthan1impliesthattheCDCismorelikelytobelongtothehighgroup.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 773
Table 10.SurveyLogisticRegressionResultsforBelongingtotheHighGroup
Model1 Model2 (Baseline) (BaselineandPrograms)
large 5.409*** 6.627*** (2.080) (3.127) age 0.998 1.001 (0.013) (0.016) loghstok 1.322*** 1.428*** (0.115) (0.168) affil 2.800*** 2.257** (0.994) (0.866) comptrai 1.976** 1.983* (0.695) (0.745) prctbres 0.989** 0.986*** (0.005) (0.986) tenure 1.033* 1.022 (0.020) (0.020) staffturn 0.964*** 0.956*** (0.013) (0.014) phousb 1.018*** 1.015*** (0.005) (0.005) prctbbus 1.020*** 1.018** (0.007) (0.008)
housact 1.392*** (0.154)
jobtraedu 1.024 (0.178)
socserv 0.739**` (0.091)
econdev 0.975 (0.095)
orgact 0.975 (0.164)
n 393 393
N 3,315 3,315 Prob>F 0.0000 0.0011
Note:Standarderrorsappearinparentheses.*p<0.10.**p<0.05.***p<0.01.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
774 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
nationalintermediariesandthehousingstockoftheserviceareastargetedbytheorganizations(withoddsratioof2.800and1.322,respectively)alsoimprovetheoddsofbelongingtothehighgroup.Finally,itisimportanttohighlightthathigh-producingorganizationsarepredictedbythepresenceofalargerproportionofbusinesspartners(1.026)andalowerproportionofcommunityrepresentatives(0.987)ontheboard.26ThisfindingisrelevantforthedebatewithinthecommunitydevelopmentfieldovertheextenttowhichCDCsremainrootedintheircommunities.Wewilldiscussthisfindinginmoredetaillater.
Thesecondlogisticregressionmodelrevealstheimportanceandcomple-mentaritiesofhousingactivitiesforthelikelihoodofbelongingtothehighgroup.Theodds ratio for the scaleofninehousing activities (housact) is1.392 and is significant at the 0.01 level. The implication is that a morediversifiedhousingportfolioincreasestheoddsthataCDCwillbeahighhousingproducerinsteadofbelongingtoanyoftheothergroupsbyafactorof1.392.Ofalltheotherprogrammaticportfolioactivities,ahigherscoreinthesocialservicesindexreducestheoddsthatanorganizationwillbelonginthehighgroupbyafactorof0.739.Thesefindingsleadtoanimportantobservation.Highhousingproducersspecialize inhousingproductionbutarealsomorelikelytoparticipateinothernonproductionhousingactivitiesthantheotherCDCtypesusedasareferencegroup.Othereconomicdevel-opment,educationalandjobtraining,ororganizingandtrainingactivitieswerenotrelatedtoaCDC’sbelongingtothehighgroup.
Theresultsfromthelogitmodelsareconsistentwithourprioranalysisofthedata.Overall,theevidenceindicatesthathousingisthefoundationforamorecomprehensivesetofcommunitydevelopmentactivitiesthanwouldbeexpectedfromdiscussionsofthistopictodate.AlthoughsomescholarshavepointedtothediversityofactivitiespursuedbyCDCs(Brophy&ReillyLLC 2001; Vidal 1997), others maintain that CDCs are much more nar-rowlyfocusedonhousing.Eisenberg,forexample,assertsthatmanyCDCs“dropped their organizing, advocacy, and community leadership devel-opment activities” to focus almost exclusivelyonhousing (2000, 3).Ourresearchshows,however,thathavingfewornohousingactivitiesisstronglyassociated with a less comprehensive portfolio. In other words, organiza-tionsthatproducehousingtendtoengageinarangeofotheractivitiesaswell,whilethosethatproducenohousingtendtofocusonanarrowrangeofactivitiessuchaseconomicdevelopment.
26Anoddsratiooflessthan1impliesthatahighproportionofcommunityresidentsontheboardreducestheoddsthattheCDCwillbelongtothehighgroup.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 775
CDCs’connectiontocommunitiesIfweassociate the largerproportionofbusinessand financial institu-
tionsontheboardsofthoseCDCsthatspecializeinhousingwithexternalcontrol,thenthefindingsfromthelogitmodelssupportthecontentionthattheseCDCsmayhave strayed from their roots (Eisenberg2000;Stoecker1997).However,theseresultsaretemperedbythefactthattheoverwhelmingmajorityofCDCs—79percent—engageinorganizingactivities.Specifically,asillustratedintable11,73percentofallCDCsorganizearoundcommunityplanningissues;55percentdevelopcommunityorganizationssuchasneigh-borhood associations, block clubs, neighborhood watch associations, andyouthgroups;58percentorganizearoundcommunity issues;and31per-centconductvoterregistrationdrives.CDCs’engagementinorganizingandadvocacy lendscredibility toBratt’sassertion that“numerousCDCs,par-ticularlythosethathavebeeninoperationforawhile,areactivelyengagedinbuildingthepowerbaseoftheircommunities,despitethefactthattheyalsoownandmanageaffordablehousing,andmaybeevencommercialproperty”(1997,27).27
HousingProducers
Medium Medium High NotaProducer Producerwith Producer Produceror inthePast FewHousing withHousing Developerof Group 10Years Activities Activities 500orMoreUnits Total
Organizecommunityplanning(%) 67.3 62.2 91.1 80.6 72.8
Organizearoundcommunity 48.1 50.9 75.2 65.0 58.1 issues(%)
Developcommunity 38.8 49.8 71.0 68.7 55.4 organizations(%)
Conductvoterregistration(%) 20.9 27.6 40.3 37.7 30.7
Performoneormoreofthe 73.2 76.1 96.3 88.3 82.0 aboveactivities(%)
Numberofactivities 1.75 1.89 2.78 2.51 2.16 (scaleof0to4)
Table 11. CommunityOrganizingandAdvocacyActivities
27Ourdatadonotallowustogaugethedepthandbreadthofthisorganizingwork,butratheronlywhetherornottheyengageinit.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
776 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
Howdowereconcileourfindingswithcontendingviewsinthefield?Ourevidenceclearlysupportstheviewthatlargehousingproducersaremorelikelytohaveadifferentboardcompositionthanotherorganizations.Butthecompositionoftheboard,whichindeedshowsanorganizationalpreferenceforamorebusinesslikedecision-makingstructure,doesnotnecessarilyimplyanabandonmentofcommunityorganizingandadvocacy.Infact,highhous-ingproducershaveabove-averageparticipationinalloftheseactivities(80.6percentcomparedwithanaverageof72.8percentfortheOrganizeCommu-nityPlanningcategory).Highproducersexceednonhousingproducersandmediumproducerswithfewhousingactivities(whichtogetherconstitute61percentoftheindustry)inallsixcategoriesofthesetypesofactivities.Thisevidencesupportstheviewthathighhousingproducershavenotabandonedthesocialactivismmissionembracedbythecommunitydevelopmentfieldin general. Our findings also are consistent with case study research thatsuggest that community organizing and building connections to externalstakeholders are complementary, rather than competing, strategies whenbuildingciviccapacityinurbanneighborhoods(Saegert2006).
It is also important to consider the composition of the boards morebroadly,asanindicatorthatCDCscontinuetoberesponsivetotheircom-munities.Oursurveydatashowthatmorethan93percentofallCDCboardscontainlocalresidents(table12).Onaverage, localresidentsmakeupthemajority—73percent—ofthetotalboard.Atotalof8percentarereligiousleaders,7percentaregovernmentofficials,and29percentarepeoplefromthebusinessandfinancialworlds.28Thesefindingsrevisitconclusionsbasedonprevious,nonrepresentativestudiesassertingthatone-third(Vidal1992)toone-half (Kelly1977)ofboardmembers liveoutside theCDC’s servicearea.Onepossibleexplanationforthisfindingmightbetheimpactoftheboardcompositionrequirementforcommunityhousingdevelopmentorga-nizations(CHDOs)applyingforlocalgovernmentaidandthestate’sHOMEfunding.This important source for affordablehousing funding contains a15percent set-aside forCHDOs.29Andwhile somehave found thatmaledominanceofCDCboardsmayleadtoabusinessorientationinCDCs(Kelly1977;seealsoGittelletal.1994,whichiscitedinStoecker1997),wefind
28Totalsadduptomorethan100percentbecauseofoverlappingcategories.29TheCranston-Gonzalez1990NationalAffordableHousingActcreated,amongother
things,theHOMEInvestmentPartnershipAct,commonlyreferredtoastheHOMEprogram,whichhasa15percentset-asideforCHDOs.TheyareeligibletoapplyforallHOMEmoney,aswellastheset-aside.CHDOsarerequiredtohaveaminimumofone-thirdoftheirboardcomposedof residents living in low-incomeneighborhoods, low-income residents,or thosewhoareelectedrepresentativesoflow-incomeneighborhoodorganizationsbutwhoarenotpublicofficials(thesearecountedaspartofadifferentrequiredcategory).
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 777
HousingProducers
Medium Medium High NotaProducer Producerwith Producer Produceror inthePast FewHousing withHousing Developersof Group 10Years Activities Activities 500orMoreUnits Total
CDCwithboard(%) 100.0 99.1 100.0 100.0 99.6
Meanoftotalboardmembers 15.80 14.60 30.35 16.23 18.57
1to9boardmembers(%) 6.5 6.3 6.9 6.9 6.6
10to14boardmembers(%) 7.2 6.5 6.1 6.6 6.6
15to19boardmembers(%) 6.8 7.6 7.2 7.6 7.4
20to24boardmembers(%) 8.4 8.1 8.4 8.3 8.3
25ormoreboardmembers(%) 8.1 8.6 8.4 7.6 8.3
Boardmembersincludethefollowinggroups
Localresidents(%) 93.3 98.0 97.9 99.8 97.3
Localreligiousleaders(%) 39.2 49.9 45.2 47.9 46.2
Representativesoflocal 82.0 78.8 91.1 88.7 83.9businessesandfinancial institutions(%)
Localgovernmentofficials(%) 48.9 30.4 38.1 40.7 37.8
Boardmembergroupsasapercentageofthetotalboard b
Localresidentsasapercentage 66.3 79.0 73.3 66.4 72.8 oftheboard
Localreligiousleadersasa 8.9 8.9 5.7 6.1 7.7 percentageoftheboard
Localgovernmentofficialsas 9.8 5.8 6.0 7.4 7.0 apercentageoftheboard
Representativesoflocal 33.3 24.2 29.1 36.6 29.4 businessesandfinancial institutionsasapercentage oftheboard
Whiteboardmembers(%) 63.2 62.0 57.6 57.7 60.5
Blackboardmembers(%) 3.7 3.5 6.2 5.3 4.5
Hispanicboardmembers(%) 6.5 7.7 5.5 9.9 7.3
Femaleboardmembers(%) 33.1 43.9 44.7 42.5 41.5
Note:Between5and18CDCsdidnotansweroneormoreofthesequestionsandwereleftasmissing.aThefiguresrepresentweighteddata.bThelocalcategoriesmayoverlap.
Table 12. CDCTypesbyBoardCompositiona
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
778 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
that women constitute 40 percent of CDC boards. These findings do notnecessarilytranslateintocommunitycontrol,buttheydoindicateadifferentboardcompositionprofilefromtheonethatpreviousstudieshadsuggested.
ConclusionsInwhatwaysdoourfindingshelpustobuildknowledgeandrecom-
mendpolicyforthecommunitydevelopmentfield?First,oneofthecommonnarrativesdescribingtheevolutionofthefield—thatitshiftedfrombroadtonarrow,withafocusonhousing—isnotentirelytrue.WhileonegroupofCDCshasbecomefocusedonhousingandeconomicdevelopment,mostofthefieldremainsdiverse.OurfindingscontradictthenotionthatCDCsthatproducelargeramountsofhousinghavelessdiversifiedportfoliosandfewerconnectionstothecommunity.Housingappearstoserveasafoundationforhighproducers,versusorganizationswithlesshousingproductionornoneatall,toofferothercommunitydevelopmentactivities.
Withrespecttothedebateswediscussedintheintroductiontothisarti-cle,ourresearchshowsthatmostCDCscontinuetoengageinadiversearrayofactivities, lendingsupporttoVidal(1997)andRohe,Bratt,andBiswas(2003).Atthesametime,wefindsignificantsubgroupsofCDCsthathaveoptedtospecializeinhousingornottoproduceanyhousingatall.However,mostCDCshaveadiversifiedportfolioofhousingandnonhousingactivities.TofullyinvestigateStoecker’s(2003)claimthatdevelopmentandorganiz-ingshouldbeseparated,itisimportanttodevelopmeasuresofsuccessforboth activities and to explore the extent to which it is possible for theseactivitiestobecomplementaryand,byimplication,foraCDCtobeabletodobothwell.Thiskindofinvestigationwouldbealogicalnextstepfromthisresearch.AnotherusefulnextprojectwouldbetoinvestigatethefactorsunderlyingCDCs’decisionstofocusoneitherorganizingordevelopment.
Giventhediversityoftypesandemphases,CDCscannotbejudgedbythesameyardstick.Ourfindingsmayevensignaltheendoftheusefullifeoftheterm“communitydevelopmentcorporation.”Ourresearchindicatesthatwemustrethinkthewaythatwestudy,evaluate,andsupportCDCs,regardlessoftheirnomenclature.Onenextstepmightbetodevelopdistinctevaluation frameworksandsupport strategies tobeused foreach typeofCDC.SuchframeworkswouldbeusefulforrewardingCDCsbasedontheirintent,ratherthanonanoverlygeneralorinaccurateideaofwhataCDCissupposedtobe.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 779
AppendixASectionA:ScreeningQuestions
SC1.Doesyourorganizationdeveloporpreserverentalorhomeownerhous-ingorengageincommercial,economicdevelopment,orotherrevenue-gener-atingactivities?YesNo (terminatetheinterview)DON’TKNOW (terminatetheinterview)REFUSED (terminatetheinterview)
SC2.Whatwouldyousayisthegeographicscopeofyourorganization?Isit
SC2.Neighborhoodorcommunitybased?Yes (continuetoQ1)No (terminatetheinterview)DON’TKNOW (terminatetheinterview)REFUSED (terminatetheinterview)
SC3.Wouldyousayitislocal,county,orcitybased?Yes (continuetoQ2)No (terminatetheinterview)DON’TKNOW (terminatetheinterview)REFUSED (terminatetheinterview)
AuthorsEdwinMelendezisaprofessoratMilanoTheNewSchoolofManagementandUrbanPolicy,andLisaJ.ServonisanassociateprofessoratMilanoTheNewSchoolofManagementandUrbanPolicy.
TheauthorsacknowledgethefinancialsupportoftheFordFoundationto the Community Development Research Center, as well as the valuableassistanceoftheUrbanInstitute’sNationalCenterforCharitableStatistics,the Enterprise Foundation, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation,theLocalInitiativeSupportCorporation,Seedco,andothergroupsthatpro-vided lists for the universe of community development corporations. ThedatasetwaspreparedbyChristianVillenasandEdwinMelendez,withtheassistanceofJoyLaChelleBailiefromaprojectfundedbyLivingCities.Thesurvey was designed by a joint team of researchers from the Community
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
780 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
Development Research Center (Edwin Melendez, Lisa J. Servon, andAlexSchwartz)andresearchers fromaproject sponsoredbyLivingCities(AidaRodriguez,RikkiAbzug,andMaryWatson).The surveydatawerecollectedbytheCenterforSurveyResearchandAnalysisattheUniversityofConnecticutunderthesupervisionofChaseHarrison.TheFannieMaeFoundationprovidedfinancialsupportforconductingthedataanalysis.
The authors are particularly grateful to the organizations that parti-cipated in thesurveyandfacilitated thecollectionof information.Finally,theauthorsacknowledgethehelpfulcommentsofKristopherRengertandKil Huh, as well as those from two anonymous reviewers. Any errors oromissionsaretheresponsibilityoftheauthors.
References
Berndt,HarryE.1997.NewRulersintheGhetto:TheCommunityDevelopmentCorpo-rationandUrbanPoverty.Westport,CT:Greenwood.
Bogart,WilliamT.2003.CivicInfrastructureandtheFinancingofCommunityDevelop-ment.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.
Bratt, Rachel G. 1997. CDCs: Contributions Outweigh Contradictions—A Reply toRandyStoecker.JournalofUrbanAffairs19(1):23–28.
Bratt,RachelG.,andWilliamM.Rohe.2004.OrganizationalChangesamongCDCs:Assessing the Impacts and Navigating the Challenges. Journal of Urban Affairs26(2):197–220.
Brophy&ReillyLLC.2001.AnEnvironmentalScanoftheCommunityDevelopmentField.Columbia,MD.
Chaskin,RobertJ.,MarkL.Joseph,andSelmaChipenda-Dansokho.1997.Implement-ingComprehensiveCommunityDevelopment:PossibilitiesandLimitations.SocialWork42(5):435–44.
Cowan, Spenser M., William Rohe, and Esmail Baku. 1999. Factors Influencing thePerformance of Community Development Corporations. Journal of Urban Affairs21(3):325–40.
Eisenberg,Pablo.2000.TimetoRemovetheRose-ColoredGlasses.ShelterforceOnline110(March/April).WorldWideWebpage<http://www.nhi/org/online/issues/110/eisen-berg.html>(accessedJune2007).
Faux, Geoffrey. 1971. CDCs: New Hope for the Inner City. New York: TwentiethCenturyFund.
Fitzgibbon, Michael. 1997. Accountability Misplaced: Private Social Welfare Agenciesand the Public in Cleveland, 1880–1920. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly26(1):27–40.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 781
Gittell, Ross, and Margaret Wilder. 1999. Community Development Corporations:CriticalFactorsThatInfluenceSuccess.JournalofUrbanAffairs21(3):314–61.
Glickman, Norman J., and Lisa J. Servon. 1999. More Than Bricks and Sticks: FiveComponentsofCommunityDevelopmentCorporationCapacity.HousingPolicyDebate9(3):497–539.
Glickman,NormanJ.,andLisaJ.Servon.2003.BytheNumbers:MeasuringCommunityDevelopmentCapacity.JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch22(3):240–56.
Goetz,EdwardG.,andMaraSidney.1994.RevengeofthePropertyOwners:Commu-nityDevelopmentandthePoliticsofProperty.St.Paul,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaHousingProgram.
Green,GaryP.,andAnnaHaines.2002.AssetBuildingandCommunityDevelopment.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Halpern,Robert.1994.RebuildingtheInnerCity:AHistoryofNeighborhoodInitiativestoAddressPovertyintheU.S.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Harrison,Bennett.1974.GhettoEconomicDevelopment:ASurvey.JournalofEconomicLiterature12(1):1–37.
Kelly, Rita M. 1977. Community Control of Economic Development: The Boards ofDirectorsofCommunityDevelopmentCorporations.NewYork:Praeger.
Kubisch, Anne C. 1996. Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Lessons in Neighbor-hoodTransformation.ShelterforceOnline85(January/February).WorldWideWebpage<http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/85/compcominit.html>(accessedApril1,2005).
Marquez,Benjamin.1993.Mexican-AmericanCommunityDevelopmentCorporationsandtheLimitsofDirectedCapitalism.EconomicDevelopmentQuarterly7(3):287–95.
National Congress for Community Economic Development. 1989. Against All Odds.Washington,DC.
NationalCongressforCommunityEconomicDevelopment.1991.ChangingtheOdds:TheAchievementsofCommunity-BasedDevelopmentOrganizations.Washington,DC.
NationalCongressforCommunityEconomicDevelopment.1995.TyingItAllTogether:The Comprehensive Achievements of Community-Based Development Organizations.Washington,DC.
NationalCongressforCommunityEconomicDevelopment.1999.ComingofAge:TrendsandAchievementsofCommunity-BasedDevelopmentOrganizations.Washington,DC.
National Congress for Community Economic Development. 2005. Reaching NewHeights.Washington,DC.
Peirce,Neal,andCarolSteinbach.1987.CorrectiveCapitalism:TheRiseofAmerica’sCommunityDevelopmentCorporations.NewYork:FordFoundation.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
782 EdwinMelendezandLisaJ.Servon
Perry, Stewart. 1987. Communities on the Way: Rebuilding Local Economies in theUnitedStatesandCanada.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Reingold,DavidA.,andCraigL.Johnson.2003.TheRiseandFallofEastsideCommu-nityInvestments,Inc.:TheLifeofanExtraordinaryCommunityDevelopmentCorpora-tion.JournalofUrbanAffairs25(5):527–49.
Rohe,WilliamM.1998.DoCommunityDevelopmentCorporationsLiveUptoTheirBilling?AReviewandCritiqueoftheResearchFindings.InShelterandSociety:Theory,Research,andPolicyforNonprofitHousing,ed.C.TheodoreKoebel,177–99.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYork.
Rohe,WilliamM.,RachelG.Bratt,andProtipBiswas.2003.EvolvingChallengesforCommunityDevelopmentCorporations:TheCausesandImpactsofFailures,Downsiz-ings,andMergers.ChapelHill,NC:UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,CenterforUrbanandRegionalStudies.
Romeo,Sheryl,andLindaLampkin.2002.FindingaNeedleinaHaystack:AnAnaly-sisofSearchStrategiestoIdentifyCommunityDevelopmentCorporations.Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute.
Rosen,KennethT.,andTedDienstfrey.1999.TheEconomicsofHousingServicesinLow-IncomeNeighborhoods.InUrbanProblemsandCommunityDevelopment,ed.RonaldF.FergusonandWilliamsT.Dickens,437–520.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.
Rubin,Herbert.1994.ThereAren’tGoing toBeAnyBakeries IfThere IsNoMoneyto Afford Jellyrolls: The Organic Theory of Community-Based Development. SocialProblems41(3):401–24.
Rubin,Herbert.1995.RenewingHopeintheInnerCity:ConversationswithCommu-nity-BasedDevelopmentPractitioners.AdministrationandSociety27(1):127–60.
Rubin,HerbertJ.2000.RenewingHopewithinNeighborhoodsofDespair:TheCom-munity-BasedDevelopmentModel.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Rubin,Herbert,andIreneRubin.1992.CommunityOrganizingandDevelopment.NewYork:Macmillan.
Saegert,Susan.2006.BuildingCivicCapacityinUrbanNeighborhoods.JournalofUrbanAffairs28(3):275–94.
Steinbach,CarolF.,andRobertO.Zdenek.1999.LessonsfromaFall:WhatWentWrongatECI?NeighborWorksJournal,Fall,pp.10–13.
Stoecker,Randy.1994.DefendingCommunity:TheStruggleforAlternativeRedevelop-mentinCedar-Riverside.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.
Stoecker,Randy.1997.TheCDCModelofUrbanRedevelopment:ACritiqueandanAlternative.JournalofUrbanAffairs19(1):1–22.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
TheRoleofHousinginCommunity-BasedUrbanDevelopment 783
Stoecker,Randy.2003.Community-BasedResearch:FromPracticetoTheoryandBackAgain.MichiganJournalofCommunityServiceLearning9(2):35–46.
Stoutland, Sara E. 1999. Community Development Corporations: Mission, Strategy,andAccomplishments.InUrbanProblemsandCommunityDevelopment,ed.RonaldF.Ferguson and Williams T. Dickens, 193–240. Washington, DC: Brookings InstitutionPress.
Sviridoff, Mitchell, and William Ryan. 1996. Investing in Community: Lessons and Implications of the Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program. New York:ComprehensiveCommunityRevitalizationProgram.
Vidal, Avis. 1992. Rebuilding Communities: A National Study of Urban CommunityDevelopmentCorporations.NewYork:NewSchoolforSocialResearch,GraduateSchoolofManagementandUrbanPolicy,CommunityDevelopmentResearchCenter.
Vidal, Avis. 1997. Can Community Development Re-Invent Itself? The Challenges ofStrengthening Neighborhoods in the 21st Century. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation63(4):429–38.
Vidal,AvisC.,andW.DennisKeating.2004.CommunityDevelopment:CurrentIssuesandEmergingChallenges.JournalofUrbanAffairs26(2):125–37.
Vidal, Avis, and Langley C. Keyes. 2005. Beyond Housing: Growing CommunityDevelopmentSystems.Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute.
Walker,Christopher.1993.NonprofitHousingDevelopment:Status,Trends,andPros-pects.HousingPolicyDebate4(2):369–414.
Walker, Christopher, and Mark Weinheimer. 1998. Community Development in the1990s.Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute.
Zdenek, Robert. 1987. Community Development Corporations. In Beyond theMarketandtheState,ed.SeverynBruynandJamesMeehan,112–27.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.