The Community

Development Reader
The Community Development Reader is the first comprehensive reader in the past thirty
years that brings together practice, theory, and critique concerning communities as sites of
social change. With chapters written by some of the leading scholars and practitioners in
the field, the book presents a diverse set of perspectives on community development. These
selections inform the reader about established and emerging community development insti-
tutions and practices as well as the main debates in the field. The second edition is signifi-
cantly updated and expanded to include a section on globalization as well as new chapters
on the foreclosure crisis, and emerging forms of community practice.

James DeFilippis is an Associate Professor in the Bloustein School of Planning and Public
Policy at Rutgers University. He is the author of Unmaking Goliath: Community Control
in the Face of Global Capital, and co-author (with Robert Fisher and Eric Shragge) of Con-
testing Community: The Limits and Potential of Local Organizing.

Susan Saegert is Professor of Environmental Psychology at the CUNY Graduate Center,

where she was also the first Director of the Center for the Study of Women and Society. Dr.
Saegert has published five books including Social Capital in Poor Communities with Phil
Thompson and Mark Warren (2001), and From Abandonment to Hope: Community
Households in Harlem with Jackie Leavitt (1990).
 The Community
Development
Reader
Second Edition

Edited by James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

Second edition published 2012
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Simultaneously published in the UK

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2012 Taylor & Francis

The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

First edition published by Routledge in 2008

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Community development reader / [edited by] James DeFilippis, Susan Saegert. – 2nd ed.
p. cm.
1. Community development–United States. 2. Community development–United States–Planning. I. DeFilippis,
James. II. Saegert, Susan.
HN90.C6C6619 2011
307.1'40973–dc23 2011038074

ISBN: 978-0-415-50773-8 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-415-50776-9 (pbk)

Typeset in Sabon
by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Printed and bound in the United States of America on acid-�free paper by Sheridan Books, Inc.
 CONTENTS

List of illustrations  ix
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xiii
Notes on the text xiv

╇ 1 Communities Develop: The Question is, How? 1

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

PART I. HISTORY AND FUTURE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

╇ 2 Swimming against the Tide: A Brief History of Federal Policy in Poor
Communities 11
Alice O’Connor

╇ 3 Community Control and Development: The Long View 30

James DeFilippis

╇ 4 Reframing Community Practice for the 21st Century: Multiple Traditions,
Multiple Challenges 38
William Sites, Robert J. Chaskin, and Virginia Parks

PART II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONS

AND PRACTICE

╇ 5 Introduction to Part II 51

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

╇ 6 More than Bricks and Sticks: Five Components of Community Development
Corporation Capacity 54
Norman J. Glickman and Lisa J. Servon

╇ 7 Learning from Adversity: The CDC School of Hard Knocks 70

William M. Rohe, Rachel G. Bratt, and Protip Biswas
vi |╇╇ Contents

╇ 8 Social Housing 76

Michael E. Stone

╇ 9 Community Response to Foreclosure 90

Dan Immergluck

10 Community Development Financial Institutions: Expanding Access to

Capital in Under-�Served Markets 99
Lehn Benjamin, Julia Sass Rubin, and Sean Zielenbach

11 The Economic Development of Neighborhoods and Localities 107

Wim Wiewel, Michael Teitz, and Robert Giloth

12 Conceptual Overview of What We Know about Social Entrepreneurship 117

Brigitte Hoogendoorn, Enrico Pennings, and Roy Thurik

13 Communities as Place, Face, and Space: Provision of Services to Poor,

Urban Children and their Families 125
Tama Leventhal, Jeanne Brooks-�Gunn, and Sheila B. Kamerman.

14 Connecting Public Schools to Community Development 134

Connie Chung

15 Capacity Building: The Case of Faith-�based Organizations 140

Michael Leo Owens

16 Toward Greater Effectiveness in Community Change: Challenges and

Responses for Philanthropy 150
Prudence Brown, Robert Chaskin, Ralph Hamilton, and Harold Richman

17 City Government’s Role in the Community Development System 158

Neil Mayer and Langley Keyes

18 Diverse Food Economies, Multivariant Capitalism, and the Community

Dynamic Shaping Contemporary Food Systems 167
Jane Dixon

19 Sustainability in Community Development 175

Stephen M. Wheeler

PART III. BUILDING AND ORGANIZING COMMUNITY

20 Introduction to Part III 187

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

21 History Matters: Canons, Anti-�Canons and Critical Lessons from the Past 191
Robert Fisher, James DeFilippis, and Eric Shragge
 Contents╇╇ | vii

22 Community Organizing or Organizing Community? Gender and the Crafts

of Empowerment 201
Susan Stall and Randy Stoecker

23 Community Building: Limitations and Promise 209

Bill Traynor

24 Building Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods: An Empirically

Grounded Anatomy 220
Susan Saegert

25 How Does Community Matter for Community Organizing? 228

David Micah Greenberg

26 Doing Democracy Up Close: Culture, Power, and Communication in

Community Planning 237
Xavier de Souza Briggs

27 Community Organizing for Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned from a

Life in the Trenches 244
Harold DeRienzo

PART IV. GLOBALIZATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

28 Introduction to Part IV 251

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

29 Globalization and Free Trade 253

Thad Williamson, David Imbroscio, and Gar Alperovitz

30 Post-�Industrial Widgets: Capital Flows and the Production of the Urban 262
Kathe Newman

31 Community-�based Organizations and Migration in New York City 270

Héctor R. Cordero-Â�Guzmán and Victoria Quiroz-Â�Becerra

32 Migrant Hometown Associations and Opportunities for Development:

A€Global Perspective 280
Manuel Orozco and Rebecca Rouse

33 Global Corporations, Global Campaigns: The Struggle for Justice at

Kukdong International in Mexico 286
Jeff Hermanson

34 The International Roots of Microenterprise Development 293

Nancy Jurik
viii |╇╇ Contents

PART V. THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS AND DEBATES

35 Introduction to Part V 305

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

36 What Community Supplies 308

Robert J. Sampson

37 Development as Capability Expansion 319

Amartya Sen

38 Five Faces of Oppression 328

Iris Marion Young

39 Defining Feminist Community: Place, Choice, and the Urban Politics of

Difference 338
Judith Garber

40 Privileged Places: Race, Opportunity, and Uneven Development in Urban

America 347
Gregory D. Squires and Charis E. Kubrin

41 Domestic Property Interests as a Seedbed for Community Action 353

John Emmeus Davis

42 The CDC Model of Urban Development: A Critique and an Alternative 361

Randy Stoecker

43 Strengthening the Connections between Communities and External

Resources 369
Anne C. Kubisch, Patricia Auspos, Prudence Brown, Robert Chaskin,
Karen€Fulbright-�Anderson, and Ralph Hamilton

44 Concluding Thoughts 377

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

Index 383
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

╇ 6.1 Interaction among capacity components

24.1 Building civic capacity
25.1 Theoretical model of organizing in context
31.1 The role of immigrant community-�based organizations in the migration process.

TABLES

╇ 4.1
Changing paradigms of community intervention
╇ 6.1
Resource capacity
╇ 6.2
Organizational capacity
╇ 6.3
Programmatic capacity
╇ 6.4
Networking capacity
╇ 6.5
Political capacity
╇ 9.1
A typology of local and regional responses to foreclosure crises
11.1 Forms of neighborhood economic development
12.1 Distinctions between schools of thought on social entrepreneurship
15.1 Select community development activities of congregations, 1998
15.2 Technical assistance needs of congregations
25.1 Two dimensions, and four types of community political cultures
31.1 Main characteristics of immigrant groups and organizations in New York City
32.1 Local partners for HTA project implementation in Guyana
32.2 Remittance senders in Latin America who belong to an HTA
32.3 Percent of West African remitters who contribute to an HTA
32.4 Percent of Southeast Asian remitters who contribute to an HTA
32.5 Features of Central American remittance senders in the United States and HTA
membership
32.6 Features of Filipino remittance senders and HTA membership
32.7 Development potential of an HTA
37.1 Economic prosperity and life expectancy, 1985
 PREFACE

This second edition reflects the changes that have taken place in the world since the first
edition was completed in 2007. The magnitude of the economic crisis, rooted in housing
finance yet grounded in particular communities, has transformed the landscape of commun-
ity work. It has also revealed the extent to which communities are globally interconnected.
We therefore were glad to have the opportunity to review a whole new set of literature and
revise the book accordingly.
The second edition therefore reflects the new and emerging scholarship that has
developed in the last few years, both as a result of the crisis, but not just because of the
crisis. As Newman notes, mortgages, not just homes, have become market commodities and
the market has failed. While all sectors, countries, and neighborhoods are liable to be
affected, the communities that are the focus of community development, low-�income and
disproportionately non-�white communities, are hit hardest and have been recovering less
well, if at all. The financial crisis and the foreclosure crisis have destabilized the production
and management of housing, the mainstay of community development organizations for
the last 30 years. The fiscal crisis echoes through all aspects from service provision to
organizing to organizational operations. Within this context, the limitations of local
responses to crises emanating from larger scales have become more apparent. These limita-
tions were addressed in the first edition but now the scope of the challenges has become
clearer. The effects on communities of the financial crisis magnify the extent to which the
trends toward less government, decentralization, a shrinking safety net, and greater depend-
ence on the private sector had given rise to community development institutions and prac-
tices since the beginning of the field. Just as community development corporations and the
more recent waves of community organizing responded creatively to the urban crisis of the
1960s and 1970s, new organizational forms and approaches are appearing.
Each section of the second edition contains new material that reflects the increased matu-
rity of scholarship on community development as it is practiced in the post-�Fordist/neolib-
eral era. In Part I, Sites, Chaskin, and Parks offer a reframing of community practice for the
21st century. In Part II on community development institutions and practice, we can see the
ironies of market embrace in a time of market failure. Immergluck takes on the problem of
how communities can respond to the foreclosure crisis. Hoogendoorn and her colleagues
analyze the burgeoning practices of social entrepreneurship. Mayer and Keyes examine how
city government remains an important player in community development in partnership
with nonprofit and for-�profits sectors. New areas of focus have also arisen in community
development. Schools have become an important partner in community development, just
as community development schemes are often essential to improving educational outcomes
for children (Chung, Chapter 14). Faith-�based organizations play an increasing role in the
community development sector. Owens offers insights into how their capacity can be
increased to meet the scope of the challenges they address. Nested in complex global
systems yet strongly shaped by national and local institutions and practices, food economies
xii |╇╇ preface

(Dixon, Chapter 18) and environmental sustainability (Wheeler, Chapter 19) are growing
areas of activity for community development practitioners.
In Part III, new chapters on community organizing and civic capacity add to the chapters
from the first addition by viewing these topics more broadly in terms of historical periods,
divergent goals, and organizational forms and practices (Fisher, DeFilippis, and Shragge,
Chapter 21; Saegert, Chapter 24).
Part IV is a mostly new part on globalization that lays out both the underlying political
economic trends and challenges to community stability wrought by global free trade (Wil-
liamson, Imbroscio, and Alperovitz, Chapter 29). Newman (Chapter 30) critically unpacks
the financialization of housing and its role in the flow and accumulation of global capital.
These community fragmenting and destroying forces have provoked new forms of organ-
izing and provision of capital for the disenfranchised. The final three chapters illuminate
migrant hometown associations as a form of internationally interdependent community
development (Orozco and Rouse, Chapter 32), the complex interconnection of organizing
in the global North and South known as solidarity organizing (Hermanson, Chapter 33),
and the explosion of microenterprise first in the global South and then in the global North
(Jurik, Chapter 34).
Additions to Part V, “Theoretical Conceptions and Debates” reflect a more global per-
spective on just what constitutes good community development (Sen, Chapter 37) and the
ways in which the reproduction of privilege continues to be linked to the reproduction of
communities in need of development (Squires and Kubrin, Chapter 40).
We believe all the changes in the book have not only made it more timely, but also,
simply, a better book for practitioners, funders, teachers, and students to read and engage
with.
 Acknowledgments

Like any academic endeavor, this book has benefited from the contributions of many people
besides the editors. First we want to thank the authors who wrote the various chapters for
their legacy of scholarship on community and community development. The chapters
included here mostly have been drastically shortened to fit the book’s purpose of being a
broad overview of the field. The editing in many cases was so extensive that we strongly
recommend that the interested reader consult the original work for the full argument, as
well as citations of sources and references. Because of the substantial editing, we worked
with the authors to ensure their agreement on our fidelity to their intent. This task was
made much easier by the authors being so responsive and collegial. In some particularly
excellent cases, the authors even took the time to edit down their own chapters for us.
Second, we should thank Matthew Furleiter, who worked with us as an intern during much
of the time the book was being prepared, doing a ton of editing, reading, copyright work,
and other odd jobs. Jared Becker at the Center for Human Environments also provided
support of all kinds in making sure the loose ends were tied up and last-minute emergencies
gotten through. Third, several people took the time to look over various stages of the book
– from the initial table of contents, to sections, chapters, and other contributions. In
�particular, Bob Lake, Kathe Newman, Randy Stoecker, and Bob Fisher, as well as our
friends and colleagues at the Aspen Institute Roundtable for Community Change, gave
thoughtful and productively critical comments about the book, and it is certainly better
because of their contributions. The anonymous reviewers also gave us both useful encour-
agement and direction.
This book has emerged not just from our academic interests and relationships, but pri-
marily from what we have learned from so many practitioners in the field of community
development and from residents striving to improve their communities. To no small degree,
the extent to which this book is useful to practitioners has come from the fact that we have
been fortunate enough to work with so many thoughtful and dedicated people in the field.
There are too many to name, but our gratitude is immense.
Finally, our families have been incredibly supportive of us while we have been putting
this enormous volume together. We want to thank them especially. In particular, our
daughters, Alexa Madeline DeFilippis and Laura Saegert Winkel, make us incredibly proud.
This book is dedicated to them. May they always live in communities that enable them to
continue to grow, develop, and prosper.
 NOTES ON THE TEXT

Chapter 2: Alice O’Connor, “Swimming against the Tide: A Brief History of Federal Policy
in Poor Communities” from Ronald F. Ferguson and William T. Dickens, Urban Problems
and Community Development. Copyright © 1999 by The Brookings Institution. Reprinted
with the permission of The Brookings Institution.
Chapter 3: James DeFilippis, “Community Control and Development: The Long View”
from Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global Capital. Copyright
© 2004. Reprinted with the permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group LLC.
Chapter 4: William Sites, Robert J. Chaskin, and Virginia Parks, “Reframing Community
Practice for the 21st Century: Multiple Traditions, Multiple Challenges” in Journal of
Urban Affairs 29.5 (2007): 519–541. Copyright © 2007. Reprinted with the permission of
Wiley-�Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
Chapter 6: Norman J. Glickman and Lisa J. Servon, “adapted from “More than Bricks and
Sticks: Five Components of Community Development Corporation Capacity” in Housing
Policy Debate 9.3 (1998): 497–539. Copyright © 1998 by the Fannie Mae Foundation,
Washington, DC. Used with permission.
Chapter 7: William M. Rohe, Rachel G. Bratt, and Protip Biswas, “Learning from Adver-
sity: The CDC School of Hard Knocks” in Shelterforce 129 (May–June, 2003). Copy-
right © 2003 by the National Housing Institute. Reprinted with the permission of
Shelterforce.
Chapter 8: Michael E. Stone, “Social Housing” excerpted and adapted from “Social Own-
ership” in A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda, edited by Rachel G.
Bratt, Michael E. Stone, and Chester Hartman. Copyright © 2006. Excerpted and adapted
with the permission of Michael E. Stone.
Chapter 9: Dan Immergluck, revised from Dan Immergluck, “Community Response to the
Foreclosure Crisis: Thoughts on Local Interventions” (Community Affairs Discussion Paper No.
01–08, October 10, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta). Reprinted with the permission of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Chapter 10: Lehn Benjamin, Julia Sass Rubin, and Sean Zielenbach, “Community Develop-
ment Financial Institutions: Expanding Access to Capital in Under-Â�served Markets” in
Journal of Urban Affairs (2004). Copyright © 2004 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and the
Urban Affairs Association. Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 11: Wim Wiewel, Michael Teitz, and Robert Giloth, “The Economic Development
of Neighborhoods and Localities” from R. D. Bingham and R. Mier, Theories of Local
Economic Development. Copyright © 1993 by Sage Publications. Reprinted with the per-
mission of Sage Publications.
 notes on the text╇╇ | xv

Chapter 12: Brigitte Hoogendoorn, Enrico Pennings, and Roy Thurik, “What Do We Know
about Social Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Empirical Research,” ERIM Report Series
Research in Management, ERS-Â�2009–044-ORG (September 17, 2009). Copyright © 2009.
Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 13: Tama Leventhal, Jeanne Brooks-Â�Gunn, and Sheila B. Kamerman, “Communit-
ies as Place, Face, and Space: Provision of Services to Poor, Urban Children and their Fam-
ilies” from Neighborhood Poverty, Volume 2: Policy Implications in Studying
Neighborhoods, edited by Jeanne Brooks-�Dunn, Greg J. Duncan, and J. Lawrence Aber.
Copyright © 1997 by the Russell Sage Foundation. Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 14: Connie Chung, “Connecting Public Schools to Community Development”
from Communities and Banking (Winter 2005): 10–16. The views expressed are not neces-
sarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston or the Federal Reserve System. Informa-
tion about upcoming events and organizations is strictly informational and not an
endorsement of these activities.
Chapter 15: This selection contains a table from Faith and the City Clergy Survey of
Atlanta (2000). Reprinted with permission of Faith and the City.
Chapter 16: Prudence Brown, Robert Chaskin, Ralph Hamilton, and Harold Richman,
Toward Greater Effectiveness in Community Change: Challenges and Responses for Phi-
lanthropy (Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, March
2003). Copyright © 2003 by the Chapin Hall Center for Children. Reprinted with
permission.
Chapter 17: Neil Mayer and Langley Keyes, City Government’s Role in the Community
Development System. Copyright © 2005. Reprinted with the permission of The Urban
Institute.
Chapter 18: Jane Dixon, “Diverse Food Economies, Multivariant Capitalism, and the Com-
munity Dynamic Shaping Contemporary Food Systems” from Community Development
Journal 46.1 (2011): i20–i35. Copyright © 2011. Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 19: Stephen Wheeler, “Sustainability in Community Development” from An Intro-
duction to Community Development, edited by Rhonda and Robert Pittman. Copyright ©
2009 by Stephen Wheeler. Reprinted with the permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group LLC.
Chapter 21: James DeFilippis, Robert Fisher, and Eric Shragge, “History Matters: Canons,
Anti-Â�Canons and Critical Lessons from the Past” from Contesting Community: The Limits
and Potential of Local Organizing. Copyright © 2010 by James DeFilippis, Robert Fisher,
and Eric Shragge. Reprinted with the permission of Rutgers University Press.
Chapter 22: Susan Stall and Randy Stoecker, “Community Organizing or Organizing Com-
munity? Gender and the Crafts of Empowerment” (COMM-Â�ORG working paper; 1996,
revised November 1997). Reprinted with the permission of Randy Stoecker.
Chapter 23: Bill Traynor, “Community Building: Limitations and Promises.” Reprinted
with the permission of the author
Chapter 24: Susan Saegert, “Building Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods: An Empiri-
cally Grounded Anatomy” from Journal of Urban Affairs 28 (2006): 275–294. Copyright
© 2006. Reprinted with the permission of Wiley-Â�Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
Chapter 25: David Micah Greenberg, “How Does Community Matter for Community
Organizing?” Reprinted with the permission of the author.
xvi |╇╇ notes on the text

Chapter 26: Xavier de Souza Briggs, “Doing Democracy Up-Â�Close: Culture, Power, and
Communication in Community Planning” from Journal of Planning Education and
Research 18.1 (1998): 1–14. Copyright © 1998 by the Association of Collegiate Schools of
Planning. Reprinted with the permission of Sage Publications, Inc.
Chapter 27: Harold DeRienzo, “Community Organizing for Power and Democracy:
Lessons Learned from a Life in the Trenches.” Reprinted with the permission of the author.
Chapter 29: Thad Williamson, David Imbroscio, and Gar Alperovitz, “Globalization and
Free Trade” from Making a Place for Community. Copyright © 2003 by Taylor and
Francis Books, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
LLC.
Chapter 30: Kathe Newman, “Post-Â�Industrial Widgets: Capital Flows and the Production
of the Urban” from International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33.2 (2009):
314–331. Copyright © 2009. Reprinted with the permission of Wiley-Â�Blackwell Publishers,
Ltd.
Chapter 31: Héctor R. Cordero-Â�Guzmán and Victoria Quiroz-Â�Becerra, “Community-Â�based
Organizations and Migration in New York City” from Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies 31.5 (2005). Copyright © 2005 by Routledge/Taylor & Francis Inc. Reprinted with
the permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group LLC.
Chapter 32: Manuel Orozco and Rebecca Rouse, “Migrant Hometown Associations and
Opportunities for Development: A Global Perspective” from Migration Information Source,
the online journal of the Migration Policy Institute, an independent nonpartisan think tank
in Washington, DC, dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide, www.
migrationinformation.org.
Chapter 33: Jeff Hermanson, Global Corporations, Global Campaigns: The Struggle for
Justice at Kukdong International in Mexico (Washington, DC: American Center for Inter-
national Labor Solidarity, 2004). Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 34: Nancy Jurik, “The International Roots of Microenterprise Development” from
Bootstrap Dreams: U.S. Microenterprise Development in an Era of Welfare Reform. Copy-
right © 2005 by Cornell University. Reprinted with the permission of Cornell University
Press.
Chapter 36: Robert J. Sampson, “What Community Supplies” from Ronald F. Ferguson
and William T. Dickens, Urban Problems and Community Development. Copyright ©
1999 by The Brookings Institution. Reprinted with the permission of The Brookings
Institution.
Chapter 37: Amartya Sen, “Development as Capability Expansion” from Keith Griffin and
John Knight (Eds.), Human Development and the International Development Strategy for
the 1990s. Reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan
Chapter 38: Iris Marion Young, “Five Faces of Oppression” from Iris M. Young, Justice
and the Politics of Difference. Copyright © 1990 by Princeton University Press. Reprinted
with permission of Princeton University Press.
Chapter 39: Judith Garber, “Defining Feminist Community: Place, Choice, and the Urban
Politics of Difference” from Gender in Urban Research. Copyright © 1995 by Sage Publica-
tions, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Sage Publications, Inc.
Chapter 40: Gregory Squires and Charis E. Kubrin, “Privileged Places: Race Opportunity
and Uneven Development in Urban America” from Shelterforce 147 (Fall 2006). Copyright
© 2006 by the National Housing Institute. Reprinted with the permission of Shelterforce.
 notes on the text╇╇ | xvii

Chapter 41: John Emmeus Davis, “Domestic Property Interests as a Seedbed for Commun-
ity Action” from Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood. Cop-
yright © 1991 by Cornell University. Reprinted with the permission of Cornell University
Press.
Chapter 42: Randy Stoecker, “The CDC Model of Urban Redevelopment: A Critique and
an Alternative” from Journal of Urban Affairs 19.1 (1997): 1–22. Copyright © 1997 by
JAI Press, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 43: Anne C. Kubisch, Patricia Auspos, Prudence Brown, Robert Chaskin, Karen
Fulbright-Â�Anderson, and Ralph Hamilton, “Strengthening the Connections between Com-
munities and External Resources” from Voices from the Field II: Reflections on Compre-
hensive Community Change. Copyright © 2002 by The Aspen Institute. Reprinted with the
permission of The Aspen Institute.
 CHAPTER 1

Communities Develop
The Question is, How?

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

INTRODUCTION development but have a distinctively differ-

ent mode of operating.
Over the course of its more than 40-year The capacities of community develop-
modern US history, community develop- ment organizations have been severely tested
ment has moved from a small-�scale endeavor in the current crisis. As we write this
done by a limited number of organizations chapter, in the summer of 2011, housing
fighting seemingly quixotic struggles to foreclosures, long-�term unemployment, and
improve the conditions and quality of life in state and local government cuts in services
a few poor urban neighborhoods to a main- have all combined to make the work of
stream set of practices and institutions. In community development both more import-
doing so, community development has ant, and perhaps more difficult, than ever.
become a significant component of urban Rather than trying to define community
political economies in the United States. development, elaborate on the practices that
In€ many neighborhoods and cities, com� constitute it, or recount its long history, this
munity development organizations are brief introductory chapter will, instead,
increasingly assuming the roles of local gov- revert back to first principles and ask the
ernments, and the organizations involved prior question of why development is
construct affordable housing, offer access to important in and for communities. To do
credit to€low income people, provide educa- this our argument will proceed in two steps,
tion and other social services, and more gen- which are framed as questions. First, what
erally try to build the community’s capacity role do communities play—both in the
to gain resources, achieve goals, and parti- larger political economy and in the daily
cipate effectively in the US political lives of people? Second, how can develop-
economy. ment improve and reinforce communities
At the same time community develop- that lack the power and resources to be
ment globally has grown in the scope of its places of support and opportunity?
practices and forms of organization. Huge, Communities in this Reader refer to
wealthy, and influential institutions like the places where people live and work, though
World Bank, and the International Mone- not necessarily doing both in the same place.
tary Fund have played major roles in They are the people, places, and institutions
shaping community development in devel- we encounter in everyday life that provide
oping countries. Indigenous and global opportunities and support for our activities,
organizing projects have arisen to address as well as barriers and constraints. In this
the increasing and global speed of move- sense, communities are places of interde-
ment of capital and labor. In Europe, Third pendence, even if that interdependence can
Way state-�sponsored programs have created be limited and not always beneficial to eve-
new community development initiatives that ryone involved.
have been in sync with the devolution and A peculiar thing about communities, as
privatization components of US community we are using the term, and their role in the
2 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

contemporary world is that, quite simply, interests and ways of life. In this formula-
they shouldn’t exist. Social theorists like tion, community is the matrix within which
Tönnies, Simmel, Weber, Marx, Park, and new, more democratic, and inclusive forms
Wirth, all argued that capitalist urbaniza- of society can emerge. The borders of the
tion would inevitably disrupt the smaller-� pragmatist concept of community are not
scale, inter-�dependent social relations that fixed, nor necessarily spatially demarcated,
had long been fundamental units of people’s but they do involve a marriage of first-Â�hand
lives. Some lamented the demise of com- experience of the world with a collective
munities (notably Tönnies with his frame- process of communication and disputation
work of contrasting Gemeinschaft und about the meaning and implications of
Gesellschaft, 1957 [1887]); others cele- experience, about even what counts as
brated (notably Marx, who argued that cap- experience. Dewey most strongly equated
italist urbanization had rescued “the the growth of community with the gradual,
population from the idiocy of rural life”— always imperfect progress toward a more
Marx and Engels, 1967 [1848]); while still democratic society (c.f. Dewey, 1916, 1954
others simply wanted to understand how [1927]). However, George Herbert Mead
capitalist urbanism had created new forms more fully worked out the dynamic relation-
of social interaction which undermined ship between the emergence of individual
community (Simmel, 1950 [1903]; Wirth, selves and the production of community
1938). But all were in agreement that (Mead, 1934). Both of these ideas found
smaller-Â�scale communities (assumed to be practical application in Jane Addams’ work
rural, since the urban, by their definitions, at Hull House (Bridge, 2004). This second
did not really include communities—at least tradition provides the grounds for the idea
not as durable social formations) had ceased of community as a space for contesting the
to be important realms in capitalism. And as social costs of capitalism to working class
larger-�scale forms of economic organization and marginalized people.
brought more and more people to cities, the Of course, neither the predictions of the
density of people, the complexity of the divi- demise of community, nor the hope of its
sion of labor in society, and the variety of democratic potential have been borne out. It
social interactions, would combine with the is certainly true that the realm of the com-
lack of economic necessity of smaller-�scale munity has been irrecoverably altered by
units to inevitably undermine community as capitalist urbanization. And the spreading
an important realm in people’s lives and the and deepening of capitalist social relations
larger world. One of the most important across the world and into the most intimate
results of this intellectual tradition is that it parts of people’s lives, has changed how and
has left us in a position of struggling to envi- why communities matter. But communities
sion the realm of community playing a pro- continue to play a vital role both in capital-
gressive—that is, forward looking and ism as a globalized, but historically specific,
thinking—role in social change. In short, social system, and in the localized daily lives
how can a social realm that is understood to of people in urban spaces. In short, com-
be dying and exists as a vestige of the past, munities do matter. Perhaps the clearest
be a central part in the creation of the evidence of this (albeit at the risk of making
future? the argument somewhat circular) is that
This European tradition of community as people continue to act as though they
an historical “given,” eroded by modern matter. Efforts to improve, transform, and
capitalism, contrasts with the American stabilize communities are a staple of urban
pragmatists’ view of community as an emer- politics in the United States. As Tilly (1973,
gent set of relationships holding the poten- p.€212) put it,
tial for growth and change (Bernstein,
1998). Within this second framework, com- even in big cities people continue to act col-
munity arises from the reciprocal relations lectively at times on the basis of common ter-
among people, including those with unlike ritory: the people of a neighborhood resist
 Communities Develop: How?╇╇ | 3

urban renewal, white homeowners band risky local and international environment.
together to resist black newcomers, disputes In some cases, “the community” may be an
over the operation of schools bring geographi- artifact of development policies and practice
cal groupings clearly into view .â•›.â•›. their very of first world and international organiza-
existence identifies the need for a better under-
tions such as the Peace Corps, UNICEF, and
standing of the conditions under which col-
the World Bank. Thus community remains
lective action on a territorial basis occurs.
based on interdependency but its scale as
The first question for us here, therefore, is well as its practices and participants are
how do communities matter, which will increasingly mutable. These understandings
shed some light on why people continue to have relevance for understanding commun-
act as though they do (and make it clear ity development in the first world as well.
that such community-�based action is not Communities, whatever their form, are
simply misdirected or misplaced). the realm in which social reproduction
occurs. That is, communities are the sites for
our housing, education, health care, daily
WHY COMMUNITIES MATTER convenience shopping, and the other activ-
ities that sustain us physically, emotionally,
While social theorists have clearly been socially, and psychologically. Labor is a
wrong in predicting the demise of com- peculiar commodity in capitalism in that,
munities within capitalism, they were right unlike other commodities, it needs to replen-
in their understanding that realm of com- ish itself when it is not being used, and is
munity can only be properly understood needed to produce more labor to be pur-
through a discussion of its place and role in chased in the economy in the future. A
the larger political economy. Thus our dis- worker simply cannot continue to work
cussion begins with capitalism and the without having time for sleeping, eating,
world economy. Place-�based communities and maintaining his or her health. And the
are necessary loci for the functioning and long-�term functioning of any social system
reproduction of global capitalism, just as (including capitalism) requires, at the very
they have been for earlier historical forms of minimum, the reproduction of the popula-
political economy. Yet, as the early sociolo- tion through rearing of children. Communit-
gists understood, these communities increas- ies thus play the vital role of reproducing
ingly do not themselves control or contain the labor power that is needed for capital-
the forces of either production or reproduc- ism to survive. And they do so through
tion. Communities are therefore in the structures and institutions that are very
contradictory positions of being vital for the often based on commodity relations—that
maintenance of the larger political economy, is, we reproduce ourselves through a set of
but significantly constrained in what they transactions that are usually, and increas-
can achieve in terms of shaping or trans- ingly, based on the market. Domestic prop-
forming that economy. We will briefly erty (housing) is, in the US form of
explore the roots and implications of this capitalism, most often understood as a
contradiction. commodity to be bought and sold. The pro-
Whether European and American con- vision of our daily bread, through neighbor-
ceptions of community resonate in places hood supermarkets, grocery stores, and
outside these particular histories raises ques- bodegas, is unambiguously a set of com-
tions that perhaps will expand our under- modity relations. And the practices of child
standings of community. AbdouMaliq care provision are increasingly commodified,
Simone (2004) suggests that African com- as households—rich, middle class, and
munities are a combination of traditional poor—are becoming more likely to purchase
relationships, old and new institutions that their child care provision.1 Communities are
struggle to exist, and spontaneous makeshift the realm in which current workers main-
connections that arise to do the work of tain their health and well-�being, and future
community in a radically contingent and workers are born, breed, and educated. And
4 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

they do so in ways that, often invisibly and extent to which problems in a community
intangibly, re-Â�inscribe the market as the are community problems—given that so
primary arbiter of social relations. much of what produces communities are
By considering immigrant and interna- relations and decisions that exist well
tional communities, the global scale and beyond any single community. And thus,
flow of social reproduction comes into this is the contradiction of the centrality and
focus. While the concrete realities of marginality of the community in capitalism.
housing, local employers, local schools, and But communities are not simply import-
neighborhood parks and stores remain signi- ant because of their contradictory role in
ficant for the quotidian activities of social capitalism. Place-�based communities are still
reproduction, the families involved may be important because people are finite creatures
earning livings in one country, sending chil- who have to live in real and limited times
dren to school in another, supporting aging and spaces, and communities of face then
parents in yet another. ground our experience even as they do not
Thus communities may not be the coher- fully cause or limit them. Even as people
ently, contiguously organized places of the strive to find work, homes, investments,
modernist planner (Beauregard, 1991). But mates, schools for their children from menus
even in postmodern fragmented and mutat- of opportunity on the internet, social net-
ing form, they are commonly traversed works that may span continents, and insti-
spaces where people meet face to face, some- tutional connections that may move them
times coordinate their actions and purposes, around the globe, everyday they are some
and, on occasion, act collectively to change place. They are buying their groceries from
the way these spaces and relations enable or a green market, or a supermarket, or a
constrain collective purposes. Community in bodega; their children attend a well
this more emergent and mobile form fulfills equipped private school they pay a lot for,
a range of human desires from shelter and an excellent, mediocre, or poor public
nurturance, through safety at home and in school, a parochial school of a certain
one’s daily rounds, to historically rooted, quality and denomination, all based a great
politically, and ecologically defined space in deal on the nature of their place-�based com-
which individuals, households, and groups munity. And despite all the rhetoric of
contest and cooperate with each other to hyper-�mobility and globalization in the last
make life possible. 20 years, most people are relatively place
How a community is situated in the based. As Doreen Massey (1994, p.€163) put
larger capitalist political economy plays an it, “Much of life for people, even in the
enormous role in enabling or constraining heart of the First World, still consists of
the abilities of individuals and households waiting in a bus-�shelter with your shopping
to realize their goals and aspirations. How a for a bus that never comes.”
community is situated in the global This rooting of people in places has signi-
economy, in turn, is largely dependent upon ficant impacts on people’s personal develop-
institutions and a set of relationships that ment and growth, as well as their
exist well beyond the community itself. inter-�personal social networks and relation-
Banks, and their mortgage lending practices, ships. People who share a space together
industrial corporations and their decisions build a common set of experiences, that,
to locate a plant in (or, more commonly in when accumulated over time and in differ-
the United States, away from) a metropoli- ent parts of life (common schools, places of
tan area, and towns in other countries with worship, parks, etc.) form much of the basis
soon to be emigrants to the United States of people’s support networks in their daily
are all very real examples of how communit- lives. People in communities come to rely on
ies are shaped by a host of economic rela- each other for a variety of forms of support,
tions that extend well beyond any one from informal bartering of goods and serv-
community. Therefore, rightly understood, ices such as swapping child care responsibil-
it is a difficult and ambiguous question the ities to providing intangible emotional
 Communities Develop: How?╇╇ | 5

support when households are in times of attributed to community, nor by its sup-
stress and difficulty. This is particularly true posed opposite of unmoored individualism.
in communities where households are not Communities are places where people
financially able to treat such services as encounter fragmentation, difference, chal-
commodities to be bought and sold, because lenge, and affirmation, cooperation, and
they simply don’t have enough money support. Nothing in this introductory dis-
to€ do€ so. It is particularly complicated cussion, or the book itself, should be read as
for€ people whose quotidian lives require suggesting that communities are homogen-
actual relationships, support, and exchange eous realms of people with completely
of resources across different geographic shared interests or perspectives. But, having
locales. said that, communities are certainly import-
As we already indicated, people’s daily ant realms in the shaping of people’s polit-
lives are, in communities, mediated through ical and ideological understandings of the
shared institutions in the political economy. world, and tend to generate substantial
A community’s sharing of, for instance, a “neighborhood effects” (Agnew, 1987) on
common position in a metropolitan area’s political ideologies and understandings. All
real estate market (since, for instance, either the effects in everyday life that fall under the
housing abandonment or gentrification are casually used rubric of globalization strain
community-�level issues) forces people to try both Gemeinschaft and struggles for an ever
to work together to face these issues. Sim- more inclusive, democratic community. But
ilarly, when a government disrupts a com- the same forces of technology and flow of
munity, through either siting an unwanted people and capital that promote the struggle
land use or promoting a large development also offer new roads to both goals.
that will displace people, it is a threat to the
lives and interests of many people in that
community—and transcends any one person WHAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
or household. People, in short, can and do SHOULD DO
form communities, by virtue of facing
common sets of issues in their daily lives. The nature of place-�based communities as
This is particularly true when either the sites driven by capitalism and required for
market or the state is creating a situation in survival lead to a particular set of strengths
which those daily lives are under some form and weaknesses in the endeavor of commun-
of threat. These threats manifest themselves ity development. Community development
in particular places but to effectively chal- occurs when the conditions of surviving and
lenge them may require spanning continents thriving in a place are not being supplied by
and engaging new forms of communities in capital. Thus community development
the pursuits of change in a particular locale. emerges in the context of the current limita-
Still, in communities, people experience inti- tions of the capitalist political economy to
mately not only a surprisingly robust left-� fulfill the needs and desires of the
over Gemeinschaft but also form new ties as community.
they share similar experiences with the This is not a strategic decision made by
structures and institutions of the larger people who start their struggle against the
political economy. Capitalist urbanization, limits and constraints of their position in
in short, may have disrupted the older ties capitalist society on the basis of analysis.
of social solidarity found in pre-�capitalist Instead, it is an effort people make to
villages and rural areas, but by virtue of its increase their options when only limited
creation of spaces of common experiences, human, social, and economic capital are at
it has enabled new social ties to be formed. hand. Some people do indeed martial the
Place-�based communities anchor the way resources necessary to flee such places,
everyday life is planned, executed, and inter- which makes the struggles of those who
rupted. Lives lived in communities now are remain always precarious. But many stay
not patterned by the coherent unity Tönnies because of lack of options, commitment to
6 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

their local social networks, and ways of life. as a notion of community. This notion of
And not everybody who leaves cuts signific- community as subject to growth and change
ant ties with the place that was left. Both in both its composition and as the grounds
have an interest in making the community for individual identities implicitly underlies
provide better life chances in their own life- the ongoing efforts of community develop-
times and in those of future generations. ers to find new institutional forms, and to
Much of the work of community develop- promote new forms of association that will
ment then has been to find the tools, the overcome the limits of existing communit-
strategies, the institutional arrangements ies, including those that are sociologically,
that maximize what is a pretty weak economically, and geographically defined.
resource base and find ways to gain access
to the far greater resources, opportunities,
and power that lie outside the geographic THE PURPOSE AND OUTLINE OF THIS
community. BOOK
The chapters have been selected to depict
both the embattled communities foreseen by Thus the collection strives to be both critical
the German sociologists and the ameliora- and practice oriented. The critical com-
tive, expansive, democratic communities ponents of the book come from our beliefs
imagined by Dewey and Jane Addams. The that clear-�eyed analysis of what is being and
history and future of community develop- has been done is vital for the field of com-
ment lies in the contested terrain between munity development if it is to continue to
the two. This battle for this terrain consists grow and affect positive changes in American
in efforts to: cities. The practice-�oriented components are
not narrowly technical but instead provide a
1. provide for the everyday needs of adults record of important, somewhat successful
and children; efforts to solve local problems such as the
2. create institutions that more fairly and shortage of affordable housing for low- and
democratically allocate goods and moderate-�income households, to develop
resources; and new institutions to serve local needs such as
3. cultivate relationships among people Community Development Financial Institu-
that promote human and cultural devel- tions, to find ways to provide for the inter-
opment, effective citizenship, and polit- generational welfare of families and
ical will. communities stretched across national
boundaries, and to promote the development
The intent of this Reader on community of democratic, inclusive civic communities
development is to present both the chal- who are linked by genuine interdependencies
lenges and struggles of people within com- through different approaches to community
munities to influence the shared landscapes organizing.
in ways that enable not just surviving, but The book is divided into parts. Part I is
flourishing—and shelter people from the devoted to an overview of the history and
vagaries and threats of the larger world. challenges of community development
Drawing on the European notion of com- efforts. Part II describes the institutional and
munity as an inherited social formation that programmatic forms community develop-
reproduces hierarchy, division of labor, and ment has taken and how they work. Some
ideology, many of the chapters dwell on the of the chapters in Part II are focused on a
limits, divisions, and contradictions of place- particular organizational form (such as the
�based community development. The strug- chapters on community development finan-
gles of community organizations for greater cial institutions [CDFIs], religious institu-
equity and inclusion are direct efforts to tions, and philanthropies), while other
overcome these contradictions. The Ameri- chapters are devoted to particular issues in
can pragmatist ideal includes a democratic community development practice (such as
community as a goal to be attained, as well the chapters on economic development and
 Communities Develop: How?╇╇ | 7

community-�based social service delivery). References

Part III pulls together both theoretical and
empirical work and is devoted to under- Agnew, J. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical
mediation of state and society. Boston: Allen and
standing community organizing (and its
Unwin.
limits) in achieving collective goals. Part IV Beauregard, R. A. (1991). Without a net: Planning and
explicitly addresses the challenges of the the postmodern abyss. Journal of Planning Educa-
tightening dependencies and weakening tion and Research, 10(3), 189–194.
control over social reproduction and polit- Bernstein, R. J. (1998). Community in the pragmatic
tradition. In Morris Dickstein (Ed.), The revival of
ical efficacy occasioned by speeded up and
pragmatism: New essays in social thought, law and
unconstrained mobility of capital. It also culture (pp. 141–156). Durham, NC: Duke Univer-
looks at new forms of community develop- sity Press.
ment and organizing based on persistent Bridge, G. (2004). Reason in the city of difference.
social ties and political sympathies spread London: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An intro-
across big geographies. Part V is devoted to
duction to the philosophy of education. New York:
a set of unresolved issues and debates within Macmillan and Company.
the field of community development, and Dewey, J. (1954 [1927]). The public and its problems.
asks such basic questions as: What does Athens: University of Ohio Press.
community supply? What counts as devel- Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967 [1848]). The communist
opment? How do the forces of oppression manifesto. New York: Penguin Books.
Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minneap-
and differences in identity operate? What is olis: University of Minnesota Press.
the nature of property? What are the limits Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago:
to community development efforts in the University of Chicago Press.
contemporary American political economy? Simmel, Georg (1950 [1903]) Metropolis and mental
The book ends with a concluding chapter life. In The sociology of Georg Simmel (trans. Kurt
Wolff, pp. 409–424). New York: Free Press.
that revisits some of the key themes, while Simone, A. (2004). For the city yet to come: Changing
pointing toward some emerging, and unre- African life in four cities. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
solved issues that will shape the field in this versity Press.
first part of the 21st century. Tilly, C. (1973). Do communities act? Sociological
Quarterly, 43, 209–238.
Tönnies, F. (1957 [1887]). Community and society
(Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). Trans. and Ed. by
Note Charles Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan State Uni-
versity Press.
1. As more low income women have left welfare, Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American
there has been a dramatic increase in the amount Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.
of low income children in publicly subsidized
child care in American cities, in which child care
is provided by workers who are paid by the
government.
 PART I

History and Future of Community

Development
 CHAPTER 2

Swimming against the Tide

A Brief History of Federal Policy in Poor Communities 1

Alice O’Connor

Community development is a time-Â�honored community-Â�based providers, national “inter-

tradition in America’s response to poverty, mediary” institutions, and philanthropic
but its meaning remains notoriously hard to foundations, a kind of community develop-
pin down. The term has come to encompass ment movement that has made a business of
a large number of different place-�targeted improving poor places as a way of helping
interventions that have never quite added up the poor. Geographically dispersed and
to a coherent, comprehensive strategy. Nor internally conflicted though it may be, this
have efforts to establish a federal commun- movement has been largely responsible for
ity development policy been of much help. keeping the idea of community development
Instead, the historical evolution of policy alive. It has had a significant effect on the
has been disjointed and episodic, starting shape of federal initiatives in poor com-
from ideas that first emerged in private, munities and, despite recent decades of
local reform efforts during the Progressive worsening local conditions and government
Era, moving through an extended period of retrenchment, it shows little sign of going
federal experimentation from the New Deal away.
to the Great Society, and devolving to an
emphasis on local, public–private initiative
beginning in the 1980s. The result has been HISTORICAL PATTERNS IN FEDERAL
a sizable collection of short-�lived programs, POLICY: CONTINUITY AMIDST
which seem continually to replicate, rather CHANGE
than learn from, what has been tried in the
past. Federal community development policy At first glance it may seem there is little to
is notorious for reinventing old strategies learn from a history of policies with origins
while failing to address the structural con- in the New Deal political order. After all,
ditions underlying community decline. policymakers are operating in a much cir-
And yet, the push for place-�based policy cumscribed environment, now that the era
continues, as it has for the better part of the of big government is over. And poor com-
past 60 years. No doubt this has something munities are struggling against much steeper
to do with the geographic basis of political odds in a globalized economy that values
representation: naturally, members of Con- mobility and flexibility more than place. But
gress will support programs to stem decline the plight of poor communities does have
and depopulation back home. In the wake instructive historical continuities. Like the
of ghetto uprisings since the 1960s, federal abandoned farm communities and industrial
aid for community development has also slums of an earlier era, the depressed rural
become a political quick fix, a palliative for manufacturing towns and jobless inner-�city
communities on the verge of revolt. Equally ghettoes on the postindustrial landscape rep-
important in keeping the idea alive has resent the products of economic restructur-
been€ a loosely organized grouping of ing and industrial relocation, of racial and
grassroots activists, neighborhood groups, class segregation, and of policy decisions
12 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

that have encouraged these trends. The his- A second pattern is that while the histor-
torical record also points to recurrent pat- ical record is replete with examples of place-�
terns within community development policy, based strategies, they have always occupied
which help explain its limitations in combat- a marginal position in the nation’s
ing the underlying causes of decline. antipoverty arsenal. In part this is because
First, government works at cross-�purposes investing in declining communities runs
in its treatment of poor places. Small-�scale counter to the dominant conventions of
interventions are intended to revive social policy analysis, which since at least
depressed communities while large-�scale the 1960s have been based on economic
public policies undermine their very ability concepts and norms. Place-�based policies are
to survive. Nowhere are these policy contra- inefficient, even quixotic, according to con-
dictions more clear-�cut and familiar than in ventional economic wisdom, in comparison
the case of central cities, which were targeted with policies emphasizing macroeconomic
for limited amounts of assistance and growth, human capital, and individual
renewal beginning in the late 1940s even as mobility. Community investment also goes
more substantial federal subsidies for home against the individualized model of human
mortgages, commercial development, and behavior underlying policy analysis, which
highway building were drawing industry, presumes that people are principally motiv-
middle-�class residents, and much needed tax ated by rational self-�interest in making life
revenues out to the suburban fringe. Rural decisions. For those stuck in places with
farm communities faced a similar plight little hope of revival, the more rational
during the Depression and post-�World War choice is out-�migration, according to eco-
II years, when federal aid for local readjust- nomic calculation. Thus policy should
ment paled in comparison with support for promote “people to jobs,” not “jobs to
the large-Â�scale mechanization, commerciali- people” strategies. The analytic framework
zation, and industrialization that trans- further denigrates community development
formed the agricultural economy. for its inability to define and achieve clear-�
More recent community-�based interven- cut quantifiable goals and outcomes. After
tions have also been undercut by economic all, “building local capacity,” “mending the
policy, which has favored flexible, deregu- social fabric,” “cultivating indigenous
lated labor markets and left communities leaders,” and, most of all, “encouraging
with little recourse against wage deteriora- community empowerment” are amorphous
tion and industrial flight. Public policy was objectives and difficult to measure. Nor does
similarly instrumental in the intensification community development come out well in
of racial segregation in residential life by traditional cost–benefit analysis. Among
encouraging redlining practices in mortgage other things, it takes time and experimenta-
lending agencies, maintaining segregationist tion, and its benefits are largely indirect.
norms in public housing projects, and by Opposition to place-�based programs is
uneven commitment to the enforcement of not simply analytic however; it is grounded
federal antidiscrimination laws. Thus, in politics and ideology as well. Community
having encouraged the trends that impover- development meets continual resistance
ish communities in the first place, the federal from those reluctant to interfere with the
government steps in with modest and inade- “natural” course of economic growth. It has
quate interventions to deal with the con� also generated animosity among local politi-
sequences—job loss, poverty, crumbling cians when it threatens to upset the local
infrastructure, neighborhood institutional power base. And the debate over investing
decline, racial and economic polarization— in place versus people has become artificially
and then wonders why community develop- polarized in the politics of fiscal austerity
ment so often “fails.” In its attempts to since the 1970s. In a system structured prin-
reverse the effects of community economic cipally to meet the needs of families and
and political decline, federal policy has been individuals, place-�based programs have rou-
working against itself. tinely lost out.
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 13

A third pattern in the movement advocat- welfare state, also mirrors divisions within
ing federal community development policy the community development movement.
has been its reliance on unlikely or tenuous Integrated services, planning and economic
political alliances for support. In 1949, development, infrastructure rehabilitation,
advocates of public housing reluctantly lined and political organizing might in theory
up with downtown real estate developers to complement one another, but in reform
help pass urban renewal legislation, an alli- circles they have historically been promoted
ance that proved disastrous for poor and as alternative if not competing strategies.
minority neighborhood residents. Several Urban and rural development networks
years later, policy analysts in the Budget have also operated along separate intellec-
Bureau joined forces with a group of activ- tual and bureaucratic tracks, a division that
ists, philanthropists, and social scientists to has been heightened by the increasingly
make “community action” the centerpiece urban bias in antipoverty thinking through-
of the War on Poverty, only to discover that out the postwar years.
they had widely varying definitions of action A fifth pattern is that the American gov-
and, especially, of “maximum feasible par- ernment is both federalist and associational-
ticipation” in mind. Community develop- ist in its way of meeting community needs.
ment corporations took the idea from It relies on a complicated and shifting mix
anticolonialist, anticapitalist ghetto activists of national and local, public and private,
and remolded it into a form of “corrective legislated and voluntaristic activity to carry
capitalism” with government and founda- out its objectives. This method is often justi-
tion support. When forged at the local level, fied in practical terms, in acknowledgment
these types of alliances have been praised as that no single blueprint can possibly respond
expressions of community-�based consensus. to the widely varying needs of American
At the national level, however, they reflect a communities and in the hope of tapping into
basic political reality: the most likely con- the rich voluntary tradition for which the
stituency for community development United States is famed. But it also reflects
policy—the resident base—is mobile, unor- ideological convictions about the proper
ganised, and, especially as the two major role of the state in social provision: govern-
parties compete to capture the suburban ment power should be limited, private and
vote, diminishing in political power at the market mechanisms are more efficient and
national level. Building national coalitions always preferable to public mechanisms,
for change, then, has been a continual and local government is more democratic
process of compromise with interests outside and responsive to popular preference and
the community, often at the expense of the needs. The role of the state, in the associa-
residents that community development seeks tional ideal, is not to provide directly but to
to assist. work in what Presidents Hoover, Carter,
A fourth pattern is that precisely because and Clinton have celebrated as partnerships
they cut across so many different policy with businesses, volunteer groups, neighbor-
domains, community development policies hood associations, nonprofit organizations,
have suffered more than most from adminis- and local governments to achieve the
trative fragmentation and bureaucratic common good.
rivalry. Even when administered by a desig- The reality, however, has been an inter-
nated community development agency, dependency and blurring of the lines
federal initiatives have drawn most of their between public and private, and a compli-
funding from scattered sources, ranging cated system of public, private, local, state,
from the Department of Housing and Urban and federal funding arrangements for com-
Development to the Department of Defense, munities in need. These arrangements in
each with its own bureaucratic culture and turn demand savvy grantsmanship—the
priorities, and each eager to protect its turf. entrepreneurial capacity to work the sys-
This administrative fragmentation, to tem—and flexibility. They also, in deferring
some extent a characteristic of the federal to private sector provision and local
14 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

practice, leave objectives such as equity, coalitions, fragmentation, associationalism,

redistribution, and racial integration largely second-�tier status, and institutionalized
unaddressed. racial inequality have kept community
A sixth pattern is that in its treatment of development policy swimming against the
poor communities federal policy has oper- tide. As a closer look at the historical record
ated within the two-�tiered system of provi- will show, these patterns are not the product
sion that marks U.S. social policy. In this of immutable ideological or structural forces
system poor communities, like poor indi- but of the political processes through which
viduals, are assisted through means-�tested policy choices have been negotiated and
programs, while their wealthier counterparts made. Many can be traced to the very begin-
are subsidized through essentially invisible, nings of the community development move-
federalized, non-�means-tested subsidies such ment in the decades before place-�based
as highway funds, state universities, home policy had become a part of the federal
mortgage assistance, and tax preferences. welfare state.
Poor communities are targeted as places for
public assistance—public housing, public
Progressive Roots
works, public income provision—while the
middle class is serviced by nominally private Although officially initiated in the 1930s,
but heavily subsidized means. Thus the federal assistance to poor communities drew
retreat from the public in all walks of life from principles and theories that had their
has been doubly dangerous for poor com- beginnings in Progressive Era social science
munities. It has brought not only a loss in and reform. And from this period emerged
funds but the stigma of having been desig- the guiding assumptions and principles of
nated as “public” spaces in a society that place-Â�based reform, many of which have
equates “private” with quality and class. been revised and repackaged in succeeding
Finally, despite its race-�neutral stance, generations of community initiative.
community development policy has continu- One principle is that social interventions
ally been confounded by the problem of should be comprehensive, and address the
race. Minorities were routinely excluded entire array of problems facing poor people
from the local planning committees estab- rather than focusing narrowly on poverty as
lished in early federal redevelopment legisla- an income problem requiring cash relief.
tion, and their neighborhoods were the first The model for this approach in the late 19th
to be bulldozed as a result. The programs of and early 20th centuries was the neighbor-
the 1960s were subsequently caught up in hood settlement house, where low-�income
the politics of racial backlash. Race is deeply immigrant families could find services, job
embedded in the structural transformations references, educational and cultural uplift
that beset urban and rural communities as programs, and, most important, all the
well. Poverty and unemployment are more moral and social benefits thought to derive
concentrated in minority than in white from interaction with middle-Â�class “neigh-
neighborhoods, and poor minorities are bors” or volunteers. Comprehensiveness
more likely to live in high-�poverty areas also informed efforts to improve physical
than are poor whites. Yet race is rarely conditions in poor neighborhoods through
explicitly acknowledged in community clearing slums, building model tenements,
development policy, and then only when it and creating playgrounds and parks.
can no longer be avoided: within the con- Although they were more narrowly con-
fines of racial uprising and violence in the strued than the settlement house movement,
late 1960s and again in 1992. these early housing and neighborhood
One lesson from historical experience, improvement reforms started from the same
then, is that community development policy basic premise: poverty was not an isolated
has been undermined by recurring patterns individual pathology but an all-�encompassing
in the structure of policy. Internal contra� social condition which led to delinquency,
dictions, marginalization, weak political crime, vice, family disintegration, and other
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 15

forms of social disorganization that charac- citizen consultation in efforts to regulate or

terized urban industrial slums. Fixing the control urbanization and economic change.
environment was a way of breaking the Such efforts were first manifest in the “com-
vicious cycle of urban poverty and physical prehensive city planning” movement of the
decay. It would also, not coincidentally, help 1910s and 1920s. The architects, intellectu-
to protect and preserve the social peace. als, philanthropists, and engineers who pio-
For some Progressive reformers, efforts to neered the movement developed physical
improve neighborhood conditions were part blueprints for the total urban environment
of a broader agenda that included wage and that were meant to strike a balance between
regulatory reform. For the most part, the demands of commercial, industrial, and
however, settlement workers and tenement residential well-�being. Thinking of them-
house reformers were more narrowly inter- selves as stewards for the interests of the
ested in physical and social rehabilitation, community as a whole, the planners rou-
which they believed to hold the key to tinely looked to advisory boards of leading
assimilating urban migrants into the eco- citizens (heavily chosen from business elites)
nomic, social, and cultural mainstream. The to approve or help promote their blueprints,
reformers acknowledged that immigrant but rarely for advice on the plans them-
neighborhoods served a vital function as a selves. In later years federal community
steady source of low-�wage labor in the development efforts would attempt to build
urban economy and were a kind of staging on this model for local participatory plan-
ground from which urban newcomers would ning, with equally limited representation of
advance into the American way of life. This community residents.
assimilationist framework anticipated the A third principle that has informed com-
social scientific concepts associated with the munity intervention since the Progressive
Chicago School of urban sociology and Era is citizen or resident participation. By
eventually became absorbed into the canons far the most troublesome and controversial
of policy thought. It was also based on concept in the history of community-�based
assumptions about the nature of neighbor- reform, participation has been interpreted in
hood change: that it is part of organic or sometimes dramatically different ways. For
natural economic growth occurring outside settlement house workers and planners, resi-
the realm of political choice, that it is part dent participation was a way of improving
of a similarly organic ethnic succession as and educating the poor while discouraging
immigrants assimilate into the mainstream, dependency by engaging them in local self-�
and that social disorganization, isolation, help activities. This idea of involvement
and community competence are expressions later came under fire, however, from critics
of group adaptation, or lack thereof, to the who charged that it treated local residents
economic and social demands of urban life. as passive and incapable, and used partici-
This perspective had important implica- pation as a tool for co-�opting them into con-
tions for reform: the objective should not be forming to the reformist vision of change.
to change individuals or even cultural prac- The idea of local participation tapped
tices so much as to establish effective social into a more radical vein when expressed as
systems of integration so that immigrants a movement for indigenous control and self-�
would have access to the opportunities and determination. In the Chicago Area Project,
cosmopolitan influences of the urban a community-�based anti-�delinquency initi-
mainstream. ative that grew directly out of the research
A second major principle with Progres- of the Chicago School, organizers employed
sive Era roots is that community interven- workers from troubled neighborhoods as a
tions should be planned in collaborations direct challenge to social work professionals
between experts and citizens. Searching for and outside expertise more generally. The
a middle way between laissez-�faire capital- project was governed by a neighborhood
ism and state socialism, planners used a council, exclusively composed of local resi-
combination of technical expertise and dents, who took control of setting the
16 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

agenda and mapping the strategy for com- efforts to the white immigrant population.
munity change, calling on experts when the Meanwhile, the presumably race-�neutral
community determined it was warranted. In instruments of Progressive reform, such as
this concept of indigenous participation, zoning and participatory planning, were sys-
soon to be embodied in Saul Alinsky’s Back tematically used to reinforce local segrega-
of the Yards Neighborhood Council, the tionist norms. Community development, at
natural and by implication more legitimate least in the sense of what gained quasi-�
form of leadership came from within. This official recognition from foundations and
model of resident autonomy was also incor- policymakers, remained a largely segregated
porated in the movement for worker-�run enterprise until the 1950s and 1960s, a
housing in the 1930s, which reached its reflection not only of the segregated spaces
peak with the creation of the Labor Housing within which communities were forming,
Conference, a national advisory organiza- but also of the segregated world of reform.
tion with a substantial grassroots network.
These two models of participation, the
one emphasizing mere involvement and the FOUNDATIONS OF FEDERAL POLICY:
other self-�determination and control, would THE NEW DEAL AND BEYOND
remain a continuing source of controversy
and confusion in the federal interventions to The Roosevelt administration’s New Deal
come. made a massive investment in shoring up
The core principles of community devel- distressed communities with direct job crea-
opment policy first emerged, then, during tion, public works, and infrastructure build-
the Progressive Era, a time of economic ing, while also recognizing the plight of
restructuring and demographic transforma- displaced rural communities with land dis-
tion equal in scale to our own. Just as tribution and planned resettlement. At the
important for the community development same time, the New Deal also laid the
movement is to see how these principles foundations for an indirect form of com-
have endured, despite the many unresolved munity development in two of its most far-�
tensions and, especially in retrospect, reaching measures: the mortgage insurance
evident limitations within Progressive Era system that would later help underwrite the
community reform. The tensions between postwar suburban housing boom and the
private provision and public intervention, investment in regional economic moderniza-
grassroots planning and outside expertise, tion that would transform the political
resident participation and indigenous economy of the South. By the end of the
control continued to cause contention, even New Deal these hidden forms of federal
polarization, within the movement through- community investment were on the verge of
out subsequent decades of reform. More major expansion, while most of the direct
troubling are the limitations within the Pro- job creation, public works, and resettlement
gressive vision, which also endured in the policies had either fallen to opposition or
later community development movement. been allowed to die. In their stead was the
First is its nearly exclusive focus on environ- combination of public housing assistance,
mental improvements to the neglect of the cash grants and services, and localized plan-
underlying problems of poverty, low wages, ning that would constitute the foundation
poor labor market conditions, and lack of for federal aid to poor or declining com-
political power. Second, it almost com- munities for the next four decades.
pletely avoided the problems of racial exclu- Perhaps the most significant New Deal
sion and interethnic conflict, even as the first measure in terms of future community policy
large-�scale migration of blacks from the was not specifically place oriented at all. The
rural South was transforming the cities that Social Security Act of 1935 established the
gave shape to the concepts and strategies of basic approach to social welfare provision
place-�based reform. Housing reformers and that would regulate the federal approach
settlement house workers confined their to€ communities as well: individualized and
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 17

income oriented. This strategy implicitly construction sites located in cleared-�out

rejected the environmentalist efforts of the slum areas.
community reform tradition. Despite a With the Housing Act of 1937 the admin-
network of social work professionals in istration moved from direct government
New Deal agencies, services were relegated provision toward a more decentralized
to a relatively minor position in the Social system of market subsidy and local control.
Security Act. From the start, then, the It also incorporated another major goal:
federal welfare state created a fragmented stimulating the private construction indus-
administrative structure for providing cash try. Under the terms of the legislation, local
and services and set up hurdles that future housing authorities were created to issue
reformers would perpetually try to bonds, purchase land designated for slum
overcome. clearance, and contract with private builders
In its reluctance to interfere with private to construct public housing. Thus they pro-
markets, the Social Security Act also set the vided the public with affordable housing,
pattern for federal aid to communities. The the unions with jobs, and the construction
Roosevelt administration was eager to work market with a subsidy from the federal gov-
within and undergird the private enterprise ernment. Local real estate developers soon
system and, above all, to get the federal gov- found that they, too, could get in on the
ernment out of the business of job creation benefits of public housing. They recognized
and direct relief. Perhaps most important, that federal funds for slum clearance offered
the Social Security Act set the pattern for the a rich public subsidy for potentially valuable
two-�tiered structure of federal social provi- downtown real estate that could be
sion: on the top tier, a federalized, contribu- developed for more profitable purposes.
tory, non-�means-tested social insurance Thus, by the end of the 1930s, public
program for protection against income loss housing was tied into a broad-�based constit-
in old age and unemployment; on the uency that included labor, urban interests,
bottom, a localized, means-�tested system of and reform groups as well as private build-
public assistance for poor women and chil- ers and developers. Meanwhile, by tying
dren. Poverty, whether addressed at the public housing almost exclusively to the
individual or community level, would here- goal of slum clearance and leaving loca-
after be treated separately from the prob- tional decisions up to local initiative, the act
lems of old age and unemployment. essentially guaranteed that public housing
A second New Deal measure, the would remain concentrated in central cities.
Housing Act of 1937, created the basis for The overarching goal of New Deal
public housing, a mainstay of federal assist- housing policy, however, was to promote
ance to poor communities for decades to homeownership among working- and
come. It also established a complicated middle-�class Americans, a goal it achieved
political infrastructure for housing pro- largely at the expense of poor and minority
grams, based on an uneasy mixture of city dwellers and the neighborhoods they
private profit and public purpose that inhabited. In 1933 the Roosevelt administra-
reflected the administration’s hope of tion created the Home Ownership Loan Cor-
achieving several not always compatible poration (HOLC) to protect homeowners
goals at once. One, shared by most New from the threats of foreclosure and high
Deal programs, was to put the unemployed interest rates. In 1934 homeownership got a
to work. Federal housing programs were bigger federal boost when President Roo-
also used for slum clearance, which made sevelt signed legislation creating the Federal
them appealing to urban developers but gen- Housing Administration (FHA). By insuring
erated criticism from advocates for the poor. long-�term loans made by private lenders, the
Federal construction projects administered programs stabilized the home mortgage
by the Public Works Administration insurance market, made mortgages and home
managed to serve both goals directly, creat- improvement loans more accessible to€ the
ing thousands of government jobs on middle and working classes, and provided a
18 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

permanent stimulus for the private housing expansion of the hidden forms of federal
market. The benefits of these policies did not subsidy initiated during the New Deal. One
extend to slum dwellers, however, or to fam- was the growth of suburbs, with the help of
ilies with incomes too low to meet even sub- highway funds, business tax incentives, and
sidized mortgage requirements. Blacks and homeownership subsidies now extended to
other minorities were also systematically returning war veterans as well as other
excluded through officially sanctioned redlin- groups. The other was the continued invest-
ing, neighborhood covenants, and other ment in defense and related industry that
forms of discrimination. transformed once underdeveloped regional
The New Deal established the founda- economies, particularly in the South. By the
tions for federal aid to declining communit- late 1950s the American suburb was the
ies, but its legacy was decidedly mixed. For symbol of prosperity, while budding high-�
the next several decades politicians con- technology centers promised the triumph of
cerned about community deterioration could American know-�how during the cold war.
look to federal housing and planning pro- There were serious problems beneath the
grams for local rebuilding and development. veneer of prosperity, however. Beginning in
New Deal policy also forged the political the 1950s, analysts raised fears that the dis-
alliances that would help keep those pro- tressed areas in America’s older cities and
grams alive. Perhaps most important the rural communities were becoming perma-
New Deal linked its efforts at local eco- nent “pockets of poverty.” Working within
nomic revival to the creation of stable jobs the New Deal policy framework, the federal
at decent wages. At the same time, New response to these communities revolved
Deal policies laid the basis for a growing around housing, local redevelopment, and
political, economic, and racial divide subsidies for private industry, without sig-
between middle-�class and low-�income com- nificantly redirecting market forces. This
munities. The insurance policies created by response was reflected in two programs:
the Social Security Act provided economic urban renewal and area redevelopment,
security for millions. Mortgage subsidies put whose limitations contributed to the upsurge
homeownership within popular reach. Their in community-�based activism and reform in
benefits were substantial but largely hidden, the 1960s.
and they enjoyed a legitimacy that publicly Urban renewal came about in response to
subsidized welfare programs could never what journalists, academic urbanologists,
hope to achieve: social security because its and planners were beginning to refer to as a
benefits were partly financed by individual “crisis of metropolitanization” in the 1940s
contributions; mortgage assistance because and 1950s. The combination of industrial
its benefits were mediated through the decentralization, property blight, middle-�
private market. class out-�migration, and minority-�group in-�
These benefits were simply unavailable to migration was changing the face of postwar
millions of marginally employed workers, cities, they warned, while newly incorpo-
tenant farmers, and minorities, who instead rated suburbs were reaping the benefits of
relied on visible, public, and regularly con- metropolitan growth. Municipal govern-
tested sources of federal support. ments were powerless in this situation
because they lacked the capacity to annex or
to tax beyond their limited jurisdictions.
FROM SLUMLESS CITIES TO AREA One answer was to expand federal assist-
REDEVELOPMENT: AID TO ance for slum clearance, housing construc-
COMMUNITIES IN POSTWAR tion, and redevelopment in blighted inner
PROSPERITY cities. Urban Renewal, as the policy estab-
lished by the Housing Act of 1949 came to
During the postwar decades the federal gov- be known, promised to clear out the slums
ernment made two massive investments in and revive the downtown economy by
community development. Both relied on attracting new businesses and middle-�class
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 19

residents back to the urban core. Urban for private real estate interests. Among black
rebuilders also aggressively sought out urban residents, it became widely known as
federal subsidies for highway building, “negro removal.” Highway building projects
thinking to make the city friendlier to the brought similar results, consistently displa�
age of the automobile along the way. cing or breaking up low-�income neighbor-
The strategy behind urban renewal hoods and encouraging rather than
emerged out of negotiations among public stemming the middle-�class migration to the
housing advocates, private builders, big-�city suburbs. After a decade, one conclusion was
mayors, and real estate developers who had hardly contested: urban renewal was a boon
been active in debates over the 1937 Federal for private developers and for the mayors
Housing Act. Crucial to its operation was who brought in the federal funds, and an
eminent domain, the power to amass land unmitigated disaster for the poor.
tracts for slum clearance, which the courts While urban renewal focused on the
had determined was reserved for localities. blight brought about by decentralization
Since 1937, eminent domain had been exer- and physical decay, the Area Redevelopment
cised by local housing authorities, which Act (ARA) of 1961 addressed joblessness in
would buy or reclaim land and then con- communities left behind by economic mod-
tract with private developers to construct ernization and structural change. From the
public housing. Following the Housing Act perspective of structural unemployment,
of 1949 it was exercised by local redevelop- depressed communities were suffering from
ment authorities for purposes that went well a surplus labor problem, which, because it
beyond housing. In the debates leading up derived from macroeconomic shifts,
to passage of the act, developers lobbied for demanded a coordinated national response.
and won generous federal subsidies (two-� Furthermore, in the absence of federal
thirds of the costs) of local land acquisition, resources and planning, state redevelopment
and also demanded the flexibility to use agencies were simply competing with one
reclaimed land for nonresidential pur- another to lure existing businesses with the
poses—all in the name of reviving the ailing promise of tax breaks and cheap labor. The
downtown economy for the greater good of idea behind ARA, then, was to subsidize
the community. Although skeptical of the new job opportunities in declining com-
motivation of developers, the public housing munities. Watered down from five years of
advocates were willing to go along with the congressional negotiation, the final bill
arrangement as the price they had to pay for allocated only $375 million for four years,
getting a public housing bill passed. They spread its resources to more than 1,000
came to regret this decision, or at least their urban and rural communities, and offered
own failure to get enough in return. The no leverage for regulating wage scales and
1949 legislation specified that a designated benefits.
proportion of cleared land be used for resi- Once off the ground the Area Redevelop-
dential purposes and that the bill include ment Administration was subject to nearly
provisions for relocating displaced residents continuous ridicule and attack as a Demo-
to “decent, safe and sanitary housing.” In cratic party pork barrel. It also came under
subsequent amendments the balance fire for some highly visible mistakes, such as
between housing construction and redevel- funding enterprises that were nonunion,
opment was steadily shifted to the latter as racially segregated, or simply not likely to
Congress loosened the requirement that survive. Having produced what by its own
cleared land be used for housing construc- admission were limited results, the program
tion. Evaluation studies also confirmed that was shut down in 1965 and replaced by the
requirements to help the displaced relocate Economic Development Administration,
were barely enforced. which shifted the focus of policy to rural
By the late 1950s, public housing advo- infrastructural development and regional
cates had come to see the program as little planning. In at least one respect, the ARA
more than a generous public buyout of land did represent a significant step in the federal
20 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

approach to community development. Alone bricks-�and-mortar focus of urban renewal

among federal programs, it focused on eco- to the “human face” presented by the prob-
nomic change and structural unemployment lems of urban economic decline and from
as the sources of community decline and upholding the segregated norms of local res-
recognized the plight of labor surplus areas idential patterns to a more forthright inte-
that, without a national development strat- grationist agenda. Supporting these policy
egy, were forced to compete against one shifts was an upsurge in liberal activism at
another to attract industry and jobs. the national level, which reached a height in
Urban renewal and area redevelopment the declaration of the War on Poverty by
had few defenders and many critics by the President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Organ-
time their results were apparent. For some, ized citizen activism was also on the rise,
they offered classic examples of what went much of it inspired by the gains and innov-
wrong when government tried to interfere ative strategies of the civil rights movement
with the workings of a perfectly adequate throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Later in
free market system and the basic fallacy of the decade, liberal policies also became
trying to save doomed communities when caught up in the social turmoil of antiwar
migration was the better response. For protest and racial unrest, symbolized
others, they revealed the flaws in what nowhere more powerfully than in the use of
amounted to a trickle-�down strategy for federal troops to quell violence in the
helping the poor. Still others could see them nation’s ghettos. The popular imagery of
principally as failures of planning: too much poor places had taken on a new, more
bricks and mortar and too few services, too urban, and minority face by the late 1960s.
little coordination across the various agen- It was thus in a context of federal reform,
cies involved, or too little representation for citizen action, social protest, and heighten-
the poor. Underlying all these critiques were ing racial tension that the Johnson adminis-
questions about the assumptions embedded tration launched a rapid succession of
in the New Deal policy framework: that federal programs and demonstration
slum conditions were the cause rather than projects with the goal of comprehensive
the consequence of poverty, that private community renewal. These programs,
profit could be made to work for public including Community Action, Model Cities,
ends, and that communities, left to their the Special Impact Program, and an array of
own devices, would voluntarily create plans neighborhood-�based service programs,
that would represent the interests of the attempted to push federal community policy
poor. For all their internal flaws, however, beyond the New Deal framework by using
the real problem for postwar programs to federal power to alter existing political, eco-
aid declining communities was that they nomic, and racial arrangements in poor
were undercut by the more powerful trends communities.
public policy was doing so much to encour- A centerpiece of the War on Poverty, the
age. With the federally paved march to the Community Action Program (CAP), was
suburbs at full tilt and programs of rural created during an intensive period of plan-
modernization well under way, central cities ning leading up to the Economic Opportun-
and rural towns were continuously losing ity Act of 1964, but the thought and action
population, revenues, and the hope of that gave it shape had been emerging at the
survival. local level for several years. Three local-�level
developments—relating to urban renewal,
foundation-�funded reform, and the civil
COMMUNITY ACTION, MODEL rights movement—were of particular
CITIES, AND THE SPECIAL IMPACT importance.
PROGRAM Urban renewal left a paradoxical legacy
for liberal policymakers, for even as it
Federal aid to communities entered a new bulldozed and undermined poor neighbor-
phase in the mid 1960s, turning from the hoods it strengthened local capacity for the
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 21

planning and grantsmanship cities would loyalty was crucial to the Democratic party,
need to survive. In its own response to the threatened to revolt, earning CAP the
postwar “crisis of metropolitanization,” the enmity of Lyndon Johnson. Infighting
Ford Foundation had invested in an ambi- among local organizations for control of
tious program to build up local urban exper- antipoverty funds hurt the cause even
tise, including grants to universities for further, and the meaning of “maximum fea-
urban extension services and training pro- sible participation” remained subject to
grams. The fruits of this confluence of phil- debate. CAP then suffered devastating blows
anthropic interest and official demand were in the summer of 1965 when the Conference
apparent in cities such as New Haven, of Mayors threatened to pass a resolution
Boston, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. Having suc- against it and congressional opponents
cessfully raised foundation and federal claimed that the program was responsible
money for renewal in the 1950s, these cities for the racial uprising in the Los Angeles
were among the first in line for community neighborhood known as Watts. Dissatisfac-
action grants. The experience of urban tion also welled up from communities.
renewal was also important in convincing Despite its innovations in services and
liberal planners, social scientists, and federal service delivery, CAP could not deliver one
housing bureaucrats that the problem of badly needed ingredient for development:
urban poverty went beyond housing to jobs for the residents of the low-�income
include the services, opportunity structures, neighborhoods it served. The Johnson White
and political representation available to the House continually rejected proposals for a
poor. Local organizing around renewal was targeted job creation program for ghettos
by no means confined to official circles, on the grounds that it was unnecessary and,
however. Opposition among low-�income as spending for the Vietnam War escalated,
residents to local redevelopment plans was too expensive. Instead, seeking to stem its
crucial in laying the groundwork for more political losses and prevent further “long
expansive local activism in the later 1960s. hot summers” like that in 1965, federal pol-
When planning for community action, icymakers responded with two additional
liberal officials and local activists could programs: Model Cities and the Special
agree on at least one major point: if com- Impact Program, which were aimed princip-
munity development were to work for the ally at communities with concentrations of
poor, the local status quo would have to be poor minorities.
shaken up. On one level Model Cities was an attempt
The new Community Action Agencies to make up for the failures of federal
were required to ensure the “maximum fea- antipoverty initiatives: it combined services
sible participation” of the poor. They could with bricks-Â�and-mortar programs while
also, much to the dismay of local politicians, giving control of local planning to city offi-
be organized outside official government cials, thus avoiding the political liabilities of
channels. Ultimately, the hope was to stimu- CAP. But Model Cities was also part of a
late more permanent reform of the local long-�standing movement involving urban
bureaucracy while engaging the poor in legislators, liberal philanthropists, social sci-
their own rehabilitation. Acting in concert entists, and labor officials to establish a
with the spurt of economic growth and national urban policy. Despite several legis-
employment economists anticipated from lative setbacks, this movement achieved a
the tax cut of 1964, CAP was to break major breakthrough with the creation of the
down what planners thought of as barriers Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
to prosperity for America’s poor. opment (HUD) in 1965.
CAP was initiated in a burst of activity Emerging from the administrative task
and enthusiasm that was almost as quickly force appointed to create a blueprint for the
halted by the political controversy it caused. new agency, Model Cities brought together
Suddenly denied direct access to the federal many of the ideas that had been operating
funding pipeline, urban mayors, whose in the foundation experiments of the 1950s
22 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

and early 1960s. The plan called for massive amending the Economic Opportunity Act to
slum clearance to make way for the most create the Special Impact Program.
up-�to-date design and technology in con- In its statement of objectives SIP resem-
struction. It also envisioned a more integ- bled a streamlined version of the ARA. Its
rated healthy environment in the inner city, basic idea was to revitalize poor communit-
with a full array of public and private serv- ies, primarily through economic develop-
ices for a mixed-�income base of residents. ment but with an intensive component of
But the Demonstration Cities and Metropol- services and training as well. SIP was more
itan Development Act was passed in 1966 specific about its geographic target,
with a more circumscribed mission. More however: neighborhoods characterized by
narrowly targeted on poor inner-Â�city neigh- high concentrations of poverty and “tenden-
borhoods, it relied on the familiar mechan- cies toward dependency, chronic unemploy-
isms of local planning and federal agency ment, and rising community tensions.” And,
coordination for a comprehensive attack on unlike the ARA, which funneled its loans
physical, social, and economic problems. and grants through separate bureaucratic
The legislation called for the creation of channels, SIP proposed to put development
local demonstration agencies under direct funds in the hands of the communities them-
supervision of the mayor’s office and made selves. It provided block grants to
them eligible for existing federal human community-�based organizations, which
service, job training, housing, and would in turn design, finance, and adminis-
infrastructure-�building programs on a ter their own comprehensive development
priority basis. The demonstration cities were strategies.
also eligible for grants and technical assist- SIP modeled its local activities on com-
ance to€ generate redevelopment plans in munity development corporations (CDCs),
poor neighborhoods. Participation by the organizations whose origins in the move-
poor was strongly encouraged but not ment for black economic self-�determination
directly supervised by federal authorities. distinguished them from the more tradi-
Nor was there any designated agency with tional small business orientation of the
authority to enforce cooperation and ARA. Such corporations had been cropping
coordination among agencies at the top. In up in black urban neighborhoods for several
a repeat of previous experience, even this years, and in the early 1960s some of the
limited plan was watered down in the legis- most prominent were linked to indigenous
lative process. efforts to establish an alternative to white
While the administration task force was capitalist control. Under government and
working behind closed doors to grapple foundation auspices, CDCs were deradical-
with the physical and social revitalization of ized and professionalized, and they
poor urban neighborhoods, Senators Robert developed a keener eye for the bottom line.
F. Kennedy and Jacob Javits were conduct- It was in this form that the CDC movement
ing highly publicized hearings on America’s expanded and diversified in the 1970s and
looming urban crisis, a term that had became the central institution for local
become virtually synonymous with the development. Setting aside $25 million for
ghetto and the fear of racial violence it pro- the first year, legislators expected that com-
voked. Pitched as an inquiry into the full munities would work in partnership with
range of urban needs, the hearings were the private sector to raise additional capital,
designed to draw attention to what the create new neighborhood jobs, and invest in
administration seemed to de-�emphasize in homegrown enterprises. The profits, in con-
its own service-Â�oriented programs: the trast to ARA’s trickle-Â�down approach,
absence of jobs in the inner cities. The hear- would then be invested directly in commun-
ings also helped lay the political ground- ity improvement.
work for an initiative that had started with SIP’s community development strategy
Kennedy’s visit to Brooklyn’s Bedford-Â� got off to a rocky start. As the first com-
Stuyvesant neighborhood in late 1965: munity organization to receive funds under
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 23

SIP, the Bedford-�Stuyvesant Restoration SIP recognized the loss of local job oppor-
Corporation provoked criticism and contro- tunities that the next two decades of indus-
versy when it established a parallel structure trial dispersal would only make worse.
of corporations that dramatically, if unwit- By 1967 the Johnson administration had
tingly, replicated the very inequities the amassed an array of policies aimed at poor
program was established to redress. One communities: more, better, and integrated
was run by blacks, community based, and services; physical and human renewal; local
designated to run the “inside” operations. economic development; community organ-
The other was made up of prominent white izing; and empowerment. These policies in
business executives who signed on to gener- turn provided support for local activism and
ate private investment and deal with the institution building, creating jobs and polit-
“outside” financial world. The SIP program ical opportunities for thousands of neigh-
also met resistance from the antipoverty borhood residents and leaving community
bureaucrats in the Johnson administration, health centers, neighborhood service organi-
who had invested most of their efforts in zations, law centers, community develop-
encouraging individual mobility and disper- ment corporations, Head Start centers, and
sal rather than local investment and devel- local action agencies in their wake. The ini-
opment. Even CAP, for all its focus on tiatives also gave rise to a new network of
strengthening local institutions, was prima- nonprofit providers and intermediary organ-
rily concerned with helping individuals and izations committed to community-�based
families to move up and out. antipoverty intervention that would sustain
SIP program administrators encountered the community development movement in
additional pressure from the OEO’s research decades to come. Expanding the scope of
branch, which was dominated by econo- President Kennedy’s antidiscrimination
mists with a taste for quantifiable program executive order, the Fair Housing Act of
results and wary of the program’s multiple, 1968 added another significant dimension
vaguely specified long-�range goals. When to the federal capacity to combat place-�
judged according to traditional measures— based poverty.
the number of people lifted out of poverty— For all their promise and ambition,
the program’s impact appeared limited, or however, the Great Society programs
at best unclear. Nor could SIP-Â�funded CDCs remained just that—programs—not a coher-
claim to have created a substantial number ent community policy. They were too limited
of new jobs. After a decade of federal and in scope and funding to alter the political
foundation funding, it was also apparent inequities or combat the structural economic
that CDC for-�profit enterprises were not shifts that continued to segregate poor places
able to survive without reliance on outside, as the “other America.” Nor did policymak-
largely government, funding. Indeed, they ers overcome a basic ambivalence over
had and would continue to enjoy most of whether their aim was to build up com-
their success in housing construction and munities or help people leave them. The con-
real estate management, for which they, like flict between those two strategies would only
commercial developers, relied heavily on become more sharply defined as local con-
government support. Thus the CDC move- ditions deteriorated in the 1970s and 1980s.
ment was particularly vulnerable to govern-
ment retrenchment during the 1970s and
1980s. THE ROOTS OF RETREAT:
Despite the program’s many setbacks and COMMUNITY POLICY IN THE 1970s
shifts, the ideas embraced in SIP did manage
to produce important results. Within two The 1970s brought dramatic changes in the
years it had invested in 13 urban and rural economic and political context for commun-
CDCs, some of which are still operating. ity development policy. Unemployment
More generally, by pursuing neighborhood-� and€ inflation rose sharply, while growth,
based development as its central objective, productivity, and real wages stagnated.
24 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

Reviewing the prospects for urban revitali- Federalist agenda in the summer of 1969,
zation at the end of the decade, President Nixon promised to get rid of “entrenched
Carter’s Commission on a National Agenda programs” from the past and replace them
for the Eighties was bleak. The transforma- with a system based on “fairness” for the
tion to postindustrialism was “inevitable” “forgotten poor” and working classes.
and “ineluctable,” its report began, “neces- During the next two years the adminis-
sitating simultaneous painful growth and tration introduced measures to achieve the
shrinkage, disinvestment and reinvestment, New Federalist agenda, with far-�reaching
in communities throughout the nation.” consequences for community development
Developing a national policy for community policy. The OEO was the first target for
revitalization was “ill-Â�advised,” the report reorganization, which was aimed at curtail-
concluded, because it would conflict with ing its community action division and even-
the overarching goal of national economic tually led to the elimination of the agency
competitiveness. The prospects for national itself. Nixon’s plans for decentralization
policy were further diminished by the pol- proved even more consequential for existing
itics of racial backlash, working-�class resent- community-�based programs. They intro-
ment, and sentiment against big government, duced a new, less redistributive and cen-
which moved the political center steadily to trally regulated way of providing federal aid
the right and undermined the New Deal to localities. Revenue sharing, enacted in
urban–labor–civil rights coalition that had 1972, provided funds to states and localities
supported community development in the automatically rather than through categori-
past. Equally important, changes introduced cal grants. In this way Nixon sought to
under the banner of Richard Nixon’s New reduce the federal role in determining how
Federalism profoundly altered the infra- funds would be allocated and to end the
structure of policy, in effect abrogating the New Deal tradition of establishing direct
special ties between the federal government links to poor communities to offset their
and poor communities that had been forged political weakness in state and federal legis-
in earlier eras. The result of these changes lative bodies. The administration’s adoption
was a renewed emphasis on localism, fiscal of block grants, which came to fruition in
austerity, and neighborhood ethnic solid- the creation of Community Development
arity in community development policy. Block Grants (CDBG) in 1974, gave locali-
This emphasis was meant to broaden com- ties still broader discretion in allocating
munity policy’s appeal to the white working funds and brought the flagship programs of
class, but it also marked the beginning of a the War on Poverty to an end. By the mid
steady decline of federal government 1970s, Model Cities, CAP, and SIP were
involvement. slated to be replaced by block grants. The
Underlying these efforts was a distinctive Housing and Community Development Act
philosophy of social provision, known as of 1974 similarly revolutionized federal
the New Federalism, that sought to give housing provision, shifting the emphasis
states greater power and responsibility and away from new construction and toward
to lighten federal restrictions in determining rent subsidies, thus reducing the extent to
how public funding would be spent. It also which public housing could be linked to cre-
envisioned a more efficient federal bureauc- ating labor union jobs.
racy, reorganized to eliminate government Following the changes introduced during
waste. But Nixon’s reforms were also based the Nixon and Ford administrations, actual
on a more clearly partisan agenda through spending levels for community development,
which he aimed to forge a new electoral while remaining less than 1% of federal
majority based on white working-�class expenditures, rose fairly steadily for the rest
resentment of the black welfare poor and of the decade. These expenditures were
free the federal bureaucracy of its New Deal spread over a much larger number of com-
influences by bringing it under more direct munities and used for a broader range of
presidential control. Unveiling his New purposes, however. Revenue sharing and
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 25

block grants also brought a significant make up for the losses experienced by older
change in the overall distribution of funds, industrial cities by initiating the Urban
both within and between different kinds of Development Action Grant (UDAG)
communities, increasing funding in the program. This program, like urban renewal,
suburbs and away from central cities and offered federal matching grants that could
rural areas, providing more services and be used for commercial, industrial, or resi-
benefits to middle-�class recipients, and dential development in central cities in
moving a greater proportion of funds away hopes of creating jobs for neighborhood res-
from traditional Democratic strongholds in idents and reviving downtown economies.
the Northeast and Midwest and toward the But it was never established whether the
South and West. Meanwhile, the political jobs created by UDAG-�funded redevelop-
relationship between federal government ment actually went to neighborhood resi-
and poor communities deteriorated rapidly, dents, and most of the funding was used for
symbolized nowhere more clearly than in commercial redevelopment. Despite these
the looming fiscal collapse of several major initiatives, Carter did not attempt to alter,
cities at mid decade, while Washington and indeed embraced, the fundamental
stood by. structural changes that had been ushered in
Assuming the presidency after eight years by Nixon: a new era of decentralization and
of Republican control, Jimmy Carter ini- diminished federal responsibility was at
tially raised expectations of renewed federal hand. In the wake of his failed urban initi-
attention to the special plight of poor com- ative, domestic policy drifted farther away
munities. Responding to pressures from from place-�based reform.
urban and civil rights leaders, he announced For all the setbacks and reversals in
in 1977 that his administration would national policy, the legacy of the 1970s was
develop a comprehensive urban initiative not necessarily one of defeat for the com-
that would restore Washington’s commit- munity development movement. The
ment to the health of American communit- increased emphasis on local initiative
ies. The intense period of planning that pushed€ community-�based organizations to
followed involved nearly every domestic strengthen institutional capacity, while the
agency and dozens of community develop- vacuum created by federal withdrawal from
ment experts who advocated such innova- housing construction opened up a market
tions as the creation of a national niche for CDCs. Community activists used
community development bank. Caught up the momentum of the 1960s to launch a
in an increasingly polarized debate over new phase of organizer training and national
people- versus place-�based programs, the network building that could be applied to a
planning group created an unwieldy collec- diverse range of community-�based con-
tion of small job-�creation, tax incentive, sumer, environmental, and antipoverty con-
housing, social services, anticrime, and even cerns. Taking advantage of the emergence of
public arts programs that looked to obser� attention to public interest issues among leg-
vers like more of the same. All of this was islators and in the courts, these groups real-
to€ be coordinated by an Interagency ized a major victory with the passage of the
Coordination Council, but its powers and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and
responsibilities remained unspecified. And, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
at Carter’s insistence, the programs would This legislation provided for public scrutiny
involve a minimum of new spending. of lending records and recognized the obli-
Carter’s comprehensive reform never got gation of banks to lend in communities
off the ground in Congress, but the adminis- where they do business. Promoted as a
tration did take incremental steps to restore weapon against discrimination and redlin-
some of the redistributive aspects of federal ing, it also gave community groups a power-
policy. In 1977 it changed the revenue-� ful tool in their own negotiations with local
sharing formula to target needy communit- lending institutions. Although the successes
ies. That same year Carter also acted to of local organizations did not necessarily
26 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

make up for the losses in federal support, as area redevelopment. Despite repeated leg-
they proved increasingly important in the islative attempts, however, the enterprise
decade ahead. zone idea was never adopted as national
policy. But it was adopted in a number of
states during the 1980s, where the desig-
THE END OF THE NEW DEAL ERA? nated zones were assisted by substantial
government investment and planning and
In the 1980s the Reagan and Bush adminis- came to resemble earlier development pol-
trations greatly reduced the already dimin- icies more closely.
ished federal presence in poor communities. The other major initiative to emerge from
Playing on anti-�government sentiment and the free market framework was a proposal
fiscal fear, Republicans eliminated revenue to privatize and promote residential owner-
sharing, UDAGs, and most other remaining ship in public housing, this time in the name
development programs, cut Community of individual empowerment in low-�income
Development Block Grants in half, and left communities. Like the proposal for enter-
a much diminished welfare and services prise zones, this proposal never got off the
sector as the only source of direct federal ground, due partly to the fallout from polit-
assistance to poor communities. The ical scandals in the Reagan administration’s
resources and mandate for enforcing Department of Housing and Urban
housing discrimination law all but disap- Development.
peared. The Reagan revolution also intro- The administration was unable to elimi-
duced a much more radical framework of nate or privatize all the social welfare pro-
decentralization and privatization than the grams it targeted for attack. But the Reagan
president’s predecessors had envisioned—in revolution did succeed where it mattered
fact, it threatened to dismantle the federal most—redirecting federal fiscal and eco-
policy infrastructure for community build- nomic policies—and the impact on low-Â�
ing altogether. Judging from the reductions income communities was devastating. In
in place-�targeted federal funding, the revolu- addition to the withdrawal of federal aid,
tion was a success. But the expansion in the the communities suffered from the increased
number and size of high-�poverty neighbor- income inequality, capital flight, labor set-
hoods during the decade tells a different backs, and crippling budgetary deficits that
story. resulted from Reagan-�era policies. Hit hard
Two initiatives emerged from federal by recessions at either end of the 1980s,
retrenchment, both premised on the belief poor communities were politically marginal-
that the absence of government was the key ized as well. And the very idea of commun-
to community revitalization. The first, enter- ity development policy, premised as it was
prise zones, promised to introduce free on collective well-�being and supportive gov-
market principles and restore entrepreneur- ernment policies, was challenged by a harsh,
ial activity to low-�income communities individualistic ideology positing that no
through a combination of government intervention would work. Ironically, for the
deregulation and generous tax breaks for first time since the 1930s, federal policy in
businesses. Reagan’s proposals were consist- poor communities was actually in harmony
ent with the supply-�side philosophy with the direction of social and economic
embraced in his economic policies: allowing policy writ large.
entrepreneurs to keep more of their profits, Reagan era changes did not devastate
the reasoning went, would stimulate new the€ community development movement,
investment and eventually trickle down to however, and in at least one sense they could
community residents. In keeping with their be turned into a source of strength. Pushed
anti-�interventionist premises, the proposals to do more with less, CDCs moved aggres-
also rejected the components of local plan- sively to become more efficient operators
ning and supplemental government assist- and to tap into local and private sources of
ance that had characterized programs such development support. Foundations created
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 27

new intermediaries to provide support for initiative contains much that is familiar to
existing and emerging community-�based veterans of the community development
organizations, particularly in housing and movement. Like enterprise zones, it relies
economic development. The movement for heavily on tax incentives to promote private
comprehensive, integrated service delivery sector investment—only this time the tax
gathered momentum as a new generation of breaks are tied to hiring residents of the
multi-�service and systems reform initiatives zone rather than realizing capital gains. Like
got under way. And community organizers, Model Cities it draws on existing housing,
galvanized by growing inequality and education, job training, and service pro-
federal cutbacks, created training intermedi- grams for most of the funds that will be
aries and focused on strengthening national given to the designated areas. Reviving a
networks. Impressive as these achievements strategy employed by the New Deal-�era
were, local initiatives were heavily absorbed National Resources Planning Board in
in making up for lost ground and could only response to funding limitations, it designates
imagine what could have been achieved in a two tiers of recipient communities, presum-
more supportive policy environment. ably as a way of sharing the wealth. Com-
munity planning boards also figure
prominently in the EZ/EC legislation, which
REVISING THE PAST: CLINTON’S combines the experience of CAP and Model
COMMUNITY POLICY Cities to require evidence of participation
from all sectors in the community, including
Promising “a new way of doing business for government and the poor. Federal
the federal government,” in 1993 the coordination is another feature of the
Clinton administration launched an initi- program, this time supervised by an intera-
ative to revive declining communities. In gency Community Empowerment Board
December 1994 the administration desig- headed by Vice President Al Gore. And
nated 11 empowerment zones, each eligible operating within a Nixonian New Federalist
for grants and tax breaks of up to $100 framework, it offers waivers from categori-
million, and 95 enterprise communities eli- cal program requirements and channels all
gible for smaller grants and business incen- federal grants through the states. It even
tives. In most places the initiatives were just borrows a note from organizer Saul Alinsky
getting under way as of the late 1990s. in its rhetorical appeal to the consensus
The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise ideal. Most striking from historical perspec-
Community (EZ/EC) is different from past tive is EZ/EC’s endorsement of “four funda-
efforts, according to administration officials, mental principles” that restate the essential
in its rejection of old ways of thinking about themes that have defined community devel-
the problems in urban communities. The opment from the start: economic opportun-
program proposes to move beyond a focus ity in private sector jobs and training;
on countercyclical grant-�in-aid programs to sustainable community development charac-
an emphasis on enabling cities to compete in terized by a comprehensive coordinated
the global economy. It also seeks to invest in approach; community-�based partnerships
people and places, recognizing the old that engage representatives from all parts of
dichotomy as false. EZ/EC marks another the community; and “strategic vision for
innovation in its metropolitan framework change” based on cooperative planning and
for economic development. And unlike past community consultation.
efforts, it is “designed to foster locally initi- Clearly, the EZ/EC plan rested on the
ated, bottom-�up strategies that connect the hope that this time the federal government
public, business, and neighborhood sectors will be able to overcome interagency con-
in community building partnerships for flict, weak investment incentives, competi-
change.” tion among local political interests, and
In fact, as both its title and the rhetoric racial inequity that have plagued commun-
accompanying it suggest, the EZ/EC ity development policy in the past. In this
28 |╇╇ A. O’Connor

hope it is banking on the expertise of the dispersal of industry and jobs. It would
people who have been working in low-� enforce antidiscrimination regulations to
income communities for decades and on the stimulate lending in poor neighborhoods
willingness of industries to locate and hire and ensure access to housing and jobs. And
in areas they have traditionally stayed away it would challenge the myth that mobility
from. Unfortunately, EZ/EC also repeats and community development are either/or
other patterns that have left many wonder- choices. Most of all it would begin with the
ing whether it, like its predecessors, is prom- recognition that targeted community devel-
ising much more than it can possibly deliver. opment—no matter how comprehensive,
Even supporters agree that the funding is well planned, or inclusive—cannot reduce
inadequate given the size of the task. Its poverty all by itself. This is not to suggest
associationalist tenor leaves critics skeptical that community development is futile
about how much investment or job creation without these larger changes, but with them
can be expected from the private sector and it stands a much greater chance of success.
the extent to which community residents The second challenge for community
will be able to expect corporate respons- development is to reassert the importance of
ibility. Like past federal demonstrations, it the federal government’s participation. This
begs the question of what happens to the is no easy task in light of historical experi-
thousands of communities not chosen for ence or the current political climate. It
support, and what happens to the EZ/EC begins from an understanding that past fail-
sites once initial funding runs out. It also ures do not prove that revitalization is
smacks of symbolic politics at a time when impossible; few programs enjoyed the
poor urban and rural communities funding, time, or sustained political commit-
command little more than rhetorical atten- ment necessary to make community devel-
tion on the national agenda. Most of all the opment work. Indeed, the federal
plan represents a very modest investment in commitment to middle-�class and affluent
community revitalization, especially in the communities has been much more substan-
face of an overarching policy agenda that tial and comprehensive, including housing,
encourages footloose capital, low labor infrastructure, and tax incentives among its
costs, reduced social spending, and persist- forms of support. It is also unrealistic to
ent wage inequality, and that brings about expect a revival in poor communities
“the end of welfare as we know it” with without both federal resources and direct
little thought for the policy’s effect on public provision. Two decades of federal
communities. withdrawal sent neighborhood poverty
soaring. And past efforts to stimulate private
market development have not trickled
CREATING A NEW POLICY down.
ENVIRONMENT The third challenge is to reconstitute and
strengthen the political coalition behind
The historical record offers important community development policy. This will
insights about the intellectual origins, polit- take collaboration with labor, civil rights,
ical frustrations, and recurring patterns of and other traditional allies, but it can begin
federal policy, but the challenges it poses to by addressing the barriers to mobilization
the community development movement are within the community development move-
even more immediate and direct. ment itself. Particularly important is to
The first is to make a case for investing in examine how funding practices affect polit-
communities as part of an antipoverty policy ical mobilization by tightening the tensions
that focuses on income inequality, job between outside providers and communities
opportunities, and racial exclusion as well. and discouraging the kinds of activities that
Such a policy would strengthen the position can help community-�based organizations
of residents with better wages and training become more effective politically. Foun�
while taking steps to stem the geographic dations are rarely willing to provide the
 Federal Policy in Poor Communities╇╇ | 29

long-�term undesignated funding that organi- housing location, transportation, social serv-
zations need to build capacity and institu- ices, and access to jobs. It would move
tional stability. Nor do they generally fund beyond the simplistic black–white dichot-
local organizing, advocacy, or coalition omy to investigate how racial barriers
building among community organizations. operate across ethnic, class, and gender
Foundations also tend to compete with one lines. And it would make an explicit com-
another in developing their programs, mitment to ending institutionalized as well
leaving community-�based organizations to as individual acts of racial exclusion.
steer among the divergent objectives, expec- Perhaps the most important and over-
tations, and even timetables of outside pro- arching challenge from history is to reverse
viders to meet their own organizational the policy contradictions that keep com-
needs. The result is tension and mistrust, munity development swimming against the
reflecting not only disparities in power and tide. Meeting this challenge requires focus-
resources but a struggle for control over ing not only on community interventions
community-�based initiative that is built into but creating the economic and political con-
the funding practices themselves. As an ditions within which community develop-
initial step toward more effective political ment can actually work.
mobilization, then, foundations need to be
willing to examine and alter these practices
and organize themselves into a more coher- NOTE
ent and persistent voice for changes in
policy. 1. For a fuller historical account with citations of
sources, see the much longer original chapter:
The fourth challenge is to acknowledge
O’Connor, Alice. (1999). Swimming against the
not only how race has contributed to the tide: A brief history of federal policy in poor com-
problems in poor communities, but to munities. In Ronald Ferguson and William
explore how it may be part of the solution. Dickens (Eds.), Urban Problems and Community
A race-Â�conscious strategy would identify Development (pp. 77–138). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institute.
how race continues to shape the policy
decisions affecting political representation,
 CHAPTER 3

Community Control and Development

The Long View

James DeFilippis

INTRODUCTION FROM CAAs TO MODEL CITIES AND

BEYOND
The histories of community control and
development are varied and disparate, and it The Federal government enacted the Eco-
is the rather ambitious goal of this chapter nomic Opportunity Act in 1964 and, with it,
to bring these histories together. The chapter began the well known period of, “The War
begins in the 1960s and discusses the emer- On Poverty.” This Act created, among many
gence of the current community develop- other things, a new vehicle for community-�
ment movement. It then presents the based organizing, planning, and activism, the
trajectory of this movement away from its “community action agency” (CAA). The
organizing roots and toward greater degrees heart of the CAA initiative was community
of institutionalization and professionaliza- empowerment and activism, and the under-
tion. This professionalization has seen the lying philosophy of the Community Action
goal of community control, and the radical Program (CAP) was the “maximum feasible
politics that sometimes informed that goal participation” of community members.
get lost in the process, and we conclude by It is unclear, at best, if within three years
discussing the implications of this. the CAAs were able to generate substantial
While there is a longer history to com- community-�level mobilization efforts. None-
munity control efforts that goes back to the theless, by 1967 “they were sufficiently
early 19th century, community control threatening or persuasive to precipitate a
reemerged as a broad set of movements in [change in] national urban policy”
the mid 1960s. Broadly speaking, there were (Fainstein, 1987, p.€328). This shift in policy
two different strands to this movement that had two particular components. First, the
are important for us here, the black power CAAs were to be reoriented toward eco-
movement and the direct democracy move- nomic development activities, and away
ment. Together they yielded many institu- from the political organizing goals of their
tional innovations and changes, but for the initial inception. The legislative form this
purposes of this book the most important shift in priorities took was that of the
institution to emerge was the “community passage of the Special Impact Program (SIP)
development corporation” (CDC), which is amendment to the OEO. The SIP legislation
the principle institutional vehicle for com- targeted local groups for specifically eco-
munity development in the United States. nomic development projects, and this
But before we discuss the social movement program was supplemented by the Federal
roots out of which community development Community Self-�Determination Act in 1969,
as a programmatic idea, and the CDC as its which drove the creation of many commun-
vehicle, emerged, we need to discuss the ity development corporations. Driven by
context of American politics that both fos- federal support, it was after SIP, and the
tered these movements and severely under- 1969 Self-�Determination Act, that CDCs
cut their ability to effect systematic change. started to grow.
 Community Control and Development╇╇ | 31

The second component of the shift in was the “black power” movement, which
federal policies was the enactment of the emerged from the larger civil rights move-
Model Cities Program, which was designed ment. A significant strand of black power
to place the control over anti-Â�poverty/neigh- was the drive for “community control”
borhood development policies back into the (Carmichael and Hamilton, 1967), and this
hands of city governments—and explicitly had two distinct components. First it dealt
away from communities. As Halpern puts it: specifically with issues of government decen-
“Model Cities was to be community devel- tralization and black participation and
opment decoupled from community action, control; particularly education and policing.
or more specifically from community Second, it addressed the control over eco-
action’s presumed tendency to engender nomic relations between blacks and whites.
conflict and disaffection” (1995, p.€ 118). It is the latter of these two which helped
This shift indicated the extent of how threat- drive the creation of CDCs.
ened many city governments were by the There was not a clear, unifying under-
CAP. By funding CAAs directly, the CAP lying rationale of the economic component
was enabling community organizations to of the community control movement, and
bypass city governments and connect instead there was a variety of programs,
directly to the national scale. goals, and ideals. This, of course, echoed the
These shifts in federal policies had pro- long-�standing debates by black leaders
found implications for the practice of com- about how to structure, organize, and
munity organizing at the time. Groups had promote black economic development. The
to choose between becoming more profes- 1960s version of this argument included
sionalized development organizations or calls for direct community ownership by
maintain their political identity. But main- CDCs, cooperative ownership, and individu-
taining their political identity would mean ally owned firms. Despite the debates about
the loss of the government funding they had what form black ownership should take,
come to rely on. Either way, the potential some of its most visible proponents were
for community organizing and social change decidedly ambivalent about it.
was significantly undercut. As Kotler This ambivalence quickly led to the asser-
observed, “The government wanted enter- tion of the central role of black entrepre-
prise rather than political action in the neurialism and capitalism in the realization
neighborhood; it would move the people out of power within the black community. Thus
of the meeting hall and put them behind black capitalism became, through its promo-
cash registers” (1971, p.€7). tion by OEO policies, the Nixon adminis-
To some extent, therefore, 1960s federal tration, and the lack of clarity by leaders in
neighborhood policy represented a very black communities, the dominant form of
narrow window through which connections black economic “community” control by
between community-�level political organ- the end of the 1960s. Community control
izing and community-�based economic devel- thereby became black capitalism, and advo-
opment and social service provision could cates for both explicitly and implicitly con-
be merged. But that window closed rather flated these two goals. The radical potential
quickly and, in doing so, helped to solidify of demands for black economic power thus
the divisions between organizing and devel- became co-�opted into simply a debate about
opment, which have come to be a dominant how best to reproduce capitalist practices in
feature in urban politics in the last 30 years. black urban neighborhoods. The road of
collective community control and empower-
ment was not taken (Shipp, 1996). A sub-
BLACK POWER AND BLACK stantial political opportunity was lost.
CAPITALISM

One of the most powerful forces in driving

issues of community control in the 1960s
32 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis

DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND government movement fail to address issues

NEIGHBORHOOD GOVERNMENT of capital and class relations, it embraced
the capitalist political economy. This was, in
While the community control argument was short, a movement for localized democracy
being presented by black power activists and as an end in itself, not a movement to use
theorists, a nominally comparable but sub- the framework of local democracy for
stantively different argument was being pre- changes in the larger-�scale, or even local,
sented by those advocating neighborhood political economy.
control and governance. These activists and
writers were advocating government decen-
tralization as a means to politically empower- OPPORTUNITIES LOST
ing the citizens of urban areas. This movement
was a 1960s incarnation of the Jeffersonian-� The possibilities of connecting these sepa-
liberal tradition of small-�scale participatory rate movements, struggling for local control,
government. As Jane Jacobs wrote, albeit in different forms, were always fairly
slim. In many ways they were fighting for
The governments of large modern cities are different goals with different constituencies.
not only incomprehensibly complex today, But at the same time, they were conscious
but also their direct effects on citizen’s lives political efforts to create institutions in
are now so ubiquitous that they cannot help
which local-�scale actors had greater control
but fail when their functions are centrally
organized. Many functions must be decentral-
over their lives. They also shared a rhetori-
ized and brought under direct, continuing cal belief in “community” participation and
control of local communities. control, and it was this goal that brought
(quoted in Repo, 1977, p.€48) these activists together, on paper at least in
the form of books written at the time (see,
Perhaps the strongest supporter of the Benello and Roussopoulos, 1971).
neighborhood democracy movement was At the same time, their understandings of
Kotler, the Executive Director of the capital and class were extremely limited and
National Association of Neighborhoods. He neither directly confronted capital nor even
advocated for, “the radical politics of local adequately theorized capitalism. In this way,
control” (1969), as a rejection of both the the movements failed to appreciate the
centralized welfare policies of the New Deal/ inherent importance of capital and class
Great Society variety, and the central role of relations in the American political economy.
class in leftist politics. Both of these should As Katnelson (1981) argued, this failure to
be replaced, he argued, by an embrace of the understand class led to movements sliding
Ancient Greek view of humans as almost into the prefigured “trenches” of American
inherently political beings mixed with a urban politics in which class is dealt with at
20th century perspective on the declining work, and community is dealt with at
ability of humans to act as such. He stated, home—and both are dealt with inade-
quately. This set the community and neigh-
True radicalism issues from a practical view borhood control efforts up to either
of man’s political nature, rather than a theo- disappear or become institutionally co-Â�
retical view of the state. Its object is to shape opted. And this is largely what happened in
the state to fit the present purpose of popular the 1970s and 1980s.
struggle—local rule—not to reshape man to fit
a theoretical state. For the left to engage in a
politics of liberty requires that it free itself of
the modern heritage of revolution and address NEO-�ALINSKYISM AND THE
the principles of local control. NEIGHBORHOOD MOVEMENTS OF
(Kotler, 1969, p.€96) THE 1970s

Thus, like the black community control Local politics in the 1970s is best under-
movement, not only did the neighborhood stood as having evolved from the 1960s,
 Community Control and Development╇╇ | 33

particularly from the direct democracy This is not to say that politically progres-
strand of organizing, and they were domi- sive organizing did not occur in the 1970s,
nated by what has been called “the neigh- for that would be unfair and an oversimpli-
borhood movement” (Social Policy, 1979). fication of community politics at the time.
In truth, this was less a movement than a First, while the neo-�Alinsky organizers were
diverse set of localized responses to particu- self-Â�avowedly “non-Â�ideological,” their goals
lar issues that largely stemmed from people’s of increased participation in, and the demo-
attempts to protect their neighborhoods cratization of, urban politics were certainly
from threats and encroachments from laudable. They also recognized that there
without. Accordingly, the politics of the are inherent conflicts in society, and under-
organizations in this “movement” varied stood that power is only appropriated
tremendously, largely in relation to the char- through struggle. Second, there were import-
acter of the threat from without and the ant community-�based efforts to prevent the
perceived sources of that threat. displacement of low-�income residents by the
The 1970s also saw the emergence of a continued construction of roads through
set of populist organizations that were large inner-�city neighborhoods, and by the last
in scale and relatively unencumbered by an remnants of the Urban Renewal program’s
ideologically defined set of goals. The prin- demolition. Third, substantial political and
cipal figure behind this movement was Saul legal victories were won by those who strug-
Alinsky who had emerged nationally as a gled against the practice of financial institu-
prominent critic of some of the explicitly tion redlining. The efforts of these organizers
socialist and race-�based organizing efforts of yielded the Federal Home Mortgage Loan
the 1960s. Instead, he and his organization, Disclosure Act (1975) and the Community
the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAFâ•›), Reinvestment Act (1977).
argued for a brand of organizing that
assumed that the only long-�term goal should
be the mobilization of people to take power CDCs: PROFESSIONALIZATION AND A
for themselves. Along with the IAF, there NEW GENERATION
was the emergence of national groups such
as the Association of Community Organiza- But these disputes bring us back to CDCs.
tions for Reform Now (ACORN) and While the neighborhood movement was
statewide groups such as Massachusetts Fair emerging in the 1970s, the older CDCs were
Share. facing uneven outcomes, as some grew while
These groups were run by largely white, others failed. They shared a common experi-
primarily middle-�class staffs and organizers, ence, however, in which community control
and the model of organizing was basically of the economy declined in importance and
the same in every locality: organizers from profit-�making became the dominant goal.
the national organization would meet with This was partly driven by the difficult realit-
local people to discuss with them what their ies of the markets these groups were operat-
concerns were, and then work to mobilize ing within. But was also a function of the
larger numbers of people in those localities changing priorities of the OEO which was
to address these concerns. The national still the dominant source of funding for
organizer, therefore, brings no agenda to the these “1st generation” CDCs. The OEO
locality but instead allows the issues, and increasingly pushing profit-�making above all
the solutions, to be defined by those within other goals. The Nixon administration ter-
the locality. The recipe, therefore, was for a minated the OEO, however, and CDC
situation in which the local IAF organiza- funding was significantly cut. The first gen-
tions, lacking any coherent ideological eration CDCs were therefore left to deal
framework, became about neighborhoods with this loss of funding and they did so by
“getting what they could.” This left them becoming increasingly individualist and
poorly positioned to deal with larger social entrepreneurial in their orientation and
forces, processes, and changes. goals.
34 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis

Evaluations at the time indicate the extent NONPROFITS FOR HIRE: THE 1980s
to which community control had become AND 1990s
less important relative to the goal of eco-
nomic development. Kelly found that only The period of the 1980s and 1990s marked
35% of CDC board members considered, the coming of age for community develop-
“Providing opportunities for community-Â� ment, as the number of CDCs grew rapidly,
controlled ownership of businesses and along with a heightened public awareness of
property,” to be one of their three highest them—and an increased set of burdens and
priorities (Kelly, 1977, p.€ 25). And she expectations was placed upon them. This
plainly states: “the community economic growth of activity has been evident both in
development movement in no way opposes the number of CDCs and in their average
or contradicts the American tradition of size. While only about 150 first generation
individual entrepreneurship” (p.€21). CDCs were created in the late 1960s and
A “second generation” of CDCs was early 1970s (and many failed within a few
created in the late 1970s and the early years), by the early 1980s another 500 to
1980s, as neighborhood protest organiza- 750 second generation CDCs had been
tions became CDCs. In becoming CDCs, created (Peirce and Steinbach, 1987). The
they transformed themselves from being number of CDCs nationwide, therefore,
confrontational in their dealings with city essentially grew at modest, but significant,
governments, banks, etc., to cooperative in rate through end of the 1960s and the
those relationships as they became more 1970s, and beginning in the late 1970s and
immersed in the structures they were origin- early 1980s began to grow much more
ally protesting against. rapidly. This growth has continued to the
Shelterforce magazine observed that there present (see Introduction, this volume).
tended to be a three-�step process to the The growth of CDCs has been accompa-
transformation of oppositional community nied by changes in their structures, goals,
organizations to CDCs in the late 1970s and and relationships with the public and private
early 1980s. First, the groups emerge out of for-�profit sectors. First, CDCs grew in spite
opposition to something (redlining, displace- of, and partially in reaction to, the shrinking
ment, etc.). Second, the groups become desire of the public sector to provide goods
somewhat more proactive, and begin direct of collective consumption—particularly
political lobbying of city halls to enact their affordable housing. Shrinking public
agendas. Third, the groups realize the limits resources left CDCs directly facing the
of public money, and begin working to impacts of these cutbacks. Local govern-
fulfill their agenda themselves (Fulton, ments exacerbated this loss of federal money
1987). Importantly, this was not a process by increasingly withdrawing from the provi-
of political co-�optation, but instead one of sion of social services and housing in the
professionalization. These groups were not 1980s. CDCs thus filled the vacuum left by
created to fundamentally transform the the state—both at the local and federal
structures that govern the urbanization levels. And CDCs were not limited to just
process. They emerged out of localized affordable housing, as they branched out
problems and conflicts and it was not ideo- into the areas of social service provision,
logically inconsistent to deal with local-�scale education, etc.
problems as a developer rather than an The second transformation emerges from
adversarial activist. These transformations the first. Because of the decline in public
were not, therefore, normative—they were sector support, funding for CDCs and CDC
merely programmatic. activities went from a “one stop shopping”
toward more “creative” forms of financing,
often referred to as “patchwork” financing
(Vidal, 1996). CDCs increasingly found
themselves putting together the funding for
projects from a variety of sources, such as
 Community Control and Development╇╇ | 35

private investments made to receive a Low-Â� “NEO-Â�LIBERAL

Income Housing Tax Credit (after 1986), COMMUNITARIANISM”:
financial institution loans made to satisfy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TODAY
CRA requirements, grants from founda-
tions, etc. This patchwork financing has fur- The community development industry in the
thered the process of professionalization in 1990s and 2000s has progressed along much
community development, because the finan- the same lines that had been established in
cial management capacities it requires the earlier periods. In the last decade the
greatly exceed those of the prior, single-� field has been dominated by various pro-
source financing. grammatic initiatives or trends focused on
Such expertise has often come from the how to best go about “doing” community
national intermediaries that were con- development. This has included discussions
structed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. of “community-Â�based assets,” “consensus
In the space of four years, 1978–1981, the organizing,” “social capital construction,”
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation and “community building,” among others.
(NRC), the Local Initiatives Support Corpo- Rather than discuss these initiatives individ-
ration (LISC), the Fannie Mae Foundation, ually, it is more useful to explain the per-
and the Enterprise Foundation, were all spectives and objectives that they all share.
created. Together they finance, provide tech- First, they are unambiguously market
nical assistance for, and generally shape the based in their larger goals and program-
structure of the community development matic details. This has probably been made
industry. most explicit by Michael Porter through his
Together, this growing network of CDCs, Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, who
foundations, and other not-Â�for-profit organ- has argued that, “a sustainable economic
izations, have created a situation in which, base can be created in inner cities only as it
in many poor neighborhoods, CDCs have has been elsewhere: through private, for-�
functionally become “the Shadow State” profit initiatives, and investments based on
(Wolch, 1990). They provide the goods and economic self-�interest and genuine competit-
services that formerly virtually defined ive advantage” (1997, p.€ 12). But Porter is
municipal governments. This role was far from alone in making these arguments,
embraced by the state, as it willingly walked and the dominant understanding at this
away from the provision of these services, point is that for CDCs to be successful, not
and looked to the community-�based sector only must they adopt an explicitly entrepre-
to fill in the holes it has left behind. neurial set of goals and practices, but they
Most of whatever remained of the radical must also work with the corporate sector.
politics that were part of CDCs’ histories, The second shared attribute is a promo-
was lost, as they became increasingly part of tion of non-�confrontational forms of
the urban political machinery and political engagement and organizing. Community
organizing receded further from their goals development is now a collaborative process,
and mission. The Ford Foundation’s defini- and the more conflictual ideals of black
tive guide to community development in the power, and neo-�Alinsky organizing have
1980s put it: been rejected. Michael Eichler, the president
of the “Consensus Organizing Institute,”
with rare exceptions, the 1960s are now as described,
much history for them (CDCs) as for the rest
of American society. One can’t very well hurl the essential attribute of consensus organizing:
his body into the path of an oncoming bull- instead of taking power from those who have
dozer when he (or she) is the developer. it, consensus organizers build relationships in
(Peirce and Steinbach, 1987, p.€8) which power is shared for mutual benefit .╛.╛.
Cooperation, rather than confrontation
became the modus operandi for solving a
neighborhood problem.
(Eichler, 1998)
36 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis

Within the current understanding of cooper- them. Thus not only does this particular
ation, there is almost contempt for past form of communitarianism fit with consen-
organizing efforts, and Grogan and Proscio sus or non-�confrontational organizing, but
state, “The community organizing and plan- it also fits with the neoliberal, market-Â�based
ning of that period (the 1960s) was soon perspectives and policies that govern com-
squandered on divisive or extremist political munity development activity.
tactics, including the in-�your-face style of Together these three perspectives, which
protest that Tom Wolfe famously dubbed, dominate the theory and practice of com-
‘mau-Â�mauing’â•›” (2000, p.€ 66). Low-Â�income munity development, can best be described
inner-�city residents are now understood to as a form of neoliberal communitarianism.
have a shared set of interests with the larger This neoliberal communitarianism has, at its
society they exist within, and organizing and core, a belief that society is conflict free, and
development should be structured accord- it gets this from both halves of its theoret-
ingly. Unequal power relations are com- ical framework. It also represents the fru�
pletely ignored in this framework. ition of the depoliticization of community
While it might seem a bit paradoxical, development that came with its split
given the neoliberal market orientation from€ community organizing in the late
described above, the current period in com- 1960s. This depoliticization also needs to be
munity development is also characterized by understood as both a product, and pro-
a powerful reassertion of the idea of com- ducer, of their support from the public
munity, and a particular version of commu- sector. The political logic of CDCs in Ameri-
nitarianism. This communitarian framework can politics has therefore come full circle.
is one which posits a belief that there are The federal government, which initiated the
shared interests among individuals in a com- movement for community development by
munity, and thus community development sponsoring often radical political organiza-
should be about creating the social relation- tions working toward community control
ships which allow those mutual goals to be and empowerment, now supports CDCs
realized. This thus mirrors the consensus exactly because they are no longer con-
organizing, in that the assumption is of nected to any political movement. And the
shared interests—the difference is one goals of CDCs have also come full circle.
assumes it for relations between people in Initially conceived as vehicles that would use
the community and the rest of the world the market as a means to the end of com-
and the other for relations between people munity control and development, they have
within a community. There are two prin- now become vehicles for the market, in
cipal figures in this understanding of com- which the goal of community control is not
munity. The first is John McKnight, who even an issue.
has argued for a framework of community
development centered around “community-Â�
based assets” (Kretzman and McKnight, SNAPSHOTS FROM THE FIELD OF
1993; McKnight, 1995). The second is CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITY
Robert Putnam (2000), whose work on DEVELOPMENT
social capital has become axiomatic in com-
munity development theory and practice. There are significant problems that come
Both argue that relations within communit- with the dominant framework of neoliberal
ies tend to be largely “win–win” relations, communitarianism. But rather than address
and both take that framework one step those problems here, I will leave that to
farther to assume that individual gains and other contributors to this volume (see, in
interests in the community are synonymous particular, Stoecker). Instead, I will simply
with collective, or community, gains and highlight two “moments” that occurred at
interests. Both also assume that communit- the end of the 1990s as indicative of what
ies are functions of, and defined by, the community development has become and
attributes and relationships of people within where it is going.
 Community Control and Development╇╇ | 37

The first is an extended memo in the Eichler, M. (1998, September/October). Look to the
Neighborworks Journal (the journal of the future, learn from the past. Shelterforce.
Fainstein, S. (1987). Local mobilization and economic
NRC) by the senior vice-�president of the discontent. In M. P. Smith & J. Feagin (Eds.). The
Fannie Mae Foundation. In it he issued a Capitalist City (pp. 323–342). Cambridge, MA:
call for “A New Paradigm for Community Blackwell.
Reinvestment.” The new paradigm called Fulton, W. (1987). Off the barricades, into the board-
for greater collaboration between commun- rooms. Planning, 53, August, 11–15.
Grogan, P. & Proscio, T. (2000). Comeback cities.
ity developers and outside investors and New York: Westview Press.
businesses. It included a promotion of the Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history
idea of place-�marketing in which commun- of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in the
ity development projects could take on United States. New York: Columbia University
names such “The Woodlands,” “Celebra- Press.
Katznelson, I. (1981). City trenches: Urban politics and
tion,” and “Redwood Shores.” He even the patterning of class in the United States. Chicago:
stated, “some of these places could be University of Chicago Press.
treated as urban blank slates, where the Kelly, R. M. (1977). Community control of economic
development takes on an image the investors development. New York: Praeger.
choose” (Carr, 1999, p.€ 21, emphasis Kotler, M. (1969). Neighborhood government: The
local foundations of political life. Indianapolis, IN:
added). In this new paradigm, the first role Bobbs-�Merrill Company.
for government is to “assist private firms to Kotler, M. (1971). The politics of community economic
extract value from community assets” (Carr, development. Law and Contemporary Problems,
1999, p.€22, emphasis added). 36(1), 3–12.
Finally, that summer I was at a meeting Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J. (1993). Building com-
munities from the inside out: A path toward finding
at the Urban Justice Center in New York and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago:
planning a march from Washington, DC to ACTA Publications.
New York City as part of the now interna- McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: Community
tional Economic Human Rights Campaign. and its counterfeits. New York: Basic Books.
In the course of the discussion one of the Pierce, N. & Steinbach, C. (1987). Corrective capital-
ism: The rise of America’s community development
issues that arose was contacting other local corporations. New York: Ford Foundation.
organizations that might be sympathetic to Porter, M. (1997). New strategies for inner-�city eco-
the march in order to solicit their support. nomic development. Economic Development Quar-
One of the people in the room suggested terly, 11(1), 11–27.
that we should contact the Association of Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Neighborhood and Housing Development Repo, M. (1977). The fallacy of “community control.”
(ANHD). ANHD is the principal trade asso- In John Cowley, Adah Kaye, Marjorie Mayo, &
ciation for CDCs in New York City. The Mike Thompson (Eds.), Community or class strug-
response from the roomful of 30 local com- gle? (pp. 47–64). London: Stage 1.
munity and political organizers to the Shipp, S. (1996). The road not taken: Alternative strat-
egies for black economic development in the United
mention of its name was a unanimous, States. Journal of Economic Issues, 30(1), 79–95.
“who?” Social Policy. (1979). Organizing neighborhoods.
Special Issue. September/October.
Vidal, A. (1996). CDCs as agents of neighborhood
REFERENCES change: The state of the art. In D. Keating, N. Krum-
holz, and P. Star (Eds.), Revitalizing urban neighbor-
hoods (pp. 149–163). Lawrence: University of
Benello, C. G. & Roussopoulos, D. (Eds.). (1971). The
Kansas Press.
case for participatory democracy: Some prospects for
Wolch, J. (1990). The shadow state: Government and
a radical society. New York: Grossman Publishers.
voluntary sector in transition. New York: The Foun-
Carmichael, S. & Hamilton, C. V. (1967). Black
dation Center.
power. New York: Vintage.
Carr, J. (1999). Community, capital and markets: A
new paradigm for community reinvestment. Neigh-
borworks Journal, Summer, 20–23.
 CHAPTER 4

Reframing Community Practice for the 21st Century

Multiple Traditions, Multiple Challenges

William Sites, Robert J. Chaskin, and Virginia Parks

“Community” in the 21st century seems to the enduring nature of its strategic dilem-
be everywhere and nowhere. The impor- mas. Our effort to trace the evolution of
tance of renewing a search for meaningful these traditions is guided in general terms by
definitions of community, and of initiating a regulation theory (Brenner and Theodore,
broader conceptual remapping of commun- 2002), which directs attention to how each
ity as a field of practice, becomes apparent of the community practice traditions
when we consider the intellectual and prac- responded to the successive challenges posed
tical costs of the current state of confusion. by Fordist and post-�Fordist restructurings
Recent theoretical critiques suggest that within the U.S. context. This historical ret-
notions of local community retain little rospective builds toward an analytical dis-
more than ideological utility within a social cussion of the key intellectual and social
context marked by corporate globalization challenges facing the field. We conclude by
and social welfare retrenchment (e.g., Amin, pointing to four “barrier-Â�crossing” sites of
2005). Intellectual currents associated with activity that seem to cut across traditions
postmodernism have spurred critiques of and may represent emerging sources of
community as socially essentializing and innovation for community-�based action.
politically conformist (e.g., Young, 2000).
For community-�level practitioners, a lack of
conceptual clarity about the underlying HISTORY AND STRATEGY:
structure of the field as well as an uncertain REASSESSING “COMMUNITY
grasp of its history makes it difficult to navi- ORGANIZATION”
gate and communicate across different kinds
of practice traditions and to relate efforts “Community organization” has occupied an
within different traditions to broader important position within the urban profes-
projects of social change. sions, social work, and urban planning in
Such a daunting picture suggests the need particular. Tracing its social-�scientific
for re-�articulation of intellectual signposts research orientation and social-�change
and strategic practices in relation to con- impulses to the Progressive Era, community
temporary opportunities and challenges. organization became a distinctive social-�
This chapter undertakes such a task, work practice area as early as the 1920s and
attempting to make sense of the disparate 1930s (Fisher, 1994; Rothman, 1974).
tendencies and internal tensions among While initial conceptions of social organiza-
approaches to community practice in rela- tion were drawn from Chicago School soci-
tion to the shifting political-�economic and ological theories, post-�World War II
intellectual currents of our time. We begin scholars and activists established core theo-
by summarizing the broad outlines of the retical foundations and graduate-�school
history of community practice or “commun- specialization in community organization.
ity organization” in the United States, The field’s self-Â�definition underwent further
emphasizing both its multiple traditions and expansion following the 1960s, when
 Reframing Community Practice╇╇ | 39

strategies of comprehensive planning, grass- in rough terms the major 20th-century tra-
roots organizing, political mobilization, and ditions of community intervention (see
local development became major touch- Table 4.1).
stones in€an increasingly heterogeneous field Social planning approaches see commun-
(Rothman, 1999). ity intervention primarily as a technical
Community organization is commonly process of problem-�solving focused on a
seen as a multiple-�paradigm field in which substantive social challenge (e.g., delin-
practitioners rely on a number of different quency, housing, mental health) that can be
competencies. Although it is possible to defined and addressed. Planning approaches
typologize these paradigms in a number of were predicated on notions of communities
ways, Rothman’s (1974) conception of three as functional (ecological) subunits of an
major approaches to community inter- urban industrial society that was dynamic,
vention has the advantage of clearly high- assimilative, and progressive. Social plan-
lighting ideal-�typical differences in theory ning efforts emphasize objective research
and practice while also offering a certain and the functional integration of citizens
historical applicability. These three through efficient access to services, and
approaches or modes—which we name here require professional experts who gather and
as social planning, community organizing, analyze data, administer large-�scale organi-
and community development—encapsulate zations efficiently, and enforce predictability

Table 4.1╇ Changing paradigms of community intervention

Traditional map of the community field (e.g., Rothman, 1974)

Social planning Community organizing Community development
• Communities as functional/ • Communities as political actors • Communities as participatory
ecological sub-units • Community intervention as the self-governing arenas
• Community intervention as building of conflict-initiating • Community intervention as a
technical/organizational, democratic-action organizations process in which community
research-based process to solve to redistribute power and members create accountable
social problems resources development and service activity
• Key challenge: tensions between • Key challenge: constructing • Key challenge: achieving
controlled conditions conducive durable organizations that also sufficient capacity to make
to knowledge production and continue to initiate and pursue meaningful change while also
implementation vs. unstable conflict (i.e., avoiding the retaining community-level
conditions typical of community- problems of co-optation vs. accountability in the process
level social life disintegration)

Late 20th-century Economic, Political, and Cultural Changes

to:
Shift from Fordist/New Deal Order (national mass-production industries, unionized labor, Keynesian
economic policies, welfare-state expansion, liberal mass culture)
to:
Post-Fordism/Neoliberal Order (global production/services, flexible labor, neoliberal economic policies,
welfare-state dismantlement, postmodern culture)
Flexible services Interest-group advocacy and Economic development and
Retrenchment and privatization coalition-building community-building
encourage community-based Economic and political pressures Drawing on complex arrangements
providers to compete for resources push many organizations toward from public and private sectors,
and target services to operate community development and certain groups focus on housing and
more effectively and responsively; pursuit of interest-group advocacy economic development; others on
non-profits and private funders strategies to secure support; building community assets or social-
grow more influential; horizons others seek to build new coalitions capital-centered development; still
become shorter term and many and movements (predatory others embrace comprehensive
research agendas become lending, living wage, environmental initiatives or network-building to
narrower; new emphasis on justice) to promote new forms of bring these together
collaboration and multicultural social regulation
practice
40 |╇╇ W. Sites et al.

of service delivery, while also understanding uting power or resources and in the long
the complex conditions and requirements of term to full democratic citizenship, move-
community-�level implementation (Warren, ment building, and social transformation
1963). Many Fordist-�era government and (Fisher, 1994). As codified in its best-�known
private social-�service organizations (from variant, the neo-�Alinskyite model, these
settlement houses and health departments to endeavors require professional community
child-�welfare agencies) were based on social organizers who understand how to build
planning models of service design and deliv- democratic action organizations, train indi-
ery. Innovative practitioners in this tradition genous leaders, define and analyze political
also contributed to what would eventually issues, mount organizing campaigns, mobi-
become rival traditions; thus certain seeds lize participants, and expand the terrain of
not only of community development but conflict (Alinsky, 1971). Historic successes
even social action community organizing (as within this broader tradition might be said
Mobilization for Youth activism in the to include major civil rights legislation and
1960s) often emerged, if indirectly, out of labor law, anti-�displacement actions against
social planning type work (Selmi, 1998). urban renewal, and the community reinvest-
A central tension within this model was ment mandates (Sugrue, 2004; Gotham,
between, on the one hand, the kinds of con- 1999; Squires, 1992).
ditions conducive to effective social-�scientific A core tension of this approach has been
knowledge production, bureaucratic organ- the challenge of constructing durable
ization, and service-�delivery economies of community-�based organizations that con-
scale (stability, predictability, etc.) and on tinue to initiate and pursue conflict (Piven
the other, the actual conditions (often and Cloward, 1999). Furthermore, while
involving unpredictability, chronic instabil- building such organizations was laboriously
ity, inefficiency, etc.) typical of community-� difficult work, success could be just as prob-
level social and organizational life, lematic as failure. In effect, the problem of
particularly in disadvantaged communities. co-Â�optation—and, conversely, the marginal-
Hence, even under the historical conditions ization of groups that turn their back on
that were relatively conducive to the pursuit opportunities for co-Â�optation—emerged as a
of this model in the United States (e.g., the perennial challenge for social action groups
New Deal or Great Society periods), contra- even under conditions in which conflict
dictions between centralized planning and strategies were not outright suppressed. By
local implementation presented a host of the same token, this kind of community
challenges that were understood within this organizing at times has transcended its
approach to be primarily technical or organ- neighborhood-�based origins, contributing to
izational but that were, of course, also polit- mobilization efforts as diverse as environ-
ical and social. mental justice actions, labor campaigns, and
Community organizing approaches under� anti-�globalization movements (Pellow, 2002;
stand community intervention primarily as a Simmons, 1994; DeFilippis, 2004).
process of organizing aggrieved or disadvan- Community development, finally, under-
taged groups to make demands on the larger stands community intervention as a locally
community for resources, recognition, or based process of self-�directed regeneration.
broader social change. Rooted conceptually Its emergence as a distinct urban-�community
in critical or radical theories of power and strategy gained momentum from 1960s
inequality, these approaches emerged from demands by urban social movements for
community organizing initiatives that were “community control” articulated first within
inspired by (and to some extent contributed visions of radical democracy (Breines, 1989)
to) 20th-century social movements in labor but more recently within communitarian
and civil rights. Defining “community” as a conceptions of civil society (Sites, 1998).
political (insurgent or transformative) actor, Regardless, notions of community develop-
this tradition emphasizes strategies of mobil- ment tend to define “community” as a par-
ization linked in the short term to redistrib- ticipatory, self-�governing arena in which
 Reframing Community Practice╇╇ | 41

residents and stakeholders create services or “POST-Â�FORDIST” RESTRUCTURING

development activities that remain account- AND THE SHIFTING TERRAIN FOR
able to this community. More than other COMMUNITY
approaches, this model contends that key
internal assets (people, relationships, associ- The final quarter of the 20th century signifi-
ations, etc.) need to remain at the center of cantly reshaped the economic and political
strategies of revitalization if development is landscape and, along with it, the prospects
to be directed by, and benefit, members. for effective community action. Beginning in
Emphasis in this approach is on process the 1970s, an international economic crisis
goals—encouraging participation, enhanc- accompanied the crumbling of key domestic
ing community competency, promoting col- pillars of 20th-century Fordist capitalism,
laboration and partnership, developing such as mass production industries, union-
leadership—within a strategy of incremen- ized labor, middle-Â�class consumption, Key-
tal, consensual, and self-�directed change nesian fiscal and monetary policies, and
(Blakely, 1979). The key tension recognized welfare state expansion. These pillars, which
by the tradition itself has been that between had supported relatively stable economic
achieving sufficient community capacity to growth and rising standards of living for
make meaningful change and retaining com- most citizens, gave way to new strategies of
munity accountability in the process (Fergu- corporate-�led growth based on greater
son and Stoutland, 1999). This tension has capital mobility, service sector expansion,
led to criticism of community development flexible non-�unionized labor, niche con-
organizations for their dependence on exter- sumption, and neoliberal state policies
nal resources, their tendency to substitute (Bluestone and Harrison, 1982). Growing
organizational goals for constituent inter- social diversity emerged alongside these
ests, the struggle to “scale up” successful shifts, as the post-Â�1965 wave of immigra-
initiatives, and the slow pace of incremen- tion, largely comprising non-�European
talism (Stoecker, this volume). immigrants-�of-color, transformed urban
Despite the differences between the communities. These changing conditions
models, all three took shape in tandem created significant challenges and opportun-
with—or in response to problems with— ities for community approaches, as residents
similar nation-�centered social structures looked to community organizations and
linked to the New Deal Order specific to strategies either to resist the dominant socio-
U.S. Fordism (Fraser and Gerstle, 1989; political changes or to fill in for downsized
O’Connor, this volume; Brenner and Theo- state institutions.
dore, 2002). Indeed, the community organ-
izing and community development
paradigms, in spite of their critiques of the FROM SOCIAL PLANNING TO
undemocratic and top-�down nature of the FLEXIBLE SERVICES?
social planning paradigm typically sup-
ported by New Deal and Great Society lib- Social planning was not easily made congru-
eralism, tended to assume that such ent with late 20th-century conditions of pri-
liberalism would remain an established vatization, flexible services, and recurrent
structural component of American society. fiscal stress. One prominent response,
Following the 1960s, however, changes in centering on market solutions to social
economic and political conditions posed problems, redefined community from a
further challenges to the three paradigms of functional/ecological unit to a market/demo-
community organization. graphic category or service niche. Likewise,
models of organizational practice shifted
from large-�scale bureaucracies to principal/
agent contracting relations in which entre-
preneurial agents compete for markets
(Smith and Lipsky, 1993). If proponents
42 |╇╇ W. Sites et al.

pointed to better-�targeted, more cost-� strategies (lobbying, ad hoc coalition-�

efficient delivery, the challenges nevertheless building, sporadic grassroots mobilizations)
included endemic financing gaps, overspe- became the norm, whereas groups commit-
cialization, growing numbers “falling ted to movement-Â�building found themselves
through the cracks,” and an overwhelming financially strapped or increasingly depend-
emphasis on short-�term-oriented services. ent on churches and foundations (Fisher,
Overall “planning strategies,” meanwhile, 1994).
were still guided by government policies In this sense, the old social action chal-
even when demands for flexibility came lenge—how to avoid both co-Â�optation and
from local communities (Smith, 2000; marginality—intensified, and groups some-
Marwell, 2004). The core practice dilemma times struggled to develop a new identity.
of this tradition—the tension between Both “community” and “organizing” now
research-Â�based knowledge and institution-Â� were being redefined—the former to speak
based practice—has been significantly exac- for a variety of overlapping constituencies,
erbated, as “market” demands of short-Â�term the latter to focus on leadership-Â�centered,
entrepreneurialism often run directly counter institution-�based (rather than grassroots)
to the careful knowledge-�building, institu- kinds of organizing. As neo-�Alinskyite
tional predictability, and comprehensive efforts relied increasingly on established
approach required for effective implementa- institutions for funding, normative bearings,
tion. In certain respects the enterprise of and organizing structures, their strategic
social-�scientific research itself has actively moderation and partnerships led to concerns
facilitated these tendencies (O’Connor, about leadership and accountability in an
2001). interest-�group arena (Warren, 2001).
Despite these challenges, community organ-
izing did survive, and even took on new
FROM COMMUNITY ORGANIZING issues, such as environmental racism, preda-
TO INTEREST GROUP PRESSURE? tory lending, transportation equity, immi-
grant rights, and the living wage (Luce,
Post-�1970s globalization, political realign- 2004). In certain cities, organizers rearticu-
ments, and state-�supported neoliberalism all lated neighborhood-�based mobilizing strat-
served to undermine social action type com- egies to confront displacement or
munity organizing. The enhanced capital employment loss, as well as to demand com-
mobility of the post-�Fordist economy and munity benefits in the form of jobs, afford�
the detachment of Democratic Party politics able housing, and public space (Parks and
from institutional bases in unions and com- Warren, 2009). These activities also intro-
munities reduced federal urban/community duced social action organizations to new (or
assistance, weakened labor law and con- long-�forgotten) coalition partners, such as
sumer safety, reformed welfare, and priva- environmental public-�interest groups and
tized public housing. Even locally, labor unions (Fine, 2005).
“progressive city” regimes failed to institu-
tionalize community-�oriented policies or
sustain broad action coalitions over time COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(Sites, 2003). TOWARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Certain community organizing groups, OR COMMUNITY BUILDING?
seeking to take advantage of market and
state-�sponsored opportunities, pursued com- The post-�1970s socioeconomic conditions
munity development projects that, over that undermined the social action model
time, replaced older action strategies. posed both challenges and opportunities for
Others, confronted by less “concessionary” the community development field. Although
elites and by their own organizational cutbacks in federal urban aid restricted
instability, became more careful in their use access by lower-�income community resi-
of confrontation. Interest-�group advocacy dents to non-�market resources, expanded
 Reframing Community Practice╇╇ | 43

low-�income housing tax credits and block built into community building efforts,
grants subsidized a growing number of including the reliance on broad principles
community-�based housing providers. A rather than articulated theories of change,
community development industry estab- the contrasting priorities of stakeholders,
lished itself, and in the process the arche- and the fickleness of funders (Chaskin,
typal community development corporation 2005). These dynamics produced a set of
(CDC) redefined the community develop- inherent tensions—between capacity build-
ment model (Stoutland, 1999). Though ear- ing and development outcomes, between
liest examples were designed to address long-�term and short-�term change, between
community revitalization holistically, CDCs broad community change ambitions and
over time emphasized the development in aligning expectations with the scale and
community development (e.g., bricks-�and- nature of interventions supported (Chaskin,
mortar projects), shifted from community Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal, 2001). In the
participation and accountability to entrepre- meantime, the community development field
neurial inventiveness, and redefined com- experienced pressure to resemble traditional
munity from lower income or minority to social planning approaches (e.g., an
mixed income (Halpern, 1995). Not surpris- increased focus on data-�driven and
ingly, turf or inter-Â�organizational rivalries “evidenced-Â�based” practice) but with less
became common, though as this competitive tolerance for notions of long-�term system
“industry” matured it also succeeded in change.
building practice partnerships and advocacy
coalitions as well as intermediaries that pro-
vided funding and technical support. GLOBALISM AND POSTMODERNISM:
Perhaps more frustrating to CDC propo- RECENT INTELLECTUAL
nents has been the long-�term problem of CHALLENGES
moving beyond housing to other kinds of
economic development, especially small Beyond these structural and strategic
businesses and stable, well-�paid employment difficulties, there were also two major intel-
(Lemann, 1999). lectual developments that threw into ques-
The central tension of this model endures, tion long-�standing notions of community
as CDC-�style bricks-�and-mortar development organization shared by all three traditions.
has not lifted neighborhoods out of poverty One such challenge was posed by theories of
or preserved them from gentrification even globalization, which have problematized
while struggling to sustain grassroots partici- nation-�state-centered conceptions of com-
pation and accountability. Partly in response, munity, emphasizing instead the potentially
“community building,” inspired loosely by new kinds of communities that emerge at
communitarianism and supported by founda- (or connect across) international and
tions, made social networks and institutional regional scales. Such notions undermine at
collaborations a central hub linking together least two conceptual moorings of the social
both physical redevelopment and group planning tradition: the nation-�state as a
empowerment (National Community Build- stable arena and actor in social develop-
ers Network, 2000; Beck and Eichler, 2000). ment, and social and political assimilation
This more socially focused community devel- as an unquestioned trajectory for immigrant
opment paradigm promised to enhance populations (Castells, 1997; Portes,
community-�level capacity to make meaning- Guarnizo, & Landolt, 1999). Conceptions
ful change while anchoring accountability of globalization challenge the other two tra-
in€community-�based institutions. ditions as well. For community organizing,
Yet how such agendas might be imple- transnationality questions the primacy of
mented in the face of neoliberal economic national citizenry as the ideal activist
structures and government policies was often subject, shifting attention instead to the
unclear. Implementation was further com� political potential of transnational advocacy
plicated by the ambiguities and constraints networks, cross-�national publics, and global
44 |╇╇ W. Sites et al.

democratizing projects (Smith, 2001; and “fix” communities that is claimed by

Khagram, Riker, & Sikkink, 2002). For social planning experts, or the micro-�power
community development, the challenge of of the community organizer to “manipulate
globalization is that new forms of commun- the masses” implied in Alinskyite commun-
ity detached from (or stitched between) local ity organizing models, or the discursive
or neighborhood places might be better power to speak for “the community” that is
understood through conceptions of regional often claimed by community development
or translocal development. More generally, practitioners.
notions of globalization make clear that all Taking globalism and postmodernism
three paradigms have assumed a certain seriously may point each model toward new
kind of urban spatial structure and locus as modes of engagement. Globalism draws
the natural setting in which community attention to opportunities for transnational
practice was conducted—the “inner-Â�city” planning, cross-Â�border organizing, and inter-
neighborhood or community of concen- national community development. Globalism
trated neglect—that now needs revision. also highlights the importance of cross-Â�
A second intellectual challenge to 20th- national comparative research in order to
century traditions of community organiza- understand the conditions for community
tion has been posed by postmodern action in, or across, multiple contexts. Post-
conceptions of community and identity. modern theory, for its part, may suggest
These conceptions tend to argue that ways in which different modes of commun-
traditional ideals of community—emphasiz- ity practice can be deepened through a more
ing unity, shared consciousness, and face-�to- rigorous encounter with the social construc-
face relationships—dissolve or essentialize tion and valorization of difference. Social
internal differences between members, planning needs to grapple with its own his-
enshrine deceptive notions of full presence toric role in the “regulation” and “surveil-
and understanding, and rest upon the exclu- lance” of social groups. Community
sion of outsiders (Young, 1990, 2000). organizing, through its confrontation with
Rather than a fixed and autonomous “identity politics,” may come to better
subject, community for postmodernists is a understand coalition building as a longer-�
fluid and relational form of identity and term process of inter-�group recognition,
community building involves the capacity to overlapping interest-�building, and respect for
accommodate oneself to strangers (Young, autonomy. Community development,
1990) or the construction of complex soli- informed by postmodern critiques, might
darities across multiple oppressions (Kelley, more easily grasp the exclusionary elements
1997). To some extent, these conceptions in communitarian visions that ask certain
are echoed within the practices of organiz- groups to give up who they are in order to
ers, social workers, and planners who recog- participate in broader collectivities. At the
nize differential power and social identity same time, such critiques could also push
(Weil and Gamble, 2005; Gutiérrez, Lewis, multicultural practice to move beyond super-
Nagda, Wernick, & Shore, 2005). Efforts to ficial designations of group characteristics in
embrace multiple identities and constituen- order to understand how a given community
cies within particular communities through may embrace multiple traditions of com-
governance mechanisms and simultaneous munity self-�definition and self-�organization.
translation at community meetings (e.g.,
Medoff and Sklar 1994), or through design
elements responsive to multiple ethnic and FUTURE OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE:
cultural traditions in development projects SUSTAINING TRADITIONS, CROSSING
(e.g., Robinson 2005), are also examples of BOUNDARIES
this recognition. Yet radical postmodernism
continues to challenge the use of power in Multiple models of community organization
traditional notions of community organiza- and practice remain relevant to contempor-
tion—whether that is the power to define ary conditions. Indeed, basic precepts from
 Reframing Community Practice╇╇ | 45

each tradition offer important signposts for however, not to focus on these paradigms
21st-century community practice. Core and their boundaries to the exclusion of
insights of the social planning tradition con- opportunities for innovation that come from
tinue to be crucial elements to any commun- other theories or from emerging practices in
ity practice that seeks to address social the field. In closing, we suggest four sites of
disadvantage in an informed, effective “transgression,” where new ideas, or new
manner. Key insights from the community realities, are encouraging practices that cut
organizing tradition remain fundamental to across the sorts of traditional community
generating power from below in a society barriers that too often reflect structures of
marked by growing economic and political inequality and division.
inequality. Important insights from the com- The first type of useful boundary-�crossing
munity development tradition are still valu- concerns the bridging of social divides, such
able lessons for building a robust civil as those between immigrant and native-�born
society in which citizens gain the experience communities or between classes, as a way of
needed to debate, design, and govern their forging common initiatives, extended net-
own institutions. None of these traditions works, or broader coalitions. Many com-
can we afford to do without. munity organizations have been engaged in
If it is important to recognize the distinc- deliberately multi-�racial organizing efforts
tive contributions of each model, though, that bring African American and immigrant
then what unites this disparate field of residents together, especially in rapidly
endeavor? The ultimate power of commun- changing demographic contexts. A number
ity, or of any community practice, lies not in of service-�sector unions are pursuing such
its status as a distinct sector of activity but strategies as well, often drawing upon com-
in the extent to which it contributes to social munity partnerships to broker connections
justice (Fainstein, 1999, 2005). Of course, between workers (Parks, 2006).
each mode of practice is positioned to make The second site of productive transgres-
its contribution in a unique way. Within the sion relates to the crossing of spatial/polit-
social planning tradition, community offers ical boundaries, as in efforts to link
a crucial mode of understanding and differ- communities across cities and suburbs or to
entiating social needs so as to respond to connect local projects cross-�nationally.
them in ways that effectively improve mater- Certain progressive regionalist initiatives
ial and psychological well-�being. For com- seek to organize metropolitan-�wide coali-
munity organizing, community designates tions in support of state-�level redistributive
any number of spaces or collectivities that policies (e.g., on health care or housing) that
can be leveraged to challenge dominant have historically foundered because of
forms of social power. For the community suburban-�centered resistance (Sites, 2004).
development tradition, community furnishes Meanwhile, innovative cross-�national initia-
a recognition that all forms of modern social tives at the community level range from the
activity—even those dominated by suppos- organizing, networking, and support of
edly “self-Â�regulating” markets and large-Â� local producer cooperatives to the trans-
scale political institutions—depend on national advocacy work of activists, NGO
certain communal ties, values, and modes of networks, and others around such issues as
social regulation in order to function cohe- indigenous rights, debt relief, and environ-
sively. What unites community organization mental justice.
across the various models, therefore, is not A third area concerns the crossing of sec-
simply a common field or site of practice but toral boundaries, as when traditionally dis-
a larger social project or mission. crete areas of service or action (e.g., housing
Even while reflecting on the importance and social welfare, or labor and community)
of a broader social mission, we believe that are brought together. Many recent compre-
it remains useful to sustain the three tradi- hensive community initiatives, for example,
tional paradigms as conceptual frames that have sought to connect development strat-
orient community practice. It is important, egies and activities across sectors in an effort
46 |╇╇ W. Sites et al.

to promote integrated social, economic, and izing: A practice model for community building.
physical community change, either through Journal of Community Practice, 8(1), 87–102.
Blakely, E. J. (1979). Toward a science of community
multi-�faceted project implementation or development. In E. J. Blakely (Ed.), Community
through supporting interorganizational col- development research: Concepts, issues and strat-
laboration (Chaskin et al., 2001). Cross-Â� egies (pp. 15–23). New York: Human Sciences Press.
sector mobilization around living-�wage Bluestone, B. & Harrison, B. (1982). The deindustriali-
policies targeting private-�sector jobs reflects zation of America: Plant closings, community aban-
donment, and the dismantling of basic industry.
the carefully coordinated organizing activ-
New York: Basic Books.
ities both of labor unions and of community Breines, W. (1989). Community and organization in
organizations. The most successful com- the New Left, 1962–1968: The great refusal. New
munity benefits agreements across the Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
country similarly reflect campaigns initiated Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the
geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism.” In
and diligently carried out through labor and
N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of neolib-
community partnerships (Parks and Warren eralism: Urban restructuring in Western Europe and
2009). North America (pp. 2–32). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Our fourth site of productive barrier-� Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Malden,
crossing relates to the traversal of scalar MA: Blackwell.
Chaskin, R. J. (2005). Democracy and bureaucracy in a
boundaries, as in shifting initiatives to more
community planning process. Journal of Planning
promising venues (e.g., scaling up or down) Education and Research, 24(4), 408–419.
or building organizational connections that Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A.
bridge local and extra-�local arenas. The (2001). Building community capacity. New York:
World Social Forum, for example, which Aldine de Gruyter.
began as an international counter-�summit to DeFilippis, J. (2004). Unmaking Goliath: Community
control in the face of global capital. New York:
the one held regularly by global corporate Routledge.
elites, has spawned over time an array of Fainstein, S. S. (1999). Can we make the cities we
regional and local “social fora” that facili- want? In R. A. Beauregard & S. Body-Â�Gendrot
tate interconnection between an enormous (Eds.), The urban moment: Cosmopolitan essays on
number of economic and social justice the late-Â�20th-century city (pp. 249–272). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
organizations (Köhler, 2005). Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Planning theory and the city.
While hardly exhaustive, this typology Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(2),
provides at least a preliminary sense of 121–130.
certain directions that innovations in prac- Ferguson, R. F. & Stoutland, S. E. (1999). Reconceiv-
tice may be taking. These four areas tend to ing the community development field. In R. F. Fergu-
son & W. K. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and
mark new “spaces” of community practice
community development (pp. 33–76). Washington,
without dictating the type of practice that is DC: Brookings Institution Press.
appropriate—i.e., they point to the “where,” Fine, J. (2005). Community unions and the revival of
but not the “how” of new community prac- the American labor movement. Politics and Society,
tices. The how, of course, is always in part a 33(1), 153–199.
Fisher, R. (1994). Let the people decide: Neighborhood
strategic question—hence, the enduring
organizing in America (Updated ed.). New York:
importance of bringing to bear insights Twayne Publishers.
derived from a reassessment of the tradi- Fraser, S. & Gerstle, G. (Eds.). (1989). The rise and fall
tional community strategies and from the of the New Deal order, 1930–1980. Princeton, NJ:
efforts of contemporary organizers, develop- Princeton University Press.
Gotham, K. F. (1999). Political opportunity, commun-
ers, and planners themselves.
ity identity, and the emergence of a local anti-�
expressway movement. Social Problems, 46(3),
332–354.
REFERENCES Gutiérrez, L., Lewis, E. A., Nagda, B. A., Wernick, L.,
& Shore, N. (2005). Multicultural community prac-
Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic tice strategies and intergroup empowerment. In M.
primer for realistic radicals. New York: Vintage. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice
Amin, A. (2005). Local community on trial. Economy (pp. 341–359). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
and Society, 34(4), 612–633. Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history
Beck, E. L. & Eichler, M. (2000). Consensus organ- of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in
 Reframing Community Practice╇╇ | 47

the€ United States. New York: Columbia University Rothman, J. (1974). Three models of community
Press. organization practice. In F. M. Cox, J. L. Erlich, J.
Kelley, R. D. G. (1997). Yo’ mama’s disfunktional! Rothman, & J. E. Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of
Fighting the culture wars in urban America. Boston, community organization (2nd ed., pp. 22–39).
MA: Beacon Press. Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
Khagram, S., Riker, J. V., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (2002). Rothman, J. (Ed.). (1999). Reflections on community
Restructuring world politics: Transnational social organization: Enduring themes and critical issues.
movements, networks and norms. Minneapolis: Uni- Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
versity of Minnesota Press. Selmi, P. (1998). Choosing sides: Radicalism and the
Köhler, B. (2005). Social forums as space: A response making of social work history. PhD dissertation,
to Peter Marcuse. International Journal of Urban University of Chicago.
and Regional Research, 29(2), 429–432. Simmons, L. B. (1994). Organizing in hard times:
Lemann, N. (1999). The myth of community develop- Labor and neighborhoods in Hartford. Philadelphia:
ment. In J. A. Hird & M. Reese (Eds.), Controversies Temple University Press.
in American public policy. Boston and New York: Sites, W. (1998). Communitarian theory and commun-
Bedford/St. Martin’s. ity development in the United States. Community
Luce, S. (2004). Fighting for a living wage. Ithaca, NY: Development Journal, 33(1), 57–65.
Cornell University Press. Sites, W. (2003). Remaking New York: Primitive glo-
Marwell, N. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: balization and the politics of urban community.
Nonprofit community-�based organizations as polit- Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
ical actors. American Sociological Review, 69(2), Sites, W. (2004). Progressive regionalism: A “delibera-
265–291. tive” movement? Antipode, 36(4), 766–778.
Medoff, P. & Sklar, H. (1994). Streets of hope: The fall Smith, J. L. (2000). The space of local control in the
and rise of an urban neighborhood. Boston: South devolution of U.S. public housing policy. Geografiska
End Press. Annaler, 82B, 221–233.
National Community Builders Network (2000). Intro- Smith, M. P. (2001). Transnational urbanism: Locating
ductory Statement, Annual Conference. globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
O’Connor, A. (2001). Poverty knowledge: Social Smith, S. R. & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire:
science, social policy, and the poor in twentieth-� The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cam-
century U.S. history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
versity Press. Squires, G. D. (Ed.). (1992). From redlining to reinvest-
Parks, V. (2006). Race, immigration, and the global ment: Community responses to urban disinvestment.
city: Lessons from Chicago’s hotel housekeepers. In Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
R. P. Greene, M. J. Bouman, & D. Grammenos Stoutland, S. E. (1999). Community development cor-
(Eds.), Chicago’s geographies: Metropolis for the porations: Mission, strategy, and accomplishments.
21st century (pp. 129–142). Washington, DC: Asso- In R. F. Ferguson & W. T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban
ciation of American Geographers. problems and community development (pp.
Parks, V. & Warren, D. (2009). The politics and prac- 193–240). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
tice of economic justice: Community benefits agree- Press.
ments as tactic of the new accountable development Sugrue, T. (2004). Affirmative action from below: Civil
movement. Journal of Community Practice, 17(1 & rights, the building trades, and the politics of racial
2), 88–106. equality in the urban north, 1945–1969. Journal of
Pellow, D. N. (2002). Garbage wars: The struggle for American History, 91(1), 45–73.
environmental justice in Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Warren, M. R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community
MIT Press. building to revitalize American democracy. Prince-
Piven, F. F. & Cloward, R. A. (1999). Disruptive dis- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
sensus. In J. Rothman (Ed.), Reflections on commun- Warren, R. L. (1963). The community in America.
ity organization: Enduring themes and critical issues Chicago: Rand McNally.
(pp. 165–193). Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers. Weil, M. & Gamble, D. N. (2005). Evolution, models,
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The and the changing context of community practice. In
study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice
emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, (pp. 117–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22(2), 217–237. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of differ-
Robinson, L. (2005). Market Creek Plaza: Toward ence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
�resident ownership of neighborhood change. A Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New
�PolicyLink case study. Oakland, CA: PolicyLink. York: Oxford University Press.
 PART II

Community Development
Institutions and Practice
 CHAPTER 5

Introduction to Part II
James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

This part of the book covers the breadth of to have its potential and limits most clearly
the institutions and practices of community understood. Community development efforts
development in the United States. The chap- do not benefit from having the expectations
ters share several characteristics that we of them raised by those who celebrate
think are important for this book. First, them—in fact, the opposite is more likely
there are no case studies here. All of the true, as they suffer from being unable to
chapters are discussions of general organiza- meet expectations that are unrealistically
tional forms or kinds of community devel- high.
opment practice. This was a conscious The part begins with two chapters on
choice, because the purpose of this part is to community development corporations
present the broad universe of community (CDCs) which are the most important
development. Case studies can be useful, in organizational form taken by community
terms of appreciating the complexity and development efforts. CDCs, as shown in
messiness of practice. But they can also be Chapter 3, have grown dramatically in their
limiting, in terms of their ability to generate numbers, size, and activities since the early
generalizable knowledge—and it was this 1980s. These CDCs are justifiably best
form of knowledge that we are valuing for known for their production of affordable
this part of the book. housing. But CDCs do more than just con-
Second, none of the chapters are celebra- struct housing. They also engage in a range
tory. That is, none of them celebrate com- of activities from small business develop-
munity development, and the kinds of ment, to workforce training, to social service
organizations they are discussing. Some pur- provision. This range is thoroughly
posefully foreground the questions of described by Glickman and Servon in their
difficulties in the field, while others include chapter. But the growth of CDCs has not
discussions of the problems involved in com- occurred without a whole set of problems
munity development in their general descrip- and difficulties. CDCs can, and sometimes
tions and analyses of the field. But none of do, fail. The question of what can be learned
the chapters are written in promotion of from these experiences is taken up in Rohe,
community development. Too often literat- Bratt, and Biswas’ chapter, so the problems
ure in this field is written by those interested can be avoided or mitigated elsewhere and
in singing its praises. But we find this trou- in future practice. Given the importance of
bling for two reasons. The first is that fully housing to communities, and community
understanding community development development work, the book devotes an
means being able to appreciate the difficult- extended chapter (by Stone) to the different
ies and contradictions in the field. Glossing forms in which social or not-�for-profit own-
over difficulties only renders difficulties more ership of housing can, and does, occur in the
troublesome when they arise. The second is United States. Housing, however, has clearly
that the best way to “promote” community been at the heart of the current foreclosure
development is to present it in such a way as crisis, which, at the time of this writing
52 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

(summer 2011) shows no sign of abetting. religious institutions in community develop-

Thus, we have a chapter from Immergluck ment. Faith-�based institutions have long
devoted specifically to how communities played a central role in American civic life—
have responded to the foreclosure crisis and particularly at the local level—and this is
what can be, and is being, done in the face certainly true today. Questions remain,
of such epic problems. however, about the basic capacities of con-
From there the part shifts gear to focus gregations to play more active and produc-
on issues of finance and economic develop- tive roles in community development. This
ment in community development. The first is followed by Brown, Chaskin, Hamilton,
chapter is about community development and Richman, as they discuss philanthropy
financial institutions (CDFIs) and their role and ask the vital question of how founda-
in financing community development work. tions can be more productive and supportive
CDFIs take several different forms, from in their work with community development
large banks to very small microenterprise organizations. Finally, the roles of local gov-
lenders, and these are discussed in the ernments in community development in
chapter by Benjamin, Rubin, and Zielen- Mayer and Keyes’ chapter. Emphasis is
bach. The issue of finance capital in com- placed here on a set of “best practice” local
munity development logically brings up the governments and the ways such local gov-
issues and practices involved in community ernments are productive partners in their
economic development (CED). CED has local community development industry
become increasingly important in the last 20 systems.
years, and the various types of practices, Finally, the last pair of chapters asks the
and the assumptions that inform them, are related questions of the role of food and
the topic of Wiewel, Teitz, and Giloth’s food production systems in communities
chapter. Finally, an important, and growing and the increasingly important question of
component of economic development work the role of sustainability as a concept in
in community development comes in the community development work. Dixon’s
form of social enterprise or social entrepre- chapter foregrounds the political economy
neurship. This takes several different forms, of food production and distribution in com-
and the chapter from Hoogendoorn and her munities, while Wheeler’s takes on the
colleagues describes these forms and what various ways in which sustainability has
they mean for community development. been understood and operationalized in
The next chapter is about service provi- community development.
sion in community development. As the The organization of the chapters into dis-
public sector has increasingly contracted out crete groups is not meant to imply that
the provision of services to people in Ameri- community-�based efforts can so neatly be
can cities, the role of community-�based not-� divided. In practice, different organizational
for-profits has correspondingly increased. forms come together—for instance, larger
The chapter by Levanthal, Brooks-�Gunn, and organizations have been known to contain
Kamerman, focuses on social service provi- both a CDC and CDFI. In fact, in many
sion to families and children, and the impor- places, where the community development
tance of community in the outcomes that field is firmly entrenched, there can emerge a
come from their provision and consumption. “community development industry system”
The cluster of chapters that follow high- (Frisch and Servon, 2006; Yin, 1998), in
light a set of different institutional actors or which there is a whole inter-�locking network
partners in community development efforts. or web of organizations, intermediaries,
The first, by Chung highlights the ways in churches, and government agencies involved
which public schools—already central insti- in community development. Thus the pieces
tutions in the lives of communities—can be, of the field, represented as chapters here,
and are being, brought more directly into need to be understood as inter-�connected
the fold of community development work. rather than distinct, in both analysis and
Owens then addresses the often vital role of practice.
 Introduction to Part II╇╇ | 53

REFERENCES Yin, J. (1998). The community development industry

system: A case study of politics and institutions in
Frisch, M. & Servon, L. (2006). CDCs and the chang- Cleveland, 1967–1997. Journal of Urban Affairs,
ing context for urban community development: A 20(2): 137–157.
review of the field and the environment. Community
Development: Journal of the Community Develop-
ment Society, 37(4): 88–107.
 CHAPTER 6

More than Bricks and Sticks

Five Components of Community Development Corporation Capacity

Norman J. Glickman and Lisa J. Servon

INTRODUCTION DEFINING CAPACITY

The extent to which community develop- The literature on capacity is uneven. The
ment corporations (CDCs) perform their term is often defined narrowly, usually in
tasks successfully is known as capacity. terms of housing production and economic
Although CDCs and funders stress the development. For example, many practition-
importance of capacity, it remains impre- ers hold that a CDC that builds 100 units of
cisely defined. The ambiguity results in con- housing a year has more capacity than one
fusion over what CDCs “do” and how they that builds 20. However, this definition
do it. Capacity must be delineated more spe- oversimplifies a complex concept and
cifically before the term can be useful to process; the result is an understatement of
CDCs, funders, policy makers, and the the capacity of CDCs. New research high-
general public. lights how capacity extends beyond housing
CDCs wrestle with systemic, structural production. An overemphasis on production
problems in the economies of cities. Quite distracts from the image of community
clearly, most long-�term economic trends are building as a social, not merely a physical,
beyond the control of neighborhood groups. process (Rubin, 1994). In order to be useful,
This makes their jobs especially daunting. capacity must be defined both more broadly,
Intermediaries have been created as vehicles to take account of the wide array of CDC
to help CDCs deal with this array of prob- activities, and more specifically, to include
lems. Several funders have established com- the details of CDCs’ work to rebuild poor
munity development partnerships (CDPs) communities. There is no simple or unified
and collaboratives—intermediaries that definition of capacity, and we believe
operate at the local level. These CDPs bring working toward one would be an exercise in
together the human and financial resources futility. We have therefore divided the defi-
of community-�based organizations, national nition of capacity into five major com-
and local foundations, for-�profit corpora- ponents: resource, organizational, network,
tions, and governments to help rebuild low-� programmatic, and political. Examining the
income neighborhoods. In this chapter, we separate elements makes the concept as a
look at the activities CDCs and CDPs under- whole more manageable.
take to build the capacity of CDCs. We The following sections treat the com-
present a framework that operationalizes ponents of capacity separately in order to
notions of capacity into five components. illustrate what CDCs need and what strat-
We believe that this more concrete way of egies they implement in order to build
thinking about capacity will be particularly capacity. We recognize, however, that this is
useful to practitioners, funders, and policy overly simple: changes that affect one com-
makers. ponent of capacity directly reverberate to
the other components. For example, a
funder’s decision to stop supporting a CDC
 More than Bricks and sticks╇╇ | 55

affects its resource capacity directly, but it deploying them appropriately. Table 6.1
also may indirectly diminish the CDC’s pro- documents these aspects of resource capac-
grammatic and organizational capacity. ity and shows how each relates to the needs
Figure 6.1 illustrates these interaction effects and strategies of CDCs. Long-�term operat-
as a pentagon of forces at work. The specific ing support. Healthy CDCs require a suffi-
ways in which changes in one component of ciently stable funding environment to
capacity affect the other components vary initiate operations and expand them over
from one CDC to another, depending on the time. Vidal (1992, p. 12) found that “the
particular context in which each operates. single most important constraint on the
One other critical aspect of capacity cuts growth of CDC activity is the need for addi-
across all five components—flexibility. Flex- tional capital,” with one of the three most
ibility has two sides: responsiveness and necessary types of capital being general
resiliency. Responsiveness refers to a CDC’s operating support. There are several strat-
ability to change focus and direction in egies that CDCs and partnerships pursue to
response to shifts in the environment in help raise funds in this area.
which it works. Resilience refers to a CDC’s One is obtaining multiyear operating
ability to rebound from setbacks and con- support for the CDCs’ work. Multiyear
tinue the pursuit of its mission even when support enables CDCs to formulate and
the environment in which it works is unco- implement long-�term planning (McGrath,
operative. A resilient CDC has staying 1995; Vidal, 1992). Ford- and LISC-�
power. sponsored operating support programs
(OSPs) are good examples of this. OSPs typ-
ically commit to three or more years of tech-
RESOURCE CAPACITY nical and financial assistance for CDCs,
filling a critical gap in CDC support. Long-�
The ability to increase, manage, and sustain term support also frees the CDCs to plan
funding is central to a CDC’s ability to build and execute programs without having to
capacity: it is often the foundation for worry about meeting monthly payrolls and
capacity building in the other components constantly chasing other funds.
we have identified. Resource capacity Funding agencies, public and private,
includes raising funds, managing them, and often designate the use of funds toward the

Resource
capacity

Political Organizational
capacity capacity

Networking Programmatic
capacity capacity

Figure 6.1╇ Interaction among capacity components

56 |╇╇ N. J. Glickman and L. J. Servon

Table 6.1╇ Resource capacity

Capacity-building Capacity-building strategies Effects on CDCs Potential limits and problems

needs

Long-term Devote major effort to securing Capacities in all areas of

operating support flexible, multiyear support activity increased
Allocate fund-raising efforts
between support for operating
costs and program costs
Resources for Attract and maintain multiple Funding diversified Possible dilution of CDC
stabilization and funders mission;
expansion CDC could grow too quickly
Attract multiyear support Enhanced ability to Patchwork financing difficult
leverage additional funds to manage
Allocate sufficient staff hours to New funding sources
researching and pursuing new identified, solicited, and
funding sources possibly attracted
Development Obtain funds from public Funding declining in real
capital sector terms
Raise funds through low- Technically difficult
income housing tax credits procedure
Obtain funds from national Tap pool of nonprofit
foundations funds
Charge development and other Able to plow funds back Funds not available until
fees into other programs and projects are complete
reinvest in additional
housing
Develop mixed-income/mixed- Simultaneous challenge to
use projects to generate fees keep rents low and need for
fee income; convincing
public finance entities/
lenders to allow nonprofits
to charge development fees
comparable to those
charged by market
developers
Access to funders Train development staff in Up-to-date knowledge
grant-writing techniques may increase possibility to
build resources
Advocate to funders regarding Long-run sustainability This is often a political
the importance of long-run established; additional exercise as well as a
operating support for CDCs funding/support received resource capacity issue
Create and participate in CDCs better able to solicit
networking opportunities, funding from more
conferences, social events, sources
etc.
Obtain joint funding with other Economies of scale Poor performance by one
CDCs to collaborate on achieved partner may adversely
projects affect other partners
Initiate and participate in
matching grant programs
Establish arrangements for Provide CDCs with
sharing space, labor, and access to expertise,
technical assistance funding, labor, and
information
Balanced portfolio Diversify project types to CDCs less vulnerable to CDCs tied to low-income
risk reduce dependence on single market forces that may communities, making
categories of housing adversely affect their locational diversification
production portfolios difficult to achieve
 More than Bricks and sticks╇╇ | 57

program side, leaving a much smaller pool intermediaries may provide predevelopment
of funds for operating needs. Successful funding.
CDCs put sufficient effort into securing Access to funders. One way for CDCs to
these scarcer resources. obtain resources is to train development
Resources for stabilization and expan- staff in effective grant-�writing techniques. In
sion. As CDCs grow, they require resources addition, partnerships and CDCs may initi-
for the stabilization and expansion of their ate matching grant programs with other
activities. This requires broadening and funders. Matching grant programs can
deepening their funding base. The funding greatly expand a CDC’s funding base. Also,
environment for CDCs can be erratic, and some partnerships encourage the CDCs they
successful CDCs cannot afford to rely work with to collaborate on projects. Col-
heavily on one or two funders without laboration has become increasingly neces-
agreements of long-�term support. Reliance sary as funding decreases and resources are
on multiple funders can also lessen the effect spread thin. Linking up with other CDCs
of changes in the funding environment and both expands what community groups can
increase a CDC’s autonomy (Vidal, 1992, p. accomplish and broadens the range of
56). At the same time, however, multiple funders to which a CDC has access.
backers may also place conflicting demands However, turf issues remain thorny and a
on CDCs, and patchwork fund-�raising can poor performance by one partner can
be complex and tedious. Inconsistent and adversely affect other partners.
multiple reporting requirements by different CDCs have the most difficulty getting
sources also mean time-�draining work for unrestricted risk capital that allows them to
CDCs. In addition, CDCs that pursue act quickly on development opportunities.
support from multiple sources run the risk Some CDCs have positive fund balances,
of spreading themselves too thinly. Finally, and have been able to fund initial invest-
embryonic CDCs sometimes accept more ment in new projects without needing to
funds than they can manage; CDCs that apply to external sources for risk financing.
grow too quickly may be unable to support The majority of CDCs, however, are too
that growth over the long term. lean to support a cushion.
Development capital. Money for projects Balanced portfolio risk. CDCs try to
typically comes from several sources, includ- balance their portfolio risk by diversifying
ing the federal government (e.g., CDBG, by project and type to reduce dependence
HOME), intermediaries (for predevelop- on a single market. However, CDCs are
ment), some CDPs, and some state and local limited geographically in their ability to
programs. For affordable rental housing, diversify because of the neighborhoods they
CDCs engage in the technically difficult target.
process of structuring low-�income housing Interaction among the components.
tax credits (LIHTC), which requires lawyers Resource capacity is clearly connected to the
and financial experts. CDCs often receive other components in critical ways. Sufficient
development and management fees for resources, for example, enable a CDC to
their€ projects and services to help pay for build organizational capacity by hiring staff
their up-�front costs in development projects with necessary skills, compensating them
and for the ongoing management. CDCs appropriately and continuing to train them.
also negotiate conventional and special Resource capacity also abets programmatic
financing arrangements with financial insti- capacity by giving CDCs the freedom to run
tutions for construction and permanent programs that meet community members’
mortgages. needs. Finally, a CDC with resources can
It is generally more difficult for CDCs to command political power.
obtain capital for economic development
than for housing. CDBG funds are more
limited, but other federal grants from the
Office of Community Services (OCS) or
58 |╇╇ N. J. Glickman and L. J. Servon

ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY with competitive salaries, benefits, and pen-

sions, but small budgets make it difficult for
Organizational capacity comprises the many CDCs to hire and retain staff (Vidal,
depth, skills, and experience of board and 1992). A lack of appropriately skilled appli-
staff members (Table 6.2). Without the cants may also hinder CDCs. Many CDCs,
ability to coordinate and work through therefore, hire consultants for specialized
problems strategically, CDCs work ineffi- functions in lieu of permanent staff.
ciently, while increased organizational Although this gives CDCs more flexibility,
capacity allows a CDC to get more from its outsiders seldom have the knowledge of the
resources. Scarce resources and extensive community or the organization that perma-
needs mandate that CDCs strive continu- nent employees have.
ously to perform at maximum efficiency. Effective fiscal management. While sound
Ongoing skill development is therefore fiscal management is important in any kind
essential. Because funding is increasingly of organization, it is particularly important
based on performance, good organization is for nonprofit organizations that often run
critical. on shoestring budgets (Nye and Glickman,
Effective executive director. Leadership 1996). In order to deploy their dollars most
by the executive director is central to organ- effectively, CDCs allocate sufficient staff
izational capacity (Kelly, 1977; McGrath, hours to accounting and budget manage-
1995). CDC leadership requires vision and ment. Emergent CDCs may fill this need
a blend of interdisciplinary skills that with non-�specialists and part-�time consult-
include entrepreneurship, talent in negotia- ants. CDCs and CDPs increasingly recognize
tions, and aptitudes for communication, the value of management information
development, finance, public relations, and systems (MIS) and are building capacity in
management. Executive ability at the top of this area.
the organization is crucial to success and Board development and leadership.
succession of leadership is difficult. Because Leadership is important on a CDC’s board,
of low salaries and benefits, CDCs are as the board carries the CDC’s long-Â�range
extremely vulnerable to sudden losses of key vision for the neighborhood and provides
people, but continuity of leadership is the continuity for the organization. Board
closely linked to a CDC’s goal attainment. members are chosen for a variety of reasons:
To bolster this leadership and maximize the they are recognized community leaders and
organization’s efficiency, CDCs try to create live in the neighborhood; they have special-
clearly defined objectives and to divide ized talents (architects, lawyers, bankers,
responsibility among the board, executive etc.); or they have good contacts with
director, and staff. funders and businesses. An effective board
Competent and stable staff. In addition helps create a clear vision of the CDC’s
to a competent executive director, the rest future, aids the CDC’s strategic planning,
of the staff must be of appropriate size, and participates in determining how the
talent, and structure. To build a competent nonprofit is managed. There is sometimes
organization requires staff training and, tension, however, between board members
sometimes, the employment of outside con- and CDC staff. Staffers may feel that board
sultants. However, CDCs face large barriers members interfere with their duties to run
to gaining access to adequate training, the organization on a day-�to-day basis, or
including lack of funds and time for it. board members may feel that they are being
Long hours, low pay, and inadequate ignored by staff and are not given room to
fringe benefits contribute to a high burnout play their fiduciary roles.
and turnover among CDC staff. The effort Managed growth. Strategic planning
to continually recruit, orient, and train new encourages CDCs to think reflectively and
people takes away from a CDC’s ability to plan for the long term. The role of local
meet its goals and maintain a stable organ- partnerships in this process is often critical
ization. CDCs try to compensate employees because CDCs rarely have the time or
 More than Bricks and sticks╇╇ | 59

Table 6.2╇ Organizational capacity

Capacity-building Capacity-building strategies Effects on CDCs Potential limits and

needs problems

Effective executive Hire person with range of skills

director (ED) necessary to lead internally and
advocate on behalf of organization
externally
Ensure that ED maintains good
relations with board, community, and
political figures

Competent and Ensure that ED hires competent staff to Managed growth

stable staff support all aspects of the organization
Train key employees
Employ technical consultants when Technicians may lack a
necessary personal history in
community work
Compensate (salaries, benefits, and Employee turnover Higher salaries are
pensions) employees commensurate lowered perceived as contrary to
with skills, experience, and the mission of serving
commitment to CDC very low-income people

Effective fiscal Allocate staff hours to accounting,

management budget management, and fiscal
planning
Train relevant staff using up-to-date
fiscal management skills
Employ management information Increased efficiency
systems and train CDCs to use them and effectiveness

Board development Select board with diverse talents and

and leadership connections
Recruit board members with expertise Increased resources
and external contacts and skills
Create vision with clearly articulated Shared vision
objectives obtained

Managed growth Review organizational performance

regularly
Assess operational needs, sometimes
change programs

Project Monitor time and cost efficiencies of

management construction
Use management information systems
to control costs and ensure quality and
affordability of projects
Contract out to professional property
managers
Plan strategically Reflexive thinking
encouraged

Evaluation Build evaluation into funding requests

Participate in funder’s evaluation Ensure that data
design gathered are
appropriate
60 |╇╇ N. J. Glickman and L. J. Servon

resources to set aside for strategic planning, sufficient time to fund-�raising, which pays
and so CDPs often build it into their rela- off in the form of increased resource capa�
tionships with CDCs. Partnerships also use city. Also, a CDC that is managed and
the goals set by the strategic plans to judge staffed well will be better able to program-
the progress of CDCs. matically offer the services that the com-
The uncertain funding environment munity requires. Finally, a CDC with
coupled with the changing nature of com- sufficient organizational capacity will help
munity needs makes managing growth a dif- build political capacity because it will likely
ficult task for CDCs. Embryonic CDCs face be better connected to the local political
a steep learning curve with respect to organ- system, and more effectively create linkages
izational capacity. Emerging CDCs are with other organizations.
better able to manage growth and create a
structure that allows for more specialization
of staff, and this stage may involve shifting PROGRAMMATIC CAPACITY
to a more hierarchical structure, a difficult
step for organizations built on a consensual CDCs engage in a wide variety of programs,
foundation. Mature CDCs find ways to including building and managing housing,
introduce change and allow for reflection on economic development, family services,
their work. crime fighting, and job training. The typical
Project management. Effective project CDC is active in three program areas: (1)
management is another important aspect of housing; (2) either commercial real estate
organizational capacity. To manage projects development or business enterprise develop-
effectively, CDCs must try to continuously ment; and (3) one noneconomic develop-
monitor time and cost efficiencies of con- ment program area, typically some type of
struction. By keeping track of these ele- social service or advocacy work. Capacity
ments, a CDC tries to control costs to building in these diverse fields requires great
ensure the quality and affordability of its organizational dexterity, and successful
projects. CDCs sometimes contract out to CDCs take on new programs only after
professional property managers when extensive strategic planning and careful
appropriate and when funding permits. deliberation.
Most CDCs, especially newer organizations, Types of programmatic capacity building
usually have to make do with in-�house differ for CDCs at different stages of devel-
expertise because they cannot afford opment. For instance, embryonic CDCs
consultants. usually focus on a single activity—often
Evaluation. In order to plan for the housing—so as not to become stretched too
future, CDCs draw on the knowledge of thinly too quickly. Often the initial activity
what they have—and have not—done well is tied closely to the availability of funds—a
in the past. CDCs therefore try to build link that continues throughout the life of the
evaluation into their funding requests. To CDC. New CDCs try to obtain training in
avoid conflicts, CDCs and partnerships need all areas of their chosen activity and begin
to work together in evaluation design. Eval- to network with other organizations and
uations designed solely by the funder may institutions that can help them become
fail to capture CDCs’ accomplishments, and established. Emerging CDCs often begin to
miss not easily measured outcomes. There is expand to new program areas as new needs
also a widespread feeling in the field, though arise—and as funding becomes available.
rarely discussed in print, that CDCs often Mature CDCs try to recognize and attend to
exaggerate their successes in evaluations new community needs. The first part of this
that have consequences for their funding. section focuses on skills related to specific
Interaction among the components. program areas: housing, commercial devel-
Increasing organizational capacity helps opment, economic development, and organ-
CDCs build capacity among the other com- izing. The second part deals with aspects of
ponents as well. It enables CDCs to devote programmatic capacity that apply to all
Table 6.3╇ Programmatic capacity

Type of capacity Capacity-building needs Capacity-building strategies Effects on CDCs Potential limits
and problems

Skills related to Skills related to housing Provide training and technical assistance in all skill Increased production skills
specific program areas
areas
Do predevelopment planning Better understanding of the production
process; costs kept down
Do site selection, and market and feasibility analysis
Gain better understanding of housing finance,
marketing, and program regulation
Strengthen property management skills
Skills related to commercial Develop same construction and management skills for
development housing
Develop retail or office properties Fulfill other community needs
Skills related to economic Provide training and technical assistance for
development entrepreneurial and business development
Participate in public and private economic development Private funds leveraged; expertise from for-
projects profit firms gained
Conduct employment training and/or referrals Increased skills of community residents;
higher wages in neighborhood
Promote education of residents to reduce
unemployment and increase wages
Encourage development of community-based financial
institutions and greater responsiveness of private banks
Target job and employment programs that keep money
in the community
Engage in or promote microlending activities and other Neighborhood economy strengthened
investment in small, local businesses
Skills related to organizing Learn different methods of organizing
Become affiliated with a local organizer or hire a Funding is
professional organizer to do this work difficult to obtain
Skills that apply Responsiveness to changing Continually reassess community needs and incorporate
to all CDCs community concerns into CDC mission
Hire staff with knowledge of, and a strong commitment
to, the community
Hire residents Ensures critical connections to the community
62 |╇╇ N. J. Glickman and L. J. Servon

CDCs regardless of their programmatic give residents the motivation they need to
agenda. organize and fight those forces.
Skills related to housing. Housing con- CDCs also foster the creation, stabiliza-
tinues to be the dominant focus of CDCs. In tion, and expansion of small businesses
order to build housing efficiently, most within the community (Bendick and Eagan,
CDCs work to develop skills and engage in 1991) by providing training and technical
training, in such diverse areas as predevel- assistance for business development. This
opment planning, site selection and feasib- strategy has the potential for job creation
ility analysis, market analysis, housing and for keeping money circulating in target
finance, marketing, construction manage- communities (Servon, 1998). To this end,
ment, permitting and zoning, property some CDCs have begun to experiment with
management, and government program microenterprise and alternative financial
regulations—in addition to training con- institutions. Although these strategies
struction workers. As CDCs acquire larger operate on a much smaller scale than tradi-
portfolios of housing, they seek training in tional economic development strategies,
asset management for the long-�term needs they provide participants with critical skills
of their projects. ranging from economic literacy to effective
Skills related to commercial development. time management (Servon, 1997).
Commercial development consists of build- Skills related to organizing. Many CDCs
ing and rehabilitating structures for nonresi- carry out community organizing, and organ-
dential use. Many of the skills required for izing is a natural adjunct to CDCs’ primary
building and managing housing are transfer- activities because it builds support for them.
able to commercial development, making it Organizing, however, requires its own set of
a logical step for CDCs wishing to expand. skills and resources. Some CDCs become
However, commercial development entails affiliated with local organizers, such as the
substantially greater risks. Close attention Industrial Areas Foundation; others hire an
to market analysis and feasibility, and busi- organizer to do this work in their commun-
nesses’ needs for facilities, is critical. On the ity. One potential downside to community
positive side, most of the activities associ- organizing, however, is that CDCs may have
ated with commercial real estate develop- difficulty balancing the multiple interests
ment “have relatively low start-Â�up costs and that surface as a result. For example, organ-
are reasonably inexpensive ways to provide ized tenants may demand better housing
visible benefits to residents” (Vidal, 1992, p. conditions than the CDC is able to afford
71). CDCs also engage in commercial devel- with the available housing funding. In addi-
opment because it indirectly helps to fulfill tion, CDPs sometimes hesitate to dedicate
economic development goals, such as pro- resources to it because of concern that
viding jobs, needed goods and services, and organizing is too “political” and the results
luring resources into target neighborhoods. are difficult to measure. Finally, organizing
Skills related to economic development. can alienate potential partners in city hall
CDCs, whose missions include economic and elsewhere. On the other hand, effective
development, connect their constituents to organizing can garner respect for commun-
the local and regional economies. They do ity organizations from those same powerful
this in several ways. First, CDCs help match forces.
people with jobs by providing them with, or Responsiveness to changing community
referring them to, appropriate training pro- concerns. Successful CDCs continually reas-
grams. Second, CDCs make linkages to local sess whether their resources and activities
businesses and negotiate employment agree- are appropriately focused on current com-
ments to ensure that residents will have munity needs. As these needs grow and
access to jobs in the community and region- change, CDCs try to incorporate them into
ally. Third, community organizations the CDC mission and phase out those activ-
educate constituents about the forces driving ities that are no longer a priority. A chang-
unemployment and low wages, which can ing program mix generally signifies
 More than Bricks and sticks╇╇ | 63

responsiveness, but some CDCs claim that Bratt, Schwartz, and Vidal (1996) argue that
funders pressure them to shift to new activ- “capacity is shaped not just by the compe-
ities that, although they may be currently tency of each individual nonprofit group,
“hot” or trendy, may not be best for the but by the strength of the nonprofit’s insti-
community. Wide-Â�ranging community par- tutional network” (1996, p. 203). Network-
ticipation in strategic planning can help ing serves a number of purposes: it connects
ensure that a CDC continues to serve its institutions (CDCs to private firms, nonprof-
constituents in a way that responds to its, etc.); it also helps bring individuals
changes in the community without compro- closer to each other and to institutions both
mising the stability of the organization. inside and outside the community. These
Effective CDCs hire staff with knowledge of networks involve financial, political, and
and a strong commitment to the commun- economic relationships and help community
ity. Hiring residents is a particularly good organizations achieve their goals more
way to ensure that critical connections to quickly and efficiently. The elements of this
the community are maintained. dimension of capacity are building stronger
Mutually supportive programs. Successful relationships with other organizations,
CDCs also tend to structure and operate moving organizations’ agendas forward,
their programs in ways that make them creating mutually supportive programs, and
mutually supportive. A CDC that already increasing political leverage (Table 6.4).
engages in building housing, for instance, is Relationships with other organizations
more likely to expand into a related area, and institutions. CDCs often work most
such as housing management or housing effectively by developing networks and part-
advocacy, than to enter into a completely nerships with others to bring new stakehold-
new area, such as business development. ers to the neighborhood. CDCs develop
Because all CDCs work in an environment coalitions, thus brokering relationships with
of limited resources, it is critically important other institutions, and decision-�makers from
that they recognize and capitalize on ways the private and philanthropic sectors. Also,
that they can make existing resources and when a CDC recognizes a new need in its
skills do double duty. community, it can fill this need by partner-
Interaction among the components. Pro- ing with another organization rather than
grammatic capacity helps build resource filling it itself. Relationships of this kind
capacity because a CDC that delivers suc- boost CDC efficiency by allowing them to
cessful programs will attract funders more specialize. Partnerships also serve as inter-
easily. Programmatic capacity and organiza- mediaries between CDCs and various
tional capacity are also tightly linked—one “downtown” actors—especially local gov-
is hardly possible without the other. Pro- ernments and corporations. Central here is
grammatic capacity is connected to political the education of people and organizations
capacity in that a CDC that is managing outside the CDC community about the abili-
successful programs is in a strong position ties and importance of CDCs. Finally, there
to command attention from political actors are networking opportunities such as con-
and to obtain participation from community ferences and community and cultural events.
residents. These events allow CDCs to promote their
accomplishments, and connect with each
other and share valuable information about
NETWORKING CAPACITY funding sources.
Promotion of CDCs’ agendas. CDCs try
The ability to build networks with other to bring external actors into community
organizations is an important aspect of development activities. They educate banks,
capacity building among CDCs. CDPs often local governments, and employers about
play important roles in helping CDCs to neighborhood concerns, and provide power-
create these networks—partnerships, by def- ful stakeholders with a better understanding
inition, are linking mechanisms. Keyes, of the community development process.
64 |╇╇ N. J. Glickman and L. J. Servon

Table 6.4╇ Networking capacity

Capacity-building needs Capacity-building strategies Effects on CDCs Potential limits and problems

Strong relationships with Broker relationships Makes them more Opportunity cost in time
other organizations and between CDCs that efficient by allowing spent outside CDC’s
institutions complement each other specialization specific mission
Partner with other CDCs
to fulfill unmet community
needs
Pressure other
organizations to make
activities complement
CDCs and agenda
Support/work in coalitions Relationships with other
relevant actors built
Partner with public and CDCs gain expertise and
private groups to carry partners learn about the
out housing, real estate community
development, and
economic development
projects

Promotion of CDCs’ Broker relationships

agendas externally among CDCs that
complement each other
Partner with other CDCs
to fulfill community needs
Pressure other
organizations to make
activities complement
CDCs’ efforts

Access to non-financial Create and participate in CDCs showcase their

resources networking opportunities, accomplishments and
conferences, and social connect with each other
events to share information
Disseminate regular Improved relations
updates of CDC activity between CDCs and
to existing and potential funders; increased
funders awareness among parties
Create links to other
CDCs, job training, and
other service providers in
area

Mutually supportive Choose new program

programs areas that draw upon
existing skills
Establish partnerships
with other programs to
extend CDCs’ reach

CDCs also look for opportunities to partner parts of CDC agendas that require non-�
with public and private groups to carry out financial resources can also be supported by
housing, real estate, and economic develop- networking. To this end, CDCs create links
ment projects. to networks of other CDCs, job-�training pro-
Access to non-�financial resources. The grams, workforce development specialists,
 More than Bricks and sticks╇╇ | 65

and other service providers in the area (Har- their local governments’ help for tax abate-
rison and Weiss, 1998). Neighboring CDCs ment, letters of support, and so forth,
can establish arrangements for sharing funders tend to shy away from supporting
space, labor, and technical assistance and direct political action because it seems too
for cooperating on program activity. These much like lobbying to them.
relationships provide CDCs with access to Community participation. Without a
expertise and information. We are cautious strong and active constituent base, CDCs
about drawing firm conclusions regarding face difficulty arguing their cause outside the
the relationship between the number of community. Newer CDCs must gain trust
partnerships and CDC capacity—we do not and a common vision for change in their
believe that more partnerships necessarily communities, and maintaining these remains
translate into greater capacity. CDCs must an important task throughout the life of the
be strategic about the specific organizations CDC. Mature CDCs, with their greater
with which they partner and about the kinds experience and visibility, position them-
of arrangements into which they enter. selves as political players to support their
Interaction among the components. Net- efforts. To maximize community participa-
working helps embed CDCs in the life of the tion, CDCs try to hold community meetings
city and region in which they operate. It can at convenient times and places, and often
help with resource capacity building by provide transportation and child care. CDCs
putting community organizations in front of also engage in community planning exer-
funders. Network capacity also builds pro- cises, share development plans, and seek out
grammatic capacity, because it enables community residents for CDC committees
CDCs to do more and to extend their reach and neighborhood events. Many community
beyond what they could do on their own. organizations involve key community
Network capacity is the external analog to leaders in their decision-�making and agenda-
organizational capacity; it defines the ways �setting processes. Sharing real power with
the organization can do business as it faces community members increases participation
outward to the rest of its community. because the larger community is more likely
Finally, it affects the political capacity of the to believe that its interests are being repre-
CDC through the creation of relationships sented. Organizing also builds participation
with political actors at all levels. because it turns community members into
stakeholders.
Community representation in CDCs is an
POLITICAL CAPACITY important aspect of participation. Without
it, government officials, funders, and the
Although political capacity manifests itself community at large may be skeptical of the
in many ways—community participation, CDC’s ability to be effective or to speak for
political leverage, educated constituents, and the neighborhood. To obtain community
conflict management—this component of representation, a CDC can try to ensure that
capacity primarily refers to two elements its board and staff reflect the makeup of the
(Table 6.5): CDC’s influence with govern- community (Gittell, Gross, & Newman
ment officials at all levels; and CDC’s legiti- 1994), and can train active residents for
macy within the community it serves. Both positions of increasing responsibility. Suc-
types of political capacity help a CDC build cessful CDCs provide education, training,
other types of capacity. support, and confidence building for leaders
Building political capacity is not easy. In within the community.
many ways, it is the trickiest kind of capaÂ� The CDC’s internal structure should be
city building that CDCs negotiate. Although democratic to maintain an adequate level of
CDPs, by and large, agree that political accountability to the community. An elected
capacity is important, some collaboratives board and an involved membership create
are uneasy about trying to build the political clear lines of communication between the
capacity of CDCs. Although the CDCs need organization and the neighborhood.
66 |╇╇ N. J. Glickman and L. J. Servon

Table 6.5╇ Political capacity

Capacity-building Capacity-building strategies Effects on CDCs Potential limits and problems

needs

Community Hold community meetings at

participation convenient times, places
Include community
representatives in setting
agenda
Encourage community Conflict among multiple
organizing and support interests
Ensure that board and staff Community needs effectively Process may become bogged
are representative of the addressed down because of factionalism
community
Encourage community input CDC perceived as part of
in CDC activities community
Employ an internal CDCs become more
democratic structure accountable to the
community
Establish clear lines of CDC respected and trusted
accountability between CDC within community
and community

Political leverage Advocate with, and educate Increased citywide visibility Some funders neither approve
public and private officials of nor fund advocacy; run risk
about, community needs of violating 503(k)3 rules
Broker relationships between CDC legitimacy increased Change in political
local public officials and administration may hurt CDC
community
Undertake outreach to
downtown business and
other community groups
Facilitate voting in Community development Possible backlash from
community elections policy influenced government if change in
administrations
Create opportunities for
constituents to take on
positions of responsibility
citywide
Train staff in negotiation/ Arbitration skills developed
conflict resolution

Educated Disseminate information on Residents made more aware

constituents and government policy, activities, of issues that affect them
partners and economic forces that
affect residents
Develop leadership within
the community
Make information about Increased awareness of
CDCs’ activities readily activities and strategies of
available to community CDC
Educate banks, local Greater understanding of
governments, and local community on the part of
employers about their critical actors
customers and potential
employees
 More than Bricks and sticks╇╇ | 67

Table 6.5╇ Continued

Capacity-building Capacity-building strategies Effects on CDCs Potential limits and problems

needs

Partner with public and CDCs gain expertise and

private groups to carry out partners learn about the
housing, real estate community
development, and economic
development projects
Conflict Heighten sensitivity to the
management multiple interests of the
community, businesses, and
governments
Mediate conflicting interests
from within and without
community
Maintain strong and regular
communication with all
stakeholders

However, tension sometimes develops as members in this way helps them feel more in
CDC staffs clash with community activists. control of the forces that influence their lives
CDCs therefore worry about the costs of and encourages them to participate politi-
being “too” democratic—that is, there is a cally to effect change. Training community
trade-Â�off between maintaining an open members also helps increase CDCs’ political
process and the need to make a decision and legitimacy.
get something done. Conflict management. Awakening parti-
Political leverage. In order to increase cipants’ political consciousness can give rise
their political leverage, many CDCs work to political schisms. Disagreements with
on building relationships with, and educat- other community actors—over issues such
ing, local officials. CDCs often seek to as race and ethnicity, or owner versus
increase public services to low-Â�income renter—can be a drain on time and
neighborhoods. Cities where local govern- resources. CDCs must balance the demands
ment involvement in community economic of an array of widely divergent actors.
development is substantial show higher CDCs therefore try to understand and com-
levels of CDC activity than other cities municate with the multiple stakeholders and
(Vidal, 1992, p. 14). However, organiza- interests of the community, businesses, and
tions that become too connected to one local government. Partnerships can help
political administration may fall quickly out CDCs manage conflicting interests by acting
of favor when that administration changes. as a mediating party, and providing training
They also run the risk of being co-�opted by for CDCs in conflict resolution.
the administration. An additional problem Interaction among the components. Polit-
is that patronage from local elected officials ical capacity builds and is built by the other
can insulate CDCs from pressures to manage four components of capacity. A CDC that
themselves efficiently (Ferguson and Stout- has political clout is better able to command
land, 1996). other kinds of resources. Conversely, organ-
Educated constituents and partners. A izational capacity and programmatic capac-
CDC is enhanced by educated constituents ity enable a CDC to obtain greater political
who vote, and articulate, and argue for their attention. And to the extent that political
own needs. CDCs therefore disseminate capacity equals legitimacy and participation,
information on government policy, govern- organizational and programmatic capacity
ment activities, and economic forces that are enhanced as a result. Probably more
affect residents. Educating community than any of the other categories, increases in
68 |╇╇ N. J. Glickman and L. J. Servon

political capacity are dependent on the some CDCs are inefficient and unwilling to
success of CDCs in creating networks with make necessary changes in their operations.
other community development players. CDCs are different from other kinds of non-
profits in that they must maintain their ties
to their neighborhoods. This elevates the
CONCLUSION importance of the capacity relating to the
training of local citizens and the participa-
CDCs selectively use the strategies identified tion of residents. A key question remains:
with each component to move their com- Can neighborhood organizations become
munity building activities forward. No CDC more financially and technically efficient and
employs all the strategies discussed in this retain their ties to the people they represent?
chapter. But many are trying to work on all It is also important to better understand
five components simultaneously, to the the potential comparative “weightings” of
extent possible. Partnerships help them to the different types of capacity. The categor-
extend their reach and balance their efforts ies presented here are of different levels of
across the five components; they also try to importance to community organizations. In
persuade them to work on areas that have addition, it is useful to understand the
been neglected. In the end, CDCs build trade-�offs between different kinds of capac-
capacity by increasing their ability to do the ity. All efforts involve the cost in lost
following: opportunity of not pursuing some other
kind of capacity. We also need more accur-
1. think through strategic plans to help ate assessments of the role of collaboratives
themselves; in their communities, and of the CDCs’
2. raise funds to build and manage housing contributions to neighborhoods. These
and economic development projects; assessments, in turn, will provide more
3. demonstrate effective leadership and useful evaluation tools and concepts and
vision; lead to better strategic planning by these
4. better organize themselves internally by groups. We expect that CDCs will be able
hiring, training, and retaining the best to use the results of this investigation in
staff possible; their ongoing work.
5. organize members of the community to
participate in activities that improve
their neighborhood; REFERENCES
6. develop networks of CDCs and other
Bendick, M., Jr. & Eagan, M. L. (1991). Business
service providers. development in the inner city: Enterprise with com-
munity links. New York: Community Development
Tensions in the capacity-�building process Research Center, New School for Social Research.
exist because the power relationships Ferguson, R. F. & Stoutland, S. E. (1996). Community
development, change, and sustainability in commun-
between CDCs and funders are uneven.
ity support systems. In Ronald Ferguson and William
CDCs do not always like the prospect of Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and community
changing programmatic course when development (pp. 33–76). Washington, DC: Brook-
funders’ interests change, for example. There ings Institute.
has been some tension over the directions Gittell, M., Gross, J., & Newman, K. (1994). Race and
gender in neighborhood development organizations.
that some funders are taking—work force
New York: City University of New York, Howard
development, regional job strategies, and so Samuels State Management and Policy Center.
on—which some CDCs feel do not build on Harrison, B. & Weiss, M. (1998). Workforce develop-
the capacity that they have developed over ment networks: Community-�based organizations and
time. Other CDCs question whether becom- regional alliances. New York: Sage.
ing more comprehensive is necessarily a Kelly, R. M. (1977). Community control of economic
development: The boards of community develop-
good thing; some prefer to further develop ment corporations. New York: Praeger.
their capacity in “bricks and sticks.” Keyes, L. C., Bratt, R., Schwartz, A., & Vidal, A.
At the same time, funders argue that (1996). Networking and nonprofits: Opportunities
 More than Bricks and sticks╇╇ | 69

and challenges in an era of federal devolution. The organic theory of community based develop-
Housing Policy Debate, 7(2), 201–229. ment. Social Problems, 41(3), 401–421.
McGrath, L. (1995). Building organizations to develop Servon, L. J. (1997). Microenterprise programs in U.S.
better communities: An evaluation of technical inner cities: Economic development or social
assistance provided to John Heinz Neighborhood welfare? Economic Development Quarterly, 2, May,
Development Program Grantees. Washington, DC: 166–180.
Community Information Exchange. Servon, L. J. (1998). Credit and social capital: The
Nye, N. & Glickman, N. J. (1996). Expanding local community development potential of U.S. microen-
capacity through community development partner- terprise programs. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1),
ships. Report prepared for the Ford Foundation. 115–149.
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Vidal, A. (1992). Rebuilding communities: A national
Research. study of urban community development corpora-
Rubin, H. J. (1994). There aren’t going to be any bak- tions. New York: Community Development
eries here if there is no money to afford jellyrolls: Research Center, New School for Social Research.
 CHAPTER 7

Learning from Adversity

The CDC School of Hard Knocks

William M. Rohe, Rachel G. Bratt, and Protip Biswas

When East Side Community Investments, By 1997 CDCW had developed 21 sepa-
Inc. experienced financial crisis and ulti- rate housing projects with a total of 722
mately failed, it was a wake up call to all units, and was the property manager for its
who care about community development own and other developers’ rental complexes.
corporations (CDCs) and the work that they The organization had a staff of 25 and an
do. East Side had been one of the biggest annual operating budget of more than $1
and most productive CDCs in the country. million.
Previous studies of CDCs focused on their But financial problems also began to
rapid growth and success across the country. surface in 1997. For some time CDCW had
However, the time has come to take a close been losing money on its property manage-
look at the failures and to learn from them. ment operation because of soft demand for
East Side Community Investments was not housing in the Northside area, inadequate
unique. Our research into CDC failure led us tenant screening, and personnel problems.
to examine more closely four other organiza- Unable to compete effectively with the
tions that failed or were forced to downsize, higher salaries and better working con-
and to draw lessons from their experiences so ditions offered by private management com-
that other CDCs could avoid their fate. panies, CDCW was having trouble keeping
competent management staff. The financial
losses did not create an immediate crisis
MILWAUKEE: COMMUNITY because the organization was able to cover
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF the deficit with funds generated from its
WISCONSIN (CDCW) multifamily development work.
In 1998 CDCW’s development activities
In the late 1980s Milwaukee’s leaders in were also affected by changes in city pol-
both the public and private sectors saw a icies. CDCW was staffed to rehabilitate
need for a large developer of affordable multifamily developments using the Low-�
housing. CDCW was created in 1989 to Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
develop small- to medium-�sized apartment program, but the city decided to focus its
complexes in the predominantly African-� resources instead on the purchase, rehabili-
American Northside area. Northside has the tation, and resale of single-�family homes.
highest poverty rate in the city and many The city allowed neighborhood organiza-
older housing units in need of repair. Facing tions to determine how Community Devel-
political pressure from the city, its major opment Block Grant funds would be spent
funder, CDCW also took on properties from in their areas, and these groups drastically
other CDCs that had gone out of business. reduced the funding for affordable housing.
Many of these properties needed repair and CDCW was unable to keep up with the
had problem tenants and low occupancy rehabilitation of single-�family units and had
rates. CDCW staff spent considerable time trouble selling units once they were rehabili-
turning these developments around. tated. This combination of problems
 The CDC School of Hard Knocks╇╇ | 71

severely reduced CDCW’s operating income some support, but it was not enough for
and the red ink began to spread. extensive rehabilitation. WHC staff also had
CDCW belatedly sought assistance, but difficulty finding effective property manage-
was unable to secure funding. City officials ment companies and the buildings continued
felt that the organization was too far in debt to decline. At its height WHC had a staff of
and was unlikely to overcome its problems. three—a director, a co-Â�op organizer, and a
CDCW asked its lenders to restructure their secretary—and contracted with private asset
loans, but without city support the lenders and property managers. In 2000, after a
were unwilling to do so. In March 1999 final attempt to secure additional equity
CDCW filed for bankruptcy and closed its investments from the National Equity Fund,
doors. WHC went out of business.

MINNEAPOLIS: WHITTIER HOUSING SOUTH DALLAS: OAK CLIFF

CORPORATION (WHC) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(OCDC)
The WHC was an offshoot of the Whittier
Alliance, which was created in 1978 to revi- OCDC was formed in 1987 by the housing
talize Minneapolis’ Whittier neighborhood. outreach program of a local Lutheran
For the next 12 years the alliance pursued church in response to an overwhelming
its mission by sponsoring a variety of neigh- demand for affordable housing in the South
borhood improvement activities, including Dallas area. Since its inception OCDC has
buying and rehabilitating multifamily focused on developing homeownership
housing developments. projects for low- and middle-�income famil-
In 1990 the Whittier Alliance was chosen ies with support from the region’s financial
to participate in the Neighborhood Revitali- and philanthropic institutions. In 1993
zation Program, which provided $20 million OCDC was made administrator for the
a year for neighborhood development and Dallas in-�fill housing program, which
improvement projects in Minneapolis. The enabled the organization to focus on new
Alliance developed a plan that provided construction of single-�family homes. With
additional affordable rental housing and adequate administration fees for the
social services for the area’s lower-Â�income expanded services provided by the contract,
residents. But homeowners and private OCDC hired additional staff. At its peak,
apartment owners got wind of the plan, OCDC had over eight full-�time staff
orchestrated a takeover of the Alliance, and members.
developed a plan that did not include rental But even as OCDC flourished, several
housing. The new board had little interest in experienced staff members moved on to
continuing to own and manage the multi- better positions, leading to project delays.
family properties the Alliance had developed The organization also had to contend with
during the 1980s, so WHC was established vocal community opposition—accompanied
as a separate organization and the proper- by unfavorable media and political atten-
ties—seven leasehold cooperatives with 16 tion—to its Independence Park Project, a
buildings and 158 units—were transferred planned development of 112 new homes.
to it. The most significant factor leading to the
Many of these buildings needed further organization’s downsizing, however, was
renovation. WHC sought assistance from the loss of the in-�fill housing contract and
the Interagency Stabilization Group (ISG), a the subsequent reduction of OCDC’s oper-
consortium of the city’s major funders of ating budget.
CDCs. But the ISG would not provide The city elected not to renew OCDC’s in-Â�
funding without seeing a stabilization plan; fill housing program contract when it
when WHC complied, the plan was judged expired. Caught unprepared, OCDC unsuc-
inadequate. Eventually, the ISG provided cessfully appealed the decision. During this
72 |╇╇ W. M. Rohe et al.

time holding costs and legal fees drained the development projects stalled and became
organization’s reserves. Housing production community eyesores.
suffered greatly, cutting into OCDC’s The search for a new executive director
income from developer fees. OCDC also was not easy for ACDC. The first two
was unsuccessful in finding alternate sources choices did not work out, and the third’s
of operating support, and was forced to tenure was cut short by illness. Development
reduce its staff to an executive director and of new projects decreased, along with devel-
one part-�time employee, greatly diminishing oper fees. Without adequate operating
its production capacity. support the ACDC was forced to downsize
its staff. Existing plans went unfinished, and
for several years virtually no new projects
PHILADELPHIA: ADVOCATE were started.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (ACDC)
DRAWING LESSONS
ACDC was founded in 1968 and was
among Philadelphia’s first CDCs. The These four examples lead us to several sug-
organization, which completed its first gestions for avoiding downsizing and
housing project in 1971, also developed an failure.
area master plan that led to positive changes
in public policy, including more financial 1. Develop and periodically revise strategic
resources for target neighborhoods. ACDC plans. Changes in local housing markets
also undertook several larger housing and city policies were two major prob-
projects and led a successful effort to desig- lems faced by the downsized and failed
nate the Diamond Street area the city’s first CDCs. Strategic planning can help
historic district. By 1998 ACDC had com- anticipate and respond to these changes.
pleted 365 houses. In Milwaukee the weakening demand
Throughout these years, the organization for housing in CDCW’s target area was
received widespread recognition for its work at least partially responsible for the
and was well supported by funders. Much unexpected turnover and vacancy rates
of the organization’s success is attributed to in the organization’s rental housing
the charismatic leadership of its founder, portfolio. Similarly, a soft rental market
who served as president of the Board of in the Whittier neighborhood in Minne-
Trustees until 1996. She was also de facto apolis did not allow for rent increases
executive director; for most of her tenure that were needed to cover rising mainte-
ACDC did not have an executive director. nance and repair costs. CDCs need to
During these years, the number of per� read the market and position themselves
manent staff members was kept to four or to remain competitive.
five. The organization relied on consultants Unanticipated changes in city policies
and contract employees to supplement its also played an important role in the fail-
staff. ures of CDCW and WHC and in the
ACDC began facing challenges when its downsizing of OCDC in South Dallas.
founder developed health problems and was Strategic planning that assesses the
unable to devote the same time and energy political environment may help organi-
to day-�to-day activities. Staff members could zations anticipate, influence, and effect-
not handle the complexities of development ively respond to changes. CDCs need to
projects. After the founder resigned, the be involved in formulating, reviewing,
board found it difficult to provide leader- and commenting on city policies that
ship, especially after several other members may affect them.
resigned. Communications with funders suf- Strategic planning is neither
fered and ACDC lost much of its operating cheap€ nor easy and many CDCs will
support, which led to staff layoffs. Several need financial support and technical
 The CDC School of Hard Knocks╇╇ | 73

assistance to implement this critical portfolio that includes housing for

exercise. moderate-�income households may
2. Diversify activities, geographic areas provide enough revenues to cross-�
served, clientele, and sources of funding. subsidize developments for very low-�
CDCs must tread a thin line between income households and generate more
diversification and specialization; a stra- community support.
tegic plan should address how much it CDCs that mostly rely on one
should do of either. Specialization funding source seem to be particularly
requires a narrower range of staff exper- vulnerable. Abrupt changes in the pol-
tise, which is deepened with each new icies of city agencies, foundations, or
project, but also makes an organization other principal funders can leave CDCs
vulnerable to changes in funding prior- with little time to find replacement
ities and community desires. Diversifica- funds. The CDCs in Milwaukee, Min-
tion makes an organization less neapolis, and Dallas were all heavily
vulnerable to those changes but may dependent on single sources of funding
lead to performance problems caused by which left them in serious financial
a lack of staff expertise or financial crises when that funding was inter-
resources. rupted. Diverse funding sources also
CDCs that failed or were downsized provide CDCs more autonomy and
tended to have narrowly focused mis- some protection from the dictates of
sions in terms of activities, geographic funders who want CDCs to adopt
areas served, clientele served, and certain agendas or programs at the
funding sources. For example, OCDC expense of local concerns.
specialized in in-�fill housing and WHC The decision to diversify should be
specialized in multifamily development. approached cautiously and should
They had little to fall back on when involve both residents and the local
local support for these activities CDC support community. It is also
evaporated. likely that diversification is not possible
Also, CDCs that targeted small and/ or desirable for very small CDCs that
or homogeneous geographic areas were are just beginning to gain expertise in a
vulnerable to changes in market con- given area. Becoming proficient in deliv-
ditions in those areas. The units owned ering or carrying out the group’s core
and managed by both CDCW and set of activities is important for all
WHC were concentrated in neighbor- young CDCs. There also may be risks
hoods where the demand for housing associated with increased diversification
decreased significantly. Rents could not that are not evident in our case studies;
be raised to meet higher operating costs if not done carefully, and with sufficient
and financial problems ensued. A larger, resources, it may lead to poor perform-
more diverse target area allows a CDC ance and loss of funder or community
to diversify the location of its properties support.
and reduces the organization’s vulnera- 3. Work hard to earn and maintain the
bility to market weakness. support of residents. A lack of commun-
Housing very low-�income households ity support for various CDC activities
typically requires deeper subsidies that was an important factor in the failure or
are difficult to come by these days, and downsizing of three of the organizations
CDCs that focus exclusively on these studied. In Minneapolis vociferous com-
households may increase their financial munity opposition to the Whittier Alli-
vulnerability. In Minneapolis all of ance’s focus on rental housing for very
WHC’s housing developments served low-Â�income households led to the “take-
very low-Â�income households that could over” of the Alliance and the creation
not afford the rent increases necessary of€ WHC. Similarly, OCDC’s plan in
for proper building maintenance. A Dallas for a new 122-unit subdivision of
74 |╇╇ W. M. Rohe et al.

affordable homes generated considera- agencies and private sector companies

ble community resistance and contrib- pay substantially higher salaries. Organ-
uted to the loss of city funding. izations need to offer better staff sala-
Board members and staff need to ries and benefits to increase retention,
build support for CDC activities by and must plan for leadership transitions.
opening up a dialogue with community Of course, public agencies and local and
residents, involving them in the review national nonprofit intermediaries can
of proposed activities and inviting them ensure competitive salaries and gener-
to join committees. The board should ally support CDCs by instituting pro-
periodically convene general meetings grams that provide funds to cover core
with the larger community and hold operating expenses. This support can be
social events in those areas where contingent on standards of productivity
projects are being developed. CDCs also and professional competence.
must ensure that the properties they 5. Maintain frequent and open communi-
own or manage are well run and cation with support community and
maintained. respond quickly to problems as they
4. Pay more attention to training and develop. Communication problems
retention of board members and staff. played an important role in all four case
Project development problems were studies: between executive directors and
implicated in all four case studies, their boards, between executive dir-
including inaccurate financial projec- ectors and funders, and between execu-
tions leading to cost overruns, overly tive directors and city officials or
optimistic underwriting assumptions, politicians. When CDCs are undertak-
inadequate cost control and accounting ing potentially controversial projects,
systems, and poor quality construction. they would be wise to inform and
Property management problems also involve local political leaders early in
consistently appeared among the four the process. This is particularly true of
CDCs, including inadequate procedures CDCs that rely heavily on support from
to screen and evict tenants, inadequate local government.
property maintenance, and lack of
social support services for tenants. Identifying and acknowledging problems as
Passive boards were another factor in they arise is also important. CDCW man-
organizational decline. agement did not ask for help in addressing
These problems may have been property management problems until the
avoided if staff and board members had organization was in deep financial trouble.
periodic training to provide strategic Similarly, several of those interviewed in
leadership and set policy guidelines for Minneapolis felt that WHC’s problems
staff. We need to better understand why should have been dealt with sooner and
many staff and board members are not more decisively. Funders also should have
taking advantage of national initiatives stepped in sooner, either to provide the
to increase CDC capacity, and ensure necessary support or to find other organiza-
that they receive the training they need. tions to take over the units.
In particular, what may be needed is The cases presented here signal some
access to tailor-�made on-�site consulting important warnings. Strategic planning that
help. Outside experts, who could be assesses the opportunities and threats in the
sent to a CDC to work with the board local political and economic environment,
or staff on a range of issues, or who and that assesses the organization’s mission
could help sort through issues with in light of changes, should be a standard
funders, may be the most important practice among CDCs. Staff training and
type of assistance that is needed. retention also helps create effective and
Many organizations found it difficult financially sound organizations. Ongoing
to retain experienced staff because city communication with both the residents of
 The CDC School of Hard Knocks╇╇ | 75

the service area and funders is also critical local CDC support communities for assist-
to maintaining political and financial ance. For their part, communities need to
support. Finally, if CDCs do get into respond positively by helping CDCs work
trouble, it is important that they identify the through problems so they can continue pro-
problems quickly and reach out to their viding vital services to their communities.
 CHAPTER 8

Social Housing
Michael E. Stone

Community development has emerged as a tradictions provide lessons on the dilemmas

field in part because of the demonstrable of partial and piecemeal reform.
inability of the mainstream, for-�profit The chapter begins with a definition of
housing sector to provide decent, truly social ownership. The bulk of the chapter
affordable housing for low-�income people. then examines the nature and scope of exist-
To redress this inability, a large and increas- ing models of social ownership, grouped
ing share of housing must be treated as a into two major categories: socially owned
social resource rather than as a commodity rental housing, consisting of public housing,
yielding private windfalls. Since all housing nonprofit rental housing, and mutual
contains both social and individual rights housing associations; and nonspeculative
and interests, differing only in the nature homeownership, consisting of limited-�equity
and extent of their social characteristics, it is cooperatives, ownership with community
thus appropriate and useful to conceptualize land trusts, and some resale-�restricted indi-
a continuum of housing ownership forms. vidual ownership. The models are evaluated
As discussed in this chapter, “social owner- in terms of differences in the degree of social
ship” encompasses that portion of the spec- control. The chapter concludes with identifi-
trum where the overriding social interest is cation of various routes through which the
to ensure security of tenure and permanent amount of social housing can be increased.
affordability.
Social ownership of housing and land
may be traced back to neolithic villages and THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL
Native American cultures. Within the capi- OWNERSHIP
talist era, various alternatives to the com-
modification of material life were put forth Housing is defined here as socially owned if
during the 19th century, and many Euro- it meets all of the following criteria:
pean countries have accepted the notions of
social ownership earlier and have gone • it is not owned and operated for profit;
much farther toward their realization than • it cannot be sold for speculative gain;
has the United States (see Harloe, 1995; and
Stone, 2003). Even in the United States, • it provides security of tenure for
significant strands of nonspeculative and residents.
social ownership have emerged, despite the
ideological domination and political force of Social ownership embraces the notion that
the purveyors of unfettered private owner- housing should be permanently removed
ship. They amount to a little over four from the possibility of resale in the specula-
million housing units, about 4% of all tive private market. This means that once
housing in this country. Their accomplish- the original cost of producing or acquiring
ments and potential provide encouragement the housing is paid off, the only costs would
and hope, while their limitations and con- be for operations and any additions,
 Social Housing╇╇ | 77

alterations, and capital improvements. Even Martin, 1999). Given the focus of this book
if nothing else were to change, the substan- is on community development, only a few
tial expansion of such a “social sector” of points will be made about public housing.
housing would, over time, mean a sizable First, the real estate industry from the outset
reduction in the housing costs for a growing attacked public housing ideologically and
proportion of the population. It would also constrained it operationally through restric-
mean slowing and eventually reducing the tions on design, location, and management
growth of mortgage debt as the mortgages as well as funding, making virtually inevita-
on existing housing are paid off once and ble the well-�publicized problems with some
for all. public housing (Bratt, 1986). Second,
There are many different forms that despite these problems and the too-�
“social housing” can take, including: successful attempts to discredit the concept
of public housing (and social enterprise gen-
• ownership by public agencies, such as erally), more complete and balanced exami-
local and regional housing authorities; nations reveal that for the most part public
• ownership by private nonprofit organi- housing has had a remarkable record of
zations; and success in providing physically decent, non-
• ownership by residents themselves, indi- speculative, mortgage-Â�free, and cost-Â�effective
vidually or collectively, with resale housing to poor people (Bratt, 1986, 1989).
restrictions that permit, at most, a Third, public housing remains a vital
“limited-Â�equity” return on investment. resource despite its checkered history and
reputation (Fuerst, 2000). Many housing
The unifying concept is not the particular authorities have more people on their
type of entity owning the housing but the waiting lists than are currently living in
existence of enforceable provisions prevent- their€ developments. Some have closed their
ing the housing from being sold in the spec- waiting lists because the wait is as long as
ulative private market. Indeed, for housing 20 years. Fourth, while giving priority for
to be fully social, these provisions should public housing to the most needy house-
apply “permanently,” “forever,” or “in holds is quite appropriate in a society where
perpetuity.” low-Â�cost housing is scarce and housing is
not a right, the deepening concentration of
the poorest households in public housing
added fuel to attacks on the very idea of
SOCIAL RENTAL HOUSING
public housing, blaming public ownership
and management (and/or the residents them-
Public Housing
selves) for the poverty of the residents.
Public housing is by far the most extensive Fifth, in some cities, large public housing
and most maligned form of social ownership developments are situated in areas where, in
in this country. As of 2001, local housing recent decades, urban redevelopment and
authorities owned two million housing units gentrification have raised land values,
(U.S. Census Bureau and HUD, 2002, Table making the sites ostensibly too valuable for
1A–7), about 2% of all housing: 1.3 million poor people. Thus, since the 1980s, there
of these under the federal program (U.S. have been increasingly strong forces working
Department of Housing and Urban Devel- to reduce the amount of public housing,
opment, 2000)––a reduction of about through density reduction in existing
100,000 from the early 1990s (Dolbeare, projects, wholesale demolition, sale to
1991)––the remaining 700,000 under private developers, and conversion to
various state and local programs. In addi- mixed-�income (including market-�rate)
tion, the Department of Defense owns and housing. The prevailing public housing
operates about 400,000 family housing policy of the 1990s and into the new millen-
units, the “other public housing program” nium––known as HOPE VI––largely embod-
(Hartman and Drayer, 1990; Twiss and ies the principles of public housing
78 |╇╇ M. E. Stone

replacement, with substantial displacement so the residents were mostly of middle

and loss of units even where local housing income. Had these developments remained
authorities retain ownership (Pitcoff, 1999; out of the speculative market, by today, they
Vale, 1999; Keating, 2000; National might be debt-�free social housing and hence
Housing Law Project et al., 2002). much less expensive than speculatively
While prevailing current sentiment gives owned apartments of the same vintage or
little encouragement, public housing is an newer. However, most were eventually sold.
essential ingredient in addressing the As Charles Abrams aptly put it (1946,
housing crisis, in part because it is unequiv- p.€175), “Philanthropy could no more solve
ocally outside the speculative market and the problem of housing than it could solve
also because it includes an established, oper- the problem of poverty.”
ational infrastructure for producing, finan� In the modern era, private nonprofit
cing, and managing housing, including the housing has evolved and expanded through
power of eminent domain. several phases, in which the lessons of this
historical experiment have been learned
gradually and unevenly but sufficiently to
Nonprofit Rental Housing
hold the promise of an increasingly import-
Unfortunately, there are few precise figures ant role in the growth of the social sector of
on how many housing units are under own- housing.
ership by private nonprofits, due to the The most clearly identifiable and longest-�
ambiguity of definitions, overlap of categor- lived component of modern nonprofit own-
ies, and lack of any entity (public or private) ership consists of federally financed and
that has been given or assumed respons- subsidized Section 202 housing for the
ibility for compiling and disseminating such elderly and handicapped, a program created
information. Nonetheless, I estimate that as in 1959 as the first of a series of subsidized
of the early 21st century, there are about 1.3 housing production programs for private
to 1.7 million rental units in nonprofit own- development and ownership. Unlike all sub-
ership. This consists of about 1.1 to 1.3 sequent programs, though, 202 has from the
million subsidized rental units, plus roughly outset been restricted to development and
200,000 to 400,000 other rental units in ownership by nonprofit (and public) entities.
nonprofit ownership that have received no The result has been the emergence over the
government subsidies or possibly just capital past four decades of a set of organizations
assistance from nonfederal public or private specializing in such housing, although some
sources.1 This is a significant number, but it regional and community-�based nonprofits
is just slightly over one-�half the number of have included 202s among their broader
units owned by local public housing author- housing repertoire.
ities, and about 1.5% of all housing units in Section 202 housing was financed
the United States. through below-�market direct federal loans
In the late 19th century, moral righteous- until changed to capital grant financing by
ness and enlightened self-�interest on the part the Housing Act of 1990. Projects built
of some capitalists stimulated a modest since 1974 also receive Section 8 rental sub-
move toward “philanthropic housing.” sidies. In addition, an owner may not sell
Nonprofit projects were developed in a the housing into the speculative market, at
number of cities in the early part of the 20th least during the 40-year term of federal
century, totaling several thousand units financing and regulation. And even in the
(Abrams, 1946, p. 170ff↜). By eliminating rare instances of foreclosure, Section 202
development and rental profits, the housing projects have been transferred to other non-
was slightly less expensive initially than profit owners. These features, together with
speculative new housing. But with construc- the capital grant financing and supportive
tion costs to be paid off from rents, the units services provided by the 1990 Housing Act,
were still more expensive than the tenements make the 202 program a premier model of
occupied by poor and working-�class people, privately owned nonspeculative housing.
 Social Housing╇╇ | 79

As€ of the late 1990s, there were about provided through the Internal Revenue Code
200,000 units of Section 202 housing (U.S. (notably the Low Income Housing Tax
HUD, 2000). Credit), they have to enter into partnerships
Unfortunately, there does not exist a with profit-�motivated investors.
well-�established model of nonelderly When a nonprofit organization needs to
housing that embodies all of the attractive market its housing plans to potential inves-
features of 202 housing. During the 1960s tors and also meet the underwriting criteria
and early 1970s, socially motivated non- of mortgage lenders to obtain financing, the
profit developers did produce nearly needs of prospective residents may at times
200,000 housing units under the FHA have to be compromised. Once the housing
Section 221(d)(3) and 236 interest-�reduction is occupied, in order to maintain investor
programs that had been created primarily confidence in the development and the
for profit-�making developers. (Nonprofit organization, the housing may need to be
production comprised over one-�fourth of managed quite conservatively in terms of
the total under these programs [Clay, 1987, tenants’ rights and rent levels. Even though
p. 9].) However, many ended up defaulting these tensions may be mitigated with deep,
on their mortgages (as did many profit-� income-�determined subsidies, a nonprofit
motivated owners). The housing was taken owner can face disturbing role conflicts
over or resold by HUD, in some cases to between its obligations to the residents and
speculative owners, so this experience does the investors. Furthermore, because the tax
not offer the encouragement provided by the benefits are of finite duration (typically 15
Section 202 program. Also, apart from to 20 years, depending upon the type of tax
weaknesses in the federal programs them- benefit), down the road the investors will
selves, nonprofit owners had to contend want to bail out when they no longer have
with inadequate resources, lack of experi- any financial incentives. Unless the deal has
ence, an unsympathetic HUD, and the chal- been structured so that they can fully
lenges of trying to serve and empower some recover their initial investments as well as
of the neediest populations and communit- their profits from the tax shelters, the inves-
ies (Bratt, 1989, pp. 185–191). Nonetheless, tors will expect to be bought out at this
approximately three-Â�fourths of these units point––necessitating sale of the housing to
remain in some form of nonprofit owners who might turn it into market-�rate
ownership.2 housing, unless financing is available for the
Beginning in the late 1960s, another type nonprofit or the residents themselves to buy
of nonprofit housing model was emerging, out the investors.
one that has proven much more successful In sum, the current prevailing model of
at producing and operating housing under nonprofit development and ownership might
the government subsidy programs. However, more properly be understood to be “quasi-Â�
in order to be successful, these housing pro- nonprofit” or even “compromised non-
viders have had to buy into many of the profit” ownership. Only if social financing
rules of profit-�making development and replaces dependence on profit-�motivated
stretched the meaning of nonprofit owner- investors can the growing number of these
ship. Community development corpora- community-�based and regional nonprofit
tions, regional housing development housing providers have a viable alternative
corporations, and “intermediaries” provid- to partnerships with profit-Â�motivated inves-
ing technical assistance have been set up, tors and thus be able to achieve true social
with staffs that attempt to combine training ownership.
and experience in business and finance with
social concern. While these entities are
themselves nonprofit corporations, and their MUTUAL HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS
housing commitment almost always is to
permanent nonspeculative ownership, in There is one other, more fully social model
order to benefit from the financial incentives of nonprofit ownership––the mutual housing
80 |╇╇ M. E. Stone

association (MHA)––that began in Europe security of tenure, as long as they meet their
over a century ago but has only emerged in financial and other membership obligations
the United States over the past two decades and do not violate the rights of others. They
(Goetze, 1987; Bratt, 1990). One version, may designate a family or household
the federated MHA, consists of a group of member as the successor to their unit but
resident-�controlled limited-�equity co-�ops may not sublet; this ensures that every resi-
(see below) or nonprofit developments dent is an association member who is
(Krinsky and Hovde, 1996, p. 10). The expected to participate in the organization.
other version, referred to as an integrated Because of the experimental nature of
MHA, has been promoted since the late this mutual housing model and because it
1970s by the Neighborhood Reinvestment has attempted to operate outside prevailing
Corporation (NRC) and differs from other government programs and financing mech-
models of social ownership in several signi- anisms, it has grown slowly and remains
ficant respects. limited in scale despite early interest and
First, the NRC mutual housing approach enthusiasm. As of late 2002, there were only
has deliberately eschewed outside profit-� 11 NRC mutual housing associations that
seeking investors in order to avoid role con- together owned about 8,300 occupied units
flict and possible pressure to sell the housing (NeighborWorks Network, 2003). Nonethe-
when the tax shelters run out. Second, NRC less, an encouraging analysis found that
MHAs try to finance nearly all acquisition MHAs would be more cost-�effective to the
and development costs through upfront federal government than nearly any other
capital grants, although often they have had approach in assisting very low-�income
to use some debt due to limited availability households on a long-�term basis (Bratt,
of grant resources. Third, residents are 1990). Thus, despite its extremely small
expected to make a modest initial capital scale so far, there are compelling economic
contribution (often waived for low-�income as well as social advantages to the mutual
people), which is recoverable with interest housing model. It is an emerging approach
upon moving out but cannot otherwise that comes quite close to realizing many of
grow and is not a marketable property inter- the goals set out here for true social
est; the goal is for residents to put up 5% of housing.
the total cost, with capital grants covering
the rest. Fourth, a portion of each resident’s
monthly charges is supposed to go into a RESIDENT SECURITY, POWER, AND
fund that will provide part of the capital CONTROL IN SOCIALLY OWNED
grants for additional units, although gener- RENTAL HOUSING
ally only middle- to high-�income residents
pay high enough monthly charges to con- People who reside in housing owned by
tribute to the capital fund. Fifth, the mem- public agencies, nonprofit organizations,
bership of each NRC mutual housing and integrated MHAs are legally tenants.
association consists of residents, prospective Some people regard this as a fundamental
residents, and local public and community weakness of these forms of ownership, as
officials. A majority of the governing board residents ostensibly have no opportunity to
consists of residents and prospective resi- realize any of the psychological, social, and
dents, so the housing is largely owned and economic benefits of homeownership. It is
controlled collectively by residents. Sixth, important, though, to challenge the notion
organizational development is emphasized of a sharp binary polarity between rental
as much as the physical development of the and ownership.
housing, with residents required to particip- Even in the private housing market,
ate and expected to take care of minor neither tenancy nor homeownership is a
maintenance of their units, even though pro- unitary concept. An alternative form of
fessional management is an integral part of tenure under social ownership, in combina-
the model. Finally, residents have lifetime tion with no debt costs, can yield resident
 Social Housing╇╇ | 81

benefits that are competitive with conven- of the housing as an integral part of the
tional homeownership. Of greater subtlety philosophy of the organizations. In such
and more immediate relevance, though, con- situations, there is not only objective resi-
cepts of residential property have been dent power and security of tenure but also a
undergoing considerable evolution so that considerable sense of “ownership” in the
the diverse forms of ownership, as well as psychological sense even if in formal legal
their combinations and modifications in terms the residents are tenants. In addition,
practice, have produced virtually a contin- while residents do not build up any wealth
uum on the dimensions of security of tenure, through their housing, resident-�savers can
resident control, and economic benefits. on average do as well financially as conven-
For example, even in private rental tional owners depending upon the financing
housing the history of tenant organizing, and cost structure of the housing.
legislation, and litigation reveals that there Furthermore, residents of participatory
are significant objective differences among nonprofit rental housing can in principle
tenancy-�at-will, lease tenancy, tenancy with have as much autonomy to fix up and
formal resident organization and collective change their units as do residents of physi-
bargaining, and tenancy with statutory and cally equivalent limited-�equity co-�ops or
regulatory controls on conditions, evictions, condominiums. Finally, what must be
and rents. weighed against some formal differences in
Within existing subsidized rental housing, legal status between participatory social
the history of public housing certainly dem- rental and nonspeculative homeownership
onstrates how low-�income residents can be are differences in financial risk. In the con-
disenfranchised, abused, and degraded temporary situation of ownership by a com-
almost as much by public as by private land- munity development corporation, MHA, or
lords. Yet in public housing organizing and regional nonprofit housing corporation, the
advocacy led to legislative and administra- ownership entity transcends not only the
tive redefinition of the scope of residents’ individual unit but also the particular build-
power and rights and the meaning of public ing or development and usually is connected
ownership, even if some of these rights have to an infrastructure of intermediaries that
been undermined since the late 1980s. have provided financial and technical assist-
Public owners have enforceable legal, con- ance. This means that the residents, most of
stitutional, and financial obligations to resi- whom are low-�income people, do not have
dents greater than can be imposed on to carry fully by themselves the cost burdens
private owners. Thus, resident ownership is of unanticipated housing problems or
not necessarily the only or best route to changes in their own economic circum-
greater power, security, and control. stances or of their fellow residents, in con-
For tenants in private nonprofit housing trast with individual private ownership.
and MHAs, the legal leverage and claims on Along most dimensions, being a tenant in
public resources are, of course, less than for socially owned rental housing is not neces-
public housing residents. However, the sarily inferior to being a nonspeculative
organizational circumstances are usually homeowner––or speculative owner. It may
quite different as well. Certainly, some of have real advantages and attractions not
the socially oriented nonprofits that only for those of low or moderate income
developed subsidized housing in the 1960s but for many with higher income as well.
and 1970s lacked the financial capacity and
organizational ability to sustain their social
commitment to their tenants.
NONSPECULATIVE HOMEOWNERSHIP
In contrast with many of the early non-
profits, some community development cor-
Limited-�Equity Cooperatives
porations and all MHAs have explicitly
involved residents in decision-�making and, As of 2003, there were approximately 1.2
in some cases, management and operation million housing units under cooperative
82 |╇╇ M. E. Stone

ownership in the United States. About While these early housing cooperatives
425,000 of these are limited-�equity or zero-� were structured to assure continued afforda-
equity co-�ops, of which over one-�half are in bility to members of the affinity group, there
New York. The remaining 765,000 are is nothing intrinsically nonspeculative about
market-�rate cooperatives (National Associ- cooperative ownership. In any co-�op, the
ation of Housing Cooperatives [NAHC], housing is owned by a corporation made up
2003). The latter group includes 550,000 of “cooperators,” with each share in the
conversions from rental housing, mostly in corporation corresponding to either a par-
New York City, similar to condo conver- ticular dwelling unit or a proportion of the
sions in other parts of the country. The square footage of the entire building. Unless
other 215,000 market-�rate co-�ops are explicitly defined otherwise, a share is a
mostly middle-�income developments that marketable commodity that may be sold for
originally had resale restrictions but in most whatever the owner can get. In addition,
cases now permit members to sell their unless the co-�op agreement requires the
shares at the market price. owner of shares to be a resident of the unit,
During the 19th century, programs for an owner may sublet the unit and charge
cooperative ownership of workplaces and whatever the market will bear.
residences were integral parts of the utopian Within this framework, the distinctly
and revolutionary critiques of capitalism in limited-�equity form of co-�op emerged as a
the United States as well as in Europe. housing strategy for helping to maintain
However, the earliest U.S. co-�ops (in New long-�term affordability and resident control
York between 1876 and 1885) did not for people of moderate if not low income. In
embody this radical vision but were instead a limited-�equity co-�op, the share price is set
a form of homeownership for high-�income by formula, not by the market, in order to
urbanites, presaging modern luxury co-�ops restrict or eliminate any speculative gain.
and condos (Siegler and Levy, 1987, p. 14). The co-�op corporation retains a first-�option
It was not until the 20th century that the right to purchase a departing member’s
first nonspeculative, socially oriented co-�op share at the formula price. In addition,
housing was developed. Most of these were occupancy and share ownership are gener-
in New York City and under union aus- ally coterminous––apart perhaps from
pices. In the early part of the century, approved temporary subletting––in order to
several workers’ housing cooperatives were prevent “landlordism” and to ensure that
developed (Abrams, 1946, p. 181; Siegler residents are people who have a legal and
and Levy, 1987, p. 14), but most did not financial stake in the housing.
last. In the late 1920s, New York State Interestingly, the growth of interest in the
passed a limited-�dividend housing law that, limited-�equity co-�op model over the past
among other things, facilitated co-�ops for two decades does not simply hark back to
moderate- to middle-�income people (Siegler the early co-�ops. It also rests upon a sub-
and Levy, 1987, p. 14). One of the first was stantial but little known historical founda-
the Workers Cooperative Colony in the tion of several hundred thousand co-�op
Bronx developed by the Amalgamated units developed in the three decades prior to
Clothing Workers. With the first units com- 1980. The great majority of these were
pleted in 1928, it grew eventually to 1,400 unsubsidized, middle-�income cooperatives,
units and still remains a co-�op. However, with federal or state government mortgage
despite state tax exemptions, the co-�ops insurance or financing. In addition, an
developed by labor groups in New York entire€ infrastructure evolved to undertake
were affordable only to higher-�paid workers. development and provide technical assist-
During the 1930s, depression conditions led ance, services, and training for co-�op
to increased national interest in co-Â�ops, but housing (Siegler and Levy, 1987, pp. 16–19;
postwar era ideological and economic con- NAHC, 1990). Indeed, after World War II,
ditions shunted co-�ops to the margin of some progressive housers advocated a large-�
housing policy (Leavitt, 1995). scale co-�op program as part of urban
 Social Housing╇╇ | 83

redevelopment, to complement public Ironically, the ideal of resident control in

housing for households who could not a limited-�equity co-�op includes the risk that
qualify for the latter and as a model for the residents may at some point reorganize
eventual conversion of public housing to as a market co-�op. Because cooperatives are
resident control (Abrams, 1946, pp. legally autonomous corporations, this pos�
179–187). However, as indicated above, sibility is real and has been occurring. Only
from the mid 1950s until the mid 1960s, if the co-�op incorporation documents pre-
interest in co-�ops by middle-�income house- clude such dissolution, or if there is an entity
holds waned in the face of “anti-Â�collectivist” that has some legal leverage and a broader
ideology and the suburban triumph. public interest, can this risk be avoided.
In the late 1960s and the 1970s, several Where there is public involvement––
factors led to renewed interest in nonspecu- through, say, mortgage insurance, publicly
lative housing cooperatives, within a rather donated land, or public grants, loans, or
different political and economic context. subsidies––then contractual requirements or
The emphasis on community control and deed restrictions can protect the limited-�
resident empowerment in the federal equity requirement indefinitely. The strong-
antipoverty program contributed to the eli- est legal protection of permanency, though,
gibility of co-�ops for federal housing subsi- is through ownership of the land by a gov-
dies. About 60,000 co-�op units were created ernment agency or broadly based commun-
under the HUD Section 221 and 236 pro- ity land trust (described in the next section).
grams between the mid 1960s and mid Under such an arrangement, the co-�op cor-
1970s (NAHC, 1990). Also, the emergence poration owns the structures but leases the
of the modern women’s movement rekin- land, with the ground lease stipulating reten-
dled interest in co-Â�ops––integrally connected tion of the co-Â�op’s limited-Â�equity character.
with supportive services, as in the 19th Nonspeculative co-�op units have been
century feminist notions––as a residential created through both new construction and
model especially well suited to the needs of building conversions. Most have involved
single women (young and elderly) and multifamily structures, but some, such as the
women as single parents (Hayden, 1984; Route 2 Co-�op in Los Angeles, include one-�
Novac and Wekerle, 1995). family houses. While income mixes vary,
In addition, wholesale disinvestment and including some low-�income and some higher-�
abandonment of vast amounts of housing in income people, the middle range prevails.
major cities across the country led to some Although some public programs and public
spontaneous, grassroots building takeovers funds in the form of land, loans, and grants
of unoccupied buildings and resident opera- have often assisted, financing has generally
tion of occupied buildings. Especially in come from quasi-�public mortgage lenders
New York City, where effective title of (such as state housing finance agencies and
many thousands of buildings passed to the the National Cooperative Bank) that offer
city, the movement demanded not only terms slightly below market. Each co-�op has
rehabilitation but also title to the buildings tended to be unique, not only in the circum-
as limited-�equity co-�ops (Leavitt and stances that led to its creation but also in the
Saegert, 1990). However, since the late resident mix, the financing sources and terms,
1970s, the limited-�equity co-�op movement and the limited-�equity formula (Heskin and
has been impelled rather less by the housing Leavitt, 1995). While this uniqueness reflects
needs of the very poor than by declining an encouraging creativity and resourcefulness,
opportunities for conventional (or even con- it also makes more difficult policies that could
dominium) homeownership among moder- facilitate more rapid expansion of the model.
ate- to middle-�income people. Over this
period, about 150,000 additional limited-�
Ownership with Community Land Trusts
equity co-�op units have been developed,
with more than one-�half of these being in While the origins of most of the other
New York City (NAHC, 2003). models of nonspeculative ownership are
84 |╇╇ M. E. Stone

primarily urban, the community land trust “permanently affordable homeownership”

(CLT) has rural roots. These traditions (Davis and Demetrowitz, 2003), using the
include Native American concepts as well as ground lease terms to enhance affordability,
several 19th century movements, most security of tenure, resident ownership, and
notably utopian socialist experiments in nonspeculative transfer of houses in perpe-
common ownership; Henry George’s tuity. The actual form and conditions of
notions of land as the principal locus of ownership of the dwellings depend on the
unearned wealth and social exploitation; local context and individual circumstances.
and aristocratic support for nongovernmen- Community land trusts acquire land by
tal nature preserves and parks. donation if possible, but often by purchase.
Yet, despite its roots, the land trust move- Therefore, their immediate impact on the
ment that began in the 1960s and has been cost of housing depends upon their ability
growing at an accelerating rate since the late to obtain land at less than market prices,
1970s does not seek to restore a vanished gain access to below-�market financing for
past or opt out of modern society. It oper- land acquisition that may include develop-
ates within, while seeking to transform, con- ment as well, and subsidize residents
temporary real estate law. It is concerned through resources the CLT receives as a
with the active productive uses of land, charitable organization. Over the long term,
including but not limited to residential use, housing costs are reduced primarily by pre-
in opposition to speculative holding and use venting resale of the land and controlling
of land. It is, in this sense, concerned with the price at which the residential structures
issues of responsible and active land use and may be resold. As with other forms of non-
planning, rather than preservation per se speculative ownership, deep affordability
and resistance to development. And it seeks remains constrained by continued depend-
to use land tenure as the organizing locus ence on debt financing and by residents’
for the expansion and realization of demo- incomes.
cratic decision-�making (Institute for Com- The ways in which the community land
munity Economics [ICE], 1982; Davis, trust approach distinguishes itself are, first,
1984; Krinsky and Hovde, 1996). the dual ownership structure, which explic-
The model vests title to the land itself in itly accepts individual property rights while
a nonprofit community organization––the establishing and protecting social or com-
land trust––to be held in nonspeculative munity rights. On the one side, the private
ownership in perpetuity. Individuals are ownership of one’s dwelling, opportunity to
granted the right to use the land for their accumulate some wealth through homeown-
own benefit and with considerable indi- ership, and unrestricted right to pass the
vidual autonomy. The formal legal link home to one’s heirs enhance the appeal of
between the trust that owns the land and the the model by building on deeply rooted
people or organizations who use it is the ideological traditions. On the other side,
ground lease, which grants lifetime or broad-�based land trusteeship is intended to
99-year tenure (inheritable and renewable), provide a legal and social framework for
subject to certain conditions. Thus, as it maintaining nonspeculative ownership
relates to housing, the form of ownership of forever. The goal is to strengthen estab-
the buildings may be anywhere on the own- lished––though weaker––traditions of com-
ership spectrum depending upon the terms munity, in ways that skirt popular
of the ground lease under which the housing skepticism about government. The second
owners are allowed to use the land. In prin- distinctive feature is the broader community
ciple, the house owner could be a landlord development and land reform agenda,
renting the dwelling for whatever the market which, it is argued, can facilitate economic
rent might be or a homeowner free to development and community empowerment
sell€the house at the market price (exclusive and hence begin to address the income side
of land). In practice, the land trust move- of the affordability issue and aspects of the
ment has been committed primarily to quality of life beyond just housing itself
 Social Housing╇╇ | 85

(ICE, 1982, Chapter 2; Davis, 1984, nonprofit rental, and limited-�equity co-�op
pp.€ 219–222; White and Matthei, 1987, housing. Nonetheless, again analogous to
pp.€47–64; Krinsky and Hovde, 1996). MHAs, the land trust emphasis on organiza-
However, just as each of the other social tional development, participation, and per-
housing models faces certain fairly distinc- sonal growth, along with the creation of
tive constraints, so does the CLT approach. permanently affordable homeownership
First, because a CLT allows a leaseholder to housing, will undoubtedly make the model
own the buildings on the land, imposing a increasingly popular.
limited-�equity and first-�option resale restric-
tion on building owners may lead to legal
Resale-�Restricted Individual Ownership
challenges as “restraints on alienation”
(Davis, 1984, p. 223), although apparently Since the 1980s, the principal response to
this concern has been overcome (ICE, declining opportunities for conventional
2001). homeownership has not, in fact, been pro-
Second, because the supply of land that motion of social ownership programs but
can be acquired through donation or below-� those public (and some private) programs to
market purchase will always be small, and assist first-�time homebuyers with mortgage
the ability of CLTs to purchase substantial financing at interest rates somewhat below
amounts of private land at market prices market, “soft” second mortgages (i.e.,
will always be limited, only a broader and deferred repayment), reduced or waived
more radical land reform agenda will enable closing costs, and proposals for tax-�exempt
the CLT movement to alter significantly the or tax-�deferred saving for downpayments.
effects of land speculation on housing costs. In addition, many localities have provided
Given the grandness of the vision, the publicly owned land at little or no cost and
recent emergence of the model and the lack offered below-�market construction financing
of public programs and resources specifi- and even some partial capital grants to stim-
cally for land acquisition, it is not surprising ulate construction of below-�market housing
that the land trust movement is still modest for homeownership. Because the participat-
in scale. Between the late 1960s and the mid ing homebuyer is able to obtain a house
1980s, the number of community land trusts with below-�market financing, possibly at a
grew slowly, with some losses along the below-�market price, most programs impose
way; in 1985, there were fewer than 20. some resale restrictions in order to lessen the
Since 1985, though, the growth has been potential for owners to reap windfalls when
substantial, reaching almost 50 in 1991 and they sell in the speculative market.
133 in operation or development by 2001 In most instances, however, the provi-
(ICE, 2002). This upsurge has emerged sions are so weak that the housing may not
directly out of the housing affordability be characterized as nonspeculative even for
crisis, as land trusts increasingly have been the initial owner, and generally the housing
created in cities and towns, with “forever” is fully in the speculative market with the
housing as their primary focus. Although second and subsequent owners. The weakest
CLTs have been established in all parts of restrictions permit the owner to sell freely in
the United States, about one-�half are in New the speculative market but then repay the
England, which has experienced some of the subsidies out of the sales proceeds. While
most severe affordability problems and this supposedly enables the funds to be recy-
where grassroots organizing––both rural cled to other buyers, repayment typically is
and urban––has long been a way of life. interest free (and inflation free), and often
In the entire country, there were only the amount that must be repaid declines
about 6,000 housing units on CLT-�owned with time, so eventually no recapture occurs.
land as of the end of 2001 (ICE, 2002). Another approach places limits on the price
Nonspeculative housing under the CLT for which the house may be sold, usually
model is thus comparable in scale to MHAs allowing an annual increment above the ori-
and orders of magnitude less than public, ginal purchase price equal to the overall rate
86 |╇╇ M. E. Stone

of inflation or some fixed rate, such as 5%. hold receives downpayment grants, below-�
The public agency then has a first option to market loans, and possibly deferred payment
purchase at this price or may require sale at loans, that household is in effect entering
this price to another qualified buyer. While into shared ownership with the community—
this might appear to prevent speculative the community thus legitimately having
windfalls, it does not, because of the finan- certain rights to the property. What does the
cial leverage involved in low downpayment homebuyer get from such an arrangement?
residential purchases, even assuming modest First, access to homeownership, with the
market appreciation. associated status and security of tenure that
Although rarely done in practice, there is presumably would not otherwise be afford-
no reason why the formula for resale-� able. Second, exclusive use and control of
restricted individual ownership could not be the living space––for instance, it is not
a limited-�equity formula comparable to necessary to share the space with the com-
those used in limited-Â�equity co-Â�ops. Under munity “co-Â�owner” or be constrained by a
such circumstances, it would be possible to landlord. Third, potential income tax bene-
achieve nonspeculative individual owner- fits from the deductibility of mortgage inter-
ship. There are, however, some legal and est and property taxes. Fourth, no rent
practical problems with the enforcement of payments on the community’s share of the
most resale restrictions, whether mild or property. Fifth, the opportunity to build
strong. Recapture provisions pose the least wealth on the homebuyer’s share of the
difficulty because they are easily secured property. What does the homebuyer not
through property liens, which pose no legal get? The right to sell the community’s share
or enforcement difficulties, since the owner and thereby appropriate for private gain the
would not be able to sell without discharg- wealth that rightly belongs to the commun-
ing the lien. Price, equity, and first-�option ity. Nonspeculative homeownership, with
limitations are more problematical because permanent limited-�equity resale restrictions,
they generally involve deed covenants, is thus not only not discriminatory but is
which in most states are legally limited in more than fair to those who participate in
duration and enforceability. The best it.
approach is thus to allow the buyer to own
the house but not the land––to have the land
owned by a land trust or public agency. INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF
Some might wonder why a low-�income SOCIALLY OWNED HOUSING
family should be forced to accept a resale
restriction, and especially a permanent How could the amount of social housing in
limited-�equity restriction, in order to achieve our nation be expanded? There are a variety
homeownership. Why shouldn’t such house- of routes, including:
holds be permitted to accumulate whatever
wealth the real estate market provides, just • production of new housing, by non-
as higher-�income households have been able profit or public developers, or by for-�
to achieve? Are not resale restrictions a form profit developers for transfer upon
of discrimination, against low-�income home- completion to social ownership;
buyers in general and homebuyers of color • preservation of existing subsidized
in particular, as the latter have for so long rental housing, with transfer from for-�
been denied homeownership through dis- profit owners to social owners;
criminatory sales and lending practices? • conversion of private rental housing,
Certainly, any household who wishes to where owners are irresponsible or are
have unrestricted homeownership should be otherwise willing to sell, through the
able to do so through conventional purchase use of receivership, eminent domain,
and financing terms, without discrimina- and tenant buy-�out rights and assistance
tion––but also without public or community (see Stone, 1993, pp. 228–231,
financial assistance. If, however, a house- 248–249);
 Social Housing╇╇ | 87

• foreclosure protection and equity con- tical matter, meaningful community devel-
version as an option for low-�income opment will require that social housing not
and elderly homeowners in return for only becomes more acceptable in concept
them agreeing to current or future trans- but will be greatly expanded in quantity and
fer to social ownership (see Stone, 1993, become the attractive alternative to conven-
pp. 226–228, 238–239; Stone, 2002); tional homeownership.
• permanent limited-Â�equity resale restric-
tions with subsidized first-�time home-
buyer programs (see Stone, 2002). NOTES
Historically, most of the social housing in 1. First, as indicated in the text, there were about
the United States has been provided through 200,000 occupied 202 units in 1998 (U.S. Depart-
publicly subsidized new construction and ment of Housing and Urban Development, 2000).
Second, under the Section 221(d)(3) BMIR,
substantial rehabilitation, even though this
Section 236 and Rent Supplement programs,
is the most capital-�intensive, costly, time-� 192,000 units were originally under nonprofit
consuming, and complex of the available ownership (Clay, 1987, p. 9). However, due to
routes. Recently, however, considerable financial difficulties in both for-�profit and non-
attention has been focused on strategies to profit developments, HUD took over about one-�
fourth of all the units. While there are differing
preserve subsidized housing that was built
figures on how many remain in direct nonprofit
by private developers in the 1960s and ownership, how many are still held by HUD, and
1970s and convert it to true social owner- how many have been resold to nonprofits (Clay,
ship (see Chapter 7). However, to date, rela- 1987, p. 9; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1986,
tively little effort has gone into the other p. 23; Achtenberg, 1989, pp. 228–229), I estimate
conservatively that at least 150,000 units origin-
routes, which are surely the most cost-�
ally produced under the programs are still owned
effective ways of achieving substantial by nonprofits.
increases in stock of social housing. Third, about 180,000 units owned by nonprof-
its were developed under various early unsubsi-
dized FHA mortgage-�insurance programs but
subsequently received Section 8 subsidies, or, in a
CONCLUSION
very few cases, other subsidies (U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1986, p. 23). No hard data are
The notion that housing can be situated available on how many are still part of the subsi-
outside the speculative market has a long dized nonprofit inventory, but I am assuming at
and established albeit constrained and little-� least 150,000.
Fourth, while there is virtually no official
recognized history in the United States.
information on nonprofit ownership of units pro-
Various forms of nonspeculative ownership duced under the HUD Section 8 and HOME pro-
exist in practice, and real estate law con- duction programs, the best estimates come from
tinues to evolve to encompass new ideas and studies of community-�based developers. A 1998
new economic and political realities. Each census of such developers revealed that they have
produced about 550,000 below-�market units
form of ownership has its trade-�offs, its par-
(National Congress for Community Economic
tisans, and its critics. They differ in the Development, 2000). Given the history of these
degree to which they are truly and perman- organizations, most of these units have been rental
ently nonspeculative and should be evalu- housing. However, to some extent they have been
ated along these dimensions. Nonetheless, producing units for homeownership. Without
hard data, there is no way of knowing how many
the various forms of socially owned rental
of the 550,000 CDC units are in the latter cat-
and nonspeculative homeownership have a egory, but it is probably fewer than 100,000. So, I
number of common components that distin- am conservatively including 450,000 CDC units
guish them from both conventional rental in the total of nonprofit rentals.
and speculative homeownership and point Fifth, the latter group of organizations does not
include city-�wide and regional nonprofits that do
toward true resident-�controlled social own-
not fit the “community-Â�based” definition. Such
ership. The notion that housing should not regional nonprofits have produced or preserved
and need not be a speculative commodity over 300,000 below market rental units (Housing
clearly is growing in legitimacy. As a prac- Partnership Network, 2002). It is likely that some
88 |╇╇ M. E. Stone

of the at-�risk subsidized housing such entities have model of land reform. In C. C. Geisler and F. J.
preserved from going to market-�rate rents includes Popper (Eds.), Land reform, American style (pp.
some of the older nonprofit housing in the third 209–232). Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
category above. So, to be conservative, I have Davis, J. E. & Demetrowitz, A. (2003). Permanently
assumed their net addition to the total below affordable homeownership. Does the community
market “social” rental housing stock to be land trust deliver on its promises? A performance
250,000 units. evaluation of the CLT model using resale data from
Combining the estimates for the five groups the Burlington community land trust. Burlington,
yields an aggregate estimate of 1,200,000 subsi- VT: Burlington Community Land Trust.
dized units in nonprofit ownership. Allowing for a Dolbeare, C. N. (1991). Unpublished tables prepared
margin of error of 100,000 units yields the text for Low Income Housing Information Service.
estimate of 1.1 to 1.3 million units. Fuerst, J. S. (2000). Public housing in Europe: Lessons
Not included in this total are nonprofit rental from abroad. Journal of Housing and Community
units without subsidies developed under the Development, January/February, 25–30.
various early federal mortgage-�insurance pro- Goetze, R. (1987). The mutual housing association: An
grams. No estimates are available for the number American demonstration of a proven European
of units in this category. Also not explicitly concept. Washington, DC: Neighborhood Reinvest-
included in the estimate are Farmers Home ment Corporation.
Administration Section 515 subsidized rental Harloe, M. (1995). The people’s home? Social rented
units. There are about 300,000 units under this housing in Europe and America. Oxford, UK: Black-
program (National Low Income Housing Preser- well.
vation Commission, 1988, p. 17). It is not known Hartman, C. & Drayer, R. (1990). Military-�family
how many are under nonprofit ownership, but it housing: The other public housing program. Housing
is possible that some if not most of these are and Society, 17(3), 67–78.
included in the categories above. Note, finally, Hayden, D. (1984). Redesigning the American dream:
that the text estimate does not include nonprofit The future of housing, work and family life. New
housing produced or acquired without federal York: Norton.
involvement, either under state or local programs Heskin, A. & Leavitt, J. (Eds.). (1995). The hidden
or with no government assistance at all. Again, no history of housing cooperatives. Davis: Center for
estimates are available for this category. It is thus Cooperatives, University of California.
likely that the actual total figure for nonprofit Housing Partnership Network. (2002). Corporate
rental units is somewhat higher. report 2001–2002. Boston: Housing Partnership
2. This is a very rough estimate based on anecdotal Network.
evidence, since no systematic accounting is Institute for Community Economics (ICE). (1982). The
available. community land trust handbook. Emmaus, PA:
Rodale Press.
Institute for Community Economics (ICE). (2001). The
community land trust legal manual. Springfield, MA:
REFERENCES ICE.
Institute for Community Economics (ICE). (2002).
Abrams, C. (1946). The future of housing. New York: Community land trust (CLT) activity in the United
Harper and Brothers. States. Springfield, MA: ICE.
Achtenberg, E. P. (1989). Subsidized housing at risk: Keating, L. (2000). Redeveloping public housing:
The social costs of private ownership. In S. Rosen- Relearning urban renewal’s immutable lessons.
berry & C. Hartman (Eds.), Housing issues of the Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(4),
1990s (pp. 227–267). New York: Praeger. 384–397.
Bratt, R. G. (1986). Public housing: The controversy Krinsky, J. & Hovde, S. (1996). Balancing acts: The
and the contribution. In R. Bratt, C. Hartman, & A. experience of mutual housing associations and com-
Meyerson (Eds.). Critical perspectives on housing munity land trusts in urban neighborhoods. New
(pp. 335–361). Philadelphia: Temple University York: Community Service Society of New York.
Press. Leavitt, J. (1995). The interrelated history of coopera-
Bratt, R. G. (1989). Rebuilding a low-�income housing tives and public housing from the thirties to the
policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. fifties. In A. Heskin & J. Leavitt (Eds.), The hidden
Bratt, R. G. (1990). Neighborhood reinvestment history of housing cooperatives (pp. 79–104). Davis:
corporation-�sponsored mutual housing associations: Center for Cooperatives, University of California.
Experiences in Baltimore and New York. Washing- Leavitt, J. & Saegert, S. (1990). From abandonment to
ton, DC: Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. hope: Community households in Harlem. New York:
Clay, P. L. (1987, May). At risk of loss: The endan- Columbia University Press.
gered future of low-�income rental housing resources. National Association of Housing Cooperatives (NAHC,
Washington, DC: Neighborhood Reinvestment Cor- March). (1990). Summary of housing cooperative
poration. units in the United States. Alexandria, VA: NAHC.
Davis, J. E. (1984). Reallocating equity: A land trust National Association of Housing Cooperatives (NAHC,
 Social Housing╇╇ | 89

January). (2003). Summary of housing cooperative Stone, M. E. (2002, May). The ECHO program:
units in the United States. Washington, DC: NAHC. Equity conversion and homeownership Opportun-
National Congress for Community Economic Develop- ity. Retrieved from www.cpcs.umb.edu/users/mstone/
ment. (2000, November 14). Retrieved from www. Stone-�ECHO_Program_May02.pdf.
ncced.org. Stone, M. E. (2003). Social housing in the UK and US:
National Housing Law Project, Poverty & Race Evolution, issues and prospects. London: British
Research Action Council, Sherwood Research Asso- Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Atlantic Fellow-
ciates, Everywhere and Now Public Housing Resi- ships in Public Policy. Retrieved from www.cpcs.umb.
dents Organizing Nationally Together. (2002). False edu/users/mstone/Stone-�UK_Soc_Housing_Oct03.pdf.
HOPE: A critical assessment of the HOPE VI public Twiss, P. & Martin, J. A. (1999). Conventional and
housing redevelopment program. Oakland, CA: military housing for families. Social Science Review,
National Housing Law Project. 7, 240–260.
National Low Income Housing Preservation Commis- U.S. Census Bureau & U.S. Department of Housing
sion. (1988). Preventing the disappearance of low and Urban Development (HUD). (2002, October).
income housing. Report of the Commission. Wash- Current housing reports: American housing survey
ington, DC: The Commission. for the United States in 2001. Report H150/01.
NeighborWorks Network. (2003). Mutual housing Washington, DC: GPO.
associations: Output by type of units. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
www.new.org/network/strategies/mutual/mha_new. (HUD). (2000, July 11). A picture of subsidized
html. households: Summary of the United States. Retrieved
Novac, S. & Wekerle, G. (1995). Women, community, from www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata98/
and housing policy. In A. Heskin & J. Leavitt (Eds.), us.html.
The hidden history of housing cooperatives (pp. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1986, June). Rental
281–293). Davis: Center for Cooperatives, Univer- housing: Potential reduction in the privately owned
sity of California. and federally assisted inventory. Washington, DC:
Pitcoff, W. (1999, March/April). New hope for public GPO.
housing. Shelterforce, 18–21, 28. Vale, L. J. (1999). The future of planned poverty: Rede-
Siegler, R. & Levy, H. J. (1987). Brief history of coop- veloping America’s most distressed public housing
erative housing. 1986 Cooperative Housing Journal. projects. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the
Washington, DC: National Association of Housing Built Environment, 14, 13–31.
Cooperatives. White, K. & Matthei, C. (1987). Community land
Stone, M. E. (1993). Shelter poverty: New ideas on trusts. In S. T. Bruyn & J. Meehan (Eds.), Beyond
housing affordability. Philadelphia: Temple Univer- the market and the state (pp. 41–64). Philadelphia:
sity Press. Temple University Press.
 CHAPTER 9

Community Response to Foreclosure

Dan Immergluck1

In the wake of the subprime crisis, prevent- causes of high foreclosures, such as lending
ing foreclosures and facilitating recovery and regulatory policies, often lie at a larger
from the damage they cause have posed tre- scale than a particular city, and local gov-
mendous challenges for community develop- ernments are limited in their ability to do
ers. Sometimes this has meant forming things like regulate lending or foreclosure
coalitions to change state or federal laws. processes. Understanding the scope of what
Other times, however, local governments local actors can do, at least in the near term,
and nonprofits have not been able to rely will help them maximize the impact of their
solely upon their ability to effect policy responses. In the longer term, they can come
change, and their responses have included together in coalition with groups from other
direct action, such as foreclosure prevention cities to push for major policy changes at
counseling or redeveloping vacant proper- the state and federal level.
ties, using existing policy tools. Opportunity space includes constraints
This chapter lays out the range of that are economic, legal, and/or political in
responses to the foreclosure crisis that local nature. In terms of economic constraints, for
organizations have employed in recent years. example, a metropolitan area facing declin-
It is not a catalogue of best practices, and ing population and employment may find it
uses examples only for illustration. The aim difficult—in the near term at least—to reha-
is to help local actors think through bilitate a large percentage of vacant proper-
responses to surging foreclosures. The ties for housing. While a recovery plan may
chapter does not address efforts to reduce include some rehabilitation or construction,
irresponsible lending in communities or demolition may also make sense, and careful
improve access to affordable mortgages. and deliberate repurposing of land may be
While these are important and complement- needed.
ary strategies, they are not the focus here. Constraints can also be legal or political.
For example, from 2000 to 2002, many
municipalities that tried to bar banks affili-
OPPORTUNITY SPACE AND ated with predatory lenders from doing
FORECLOSURE RESPONSE business with local government ran into
obstacles. Some courts struck down such
When considering local responses to rising ordinances saying that local government did
foreclosures, it is important to understand not have the authority to “regulate” mort-
the constraints that local actors face. Identi- gage lending. In other places, many of the
fying these constraints helps define their worst predatory lenders were not covered
“opportunity space,” i.e., the strategies and by the laws since they were not affiliated
tactics that they might pursue. By them- with banks with government contracts. Even
selves, local government and community when states regulated subprime lending,
groups can do only so much to address federal agencies frequently preempted these
foreclosure-�related problems. The root regulations, arguing that the states did not
 Community Response to Foreclosure╇╇ | 91

have the authority to regulate certain It provides a starting place for thinking
lenders, such as national banks and their about the opportunity space of different
affiliates. sorts of organizations. Of course, not all
Opportunity space can change over time, localities have a robust set of responses
as economic and housing market conditions across all of the categories in Table 9.1. This
or larger policy contexts change. For is partly because opportunity space varies
example, again in the case of preemption, across different states, regions, and cities.
federal regulators frequently have some dis- Different sorts of organizations focus on
cretion in preempting state consumer different types of response, depending partly
lending laws. If federal agencies choose to on existing capacities and missions. The
preempt fewer laws over time, opportunities expected focus of the various organization
for stronger state regulation will grow, and types are indicated by the diamonds in the
local actors might be more motivated to cells in Table 9.1, with three diamonds
influence state policy. equating to a major focus, and one diamond
Of course, local organizations may them- equating to a limited focus.
selves help bring about policy change at the The two broadest categories of responses
state or federal level. This is especially true are (1) prevention, where efforts are made
regarding foreclosure procedures, which are to allow households to stay in their homes
primarily state law. For example, if a coali- or, if necessary, find a “graceful exit,” that
tion in a state with a brief foreclosure notice minimizes damage to the household; and (2)
period (the period between when borrowers mitigation of neighborhood/community
are notified the foreclosure proceedings have impacts (for both households and com-
begun and when the foreclosure is com- munities). The second category, in turn,
pleted) were to advocate successfully for includes at least three subcategories of activ-
increasing the notice period, this may ities. First are efforts aimed at reducing
provide more opportunities for borrowers blight and other problems associated with
to obtain alternatives to foreclosure such as foreclosed properties. This may involve
loan modifications. ensuring that properties are kept secure and
State policy is not the only arena in which that they do not pose public safety risks, but
advocacy can affect opportunity space. In also that at least their exteriors are satisfac-
the area of neighborhood recovery, local torily maintained.
governments and nonprofits successfully The second subcategory includes efforts
advocated for the Neighborhood Stabiliza- to get properties reoccupied, rehabilitated,
tion Program (NSP) in 2008. The NSP and/or adapted for reuse. A major motiva-
originally provided $3.9 billion to state and tion is to minimize the harm that vacant
local governments for dealing with fore- buildings can pose to neighborhoods. When
closed properties. This program expanded foreclosed properties are located in neigh-
the boundaries of what local actors could borhoods that do not have severe vacancy
do to reclaim vacant, foreclosed properties. problems, efforts may simply involve mar-
keting or matching homebuyers with fore-
closed homes. Some local governments offer
CLASSIFYING COMMUNITY purchase-�rehabilitation loans to attract
RESPONSES TO FORECLOSURE buyers and encourage improvements to the
properties. Some NeighborWorks-�affiliated
One way to help understand the opportun- groups are acting as real estate brokers,
ity space of an organization or set of organi- selling foreclosed homes and facilitating
zations is to examine the responses that short sales. More ambitious efforts in this
similar organizations have tended to focus arena involve local governments or nonprof-
on in other cities. Table 9.1 provides a clas- its acquiring properties for rehabilitation
sification of local responses to foreclosure and sale, something that more local govern-
crises and indicates the types of organiza- ments have become involved in since NSP
tions that tend to be more involved in each. funds became available. Efforts can also
92 |╇╇ D. Immergluck

Table 9.1╇ A typology of local and regional responses to foreclosure crises

Organization type Foreclosure prevention Mitigating community impacts and recovery

Outreach, counselling, Short-term mitigation Property Household

and obtaining alternatives and containment of reclamation recovery
to foreclosures spillover problems and recovery

Nonprofit Sector
Community development ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦
organizations (CDCs, CDFIs)
Community organizing groups ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦
Policy/consumer/fair housing/tenant ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦
advocates
Credit counseling services ♦♦♦ – – ♦♦♦
Legal aid groups ♦♦♦ – – ♦♦♦

Public Sector
Local government ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦
Regional planning or municipal ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
associations
State government ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦
HUD ♦ – ♦ ♦
Federal Reserve Bank or other ♦ – ♦ ♦
regulators
Private Sector
Banks/lenders/servicers ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦

Cross-Sectoral Collaborations
Coalitions, taskforces, etc. ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦

include demolition of dilapidated buildings PREVENTION: OUTREACH,

and redeveloping land for alternative reuse. COUNSELING, AND LOAN
The last subcategory is household recov- MODIFICATIONS
ery. How can organizations help reduce the
harmful impacts of foreclosure on house- Foreclosure prevention activities, shown in
holds (both borrowers and renters)? Most the leftmost column of Table 9.1, consist of
discussions around recovery have focused outreach to homeowners, group and one-�
much less on household recovery than on on-one counseling (both in-�person and via
neighborhood recovery. Yet, foreclosures telephone/internet), and efforts to modify
can force families to switch schools at inop- the terms of loans or find some other altern-
portune times, disrupt important social and ative to foreclosure. Outreach efforts can
familial networks, and create emotional, involve measures to contact at-�risk borrow-
psychological, and health-�related distress. ers to connect them to counseling or legal
Moreover, foreclosures do significant resources or simply encourage them to
damage to borrowers’ credit scores, which contact the lender. Some nonprofit coun-
in turn can harm housing and economic seling agencies participate in large coun-
opportunities. seling sessions in partnership with lenders.
The renegotiation of loan terms generally
falls into two categories: (1) loan repayment
or forbearance plans that tend to require
borrowers to catch up on their arrears, and
(2) long-�term loan modifications, in which
 Community Response to Foreclosure╇╇ | 93

payments may be frozen or reduced over a in HOPI was utilizing the city’s 311 nonÂ�
period of years. Even within these categor- emergency citizen-�assistance telephone lines
ies, loan workouts can vary a great deal— for linking homeowners to counseling assist-
ranging from modest changes to substantial ance, a practice that has been emulated
reductions in loan payments or even prin- around the country.
cipal balances. Enabling homeowners to obtain meaning-
Organizations may also focus on policy ful loan modifications that enable them to
changes, usually at the state level, to make stay in their homes has been a daunting chal-
alternatives to foreclosure more feasible. For lenge. Much of the national attention in this
example, some states have extended the regard has focused on the generally disap-
period between when lenders provide notice pointing federal Home Affordable Modifica-
to borrowers that a foreclosure is being initi- tion Program (HAMP). Less attention has
ated and when the completed foreclosure sale focused on local efforts, many of which pre-
occurs (Immergluck, Alexander, Balthrop, dated HAMP. Some local efforts have
Schaeffing, & Clark, 2011). Longer periods achieved some success in obtaining higher
can provide more opportunities for borrow- levels of meaningful modifications from par-
ers to contact counselors or legal assistance ticular loan servicers. In Cleveland, a non-
and to interact with loan servicers. profit community organizing group,
As suggested in Table 9.1, the organiza- Empowering and Strengthening Ohio’s
tions expected to be most heavily involved People (ESOP), has negotiated agreements to
in foreclosure prevention activities include increase loan modifications with a large
community development organizations, number of servicers and reports high rates of
credit counseling agencies, legal aid groups, successful loan workouts (Swanstrom,
and local government, as well as banks and Chapple, & Immergluck, 2009). Some local
loan servicers. State governments, especially groups have also responded to rising fore-
attorneys general, have also supported fore- closures by refinancing borrowers into more
closure prevention services. Credit coun- affordable loans, especially when loan modi-
seling agencies have become major players fications do not appear to be an option.
in outreach and the delivery of foreclosure Atlanta Legal Aid has helped some of its
prevention counseling, with most of their senior clients use reverse mortgages to pay
counseling services being delivered via tele- off unaffordable subprime loans so that they
phone. This contrasts with the efforts of can stay in their homes. As far back as the
most community development groups, early part of the decade, NHS of Chicago
which tend to focus on in-�person counseling. and the Legal Assistance Foundation of Met-
In some places, including Cleveland and ropolitan Chicago, as well as other groups
Chicago, local government has been a driver around the country, had established loan
of outreach to distressed borrowers. Even programs to refinance homeowners who
with local government being a key player, received predatory or abusive loans into
however, these programs are usually deliv- fairer and more affordable loans, often with
ered by funding community development, smaller principal balances. However, the
legal aid, and credit counseling groups. scale of such programs has often been quite
Among the best-�known foreclosure pre- small relative to the scale of the problem.
vention operations in the country is the
Homeownership Preservation Initiative
(HOPI) in Chicago. HOPI involves a part- MITIGATION AND REDUCING
nership of Neighborhood Housing Services SPILLOVER PROBLEMS
(NHS) of Chicago, the Chicago Department
of Housing, 22 financial institutions, and One of the principal concerns of communit-
the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. HOPI, ies suffering from foreclosures is that vacant,
which formally began in 2003, reported the foreclosed homes can become blighted or
prevention of over 1,700 foreclosures from dangerous and pose threats to a neighbor-
2003 to May 2008. One of the innovations hood’s stability and quality of life. These
94 |╇╇ D. Immergluck

problems, in turn, can lead to increased formerly stable communities. Vacancy rates
costs and decreased revenues for local gov- for owner-�occupied properties increased
ernments. In fact, the need to reduce negat- dramatically beginning in 2006, when the
ive spillover effects may often be greatest foreclosure crisis began to hit its stride.
when local government budgets are already Vacancy rates in the second quarter of 2008
strained by declining property tax revenues. were generally double what they were in the
Many cities and suburbs have responded second quarter of 2000 and were the highest
by creating new property maintenance and in central counties of metropolitan areas
nuisance laws (U.S. Conference of Mayors, (Immergluck, 2008). Even in places where
2008). Some localities are focusing particu- there had been successful approaches to
larly on mortgagees holding the loan both reducing vacant properties, the scale of the
prior to and after foreclosure. Cities are crisis overwhelmed many such efforts and
increasing fines and adding requirements for threatened decades of progress in commun-
securing and maintaining properties. Some ity development.
cities have resorted to cutting grass and The nature of subprime lending has
doing other maintenance to ensure that brought new problems associated with
properties do not become too unsightly. In vacant properties. In Atlanta, for example,
other places, block clubs and voluntary many neighborhoods became pockmarked
associations are taking on these tasks. with vacant properties stemming from fore-
Many cities are increasing the costs of closures (Immergluck and Lee, 2008). Many
owning vacant homes and requiring a higher of these properties were involved in specula-
standard of security and maintenance for tive or even fraudulent property flipping,
such properties. The City of Minneapolis, which created a complex set of problems,
for example, increased its vacant property including mortgages far larger than real
registration fee from $2,000 to $6,000, and value of the properties, inflated property
the City of Louisville now taxes vacant taxes, and other problems. In weak-�market
properties with unresolved code violations cities, foreclosure-�related problems are often
at substantially higher rates than other even more challenging as the long-�term
properties (U.S. Conference of Mayors, prospects for housing market recovery may
2008). In Minneapolis, the city has also not be as strong. In some such places, local
begun using boards painted to look like planners and community developers are
windows as an alternative to traditional undertaking significant levels of demolition
plywood (Ter Wisscha, 2008). and land rezoning as part of their overall
Another local policy alternative is levying strategies.
or increasing fees on lenders when they fore- In places with less severe concentrations
close, with the logic that foreclosures impose of foreclosed properties, efforts to reclaim
significant costs on local communities. Rev- properties might focus on marketing homes,
enues from such fees, as well as from vacant establishing nonprofit real estate brokerages,
property registration fees, can be dedicated and matching new homebuyers or landlord-�
to purposes related to reclaiming vacant investors with vacant properties. Another
properties or other purposes. In Cuyahoga approach is to provide purchase-�
County, Ohio, penalty fees for delinquent rehabilitation loans to attract potential
taxes were raised, and these fees were used buyers of foreclosed properties. Neighbor-
to help support the county’s foreclosure pre- hood Housing Services of Minneapolis
vention programs (Swanstrom et al., 2009). hopes to use purchase-�rehab lending to
reclaim approximately 200 foreclosed
homes over a five-�year period (Ter Wisscha,
NEIGHBORHOOD RECOVERY 2008).
In places where foreclosed homes are
Irresponsible and unsustainable mortgage more concentrated, or where the spells of
lending has accelerated decline in many vacancy are longer, efforts to assemble and
places and catalyzed new vacancies in acquire properties are likely to be needed.
 Community Response to Foreclosure╇╇ | 95

Some cities have seen nonprofits and local house is in need of little or no repair and
governments purchase properties for resale quick reoccupancy is the goal. These differ-
or rental, or for demolition. ent conditions will require different strat-
Acquisitions of vacant properties may be egies and may involve different sets of
done through a variety of vehicles, including organizational partnerships and resources.
land banks, community land trusts, or direct The tightening of home lending markets
acquisition and resale by nonprofits or local and the overall weakness in housing markets
government. Land banks have the advant- have constrained the number of potential
age of being able to eliminate or reduce homebuyers in many areas. One approach
taxes, to hold property without it accumu- to this is to convert the tenure of previously
lating additional tax liens, and to isolate real owner-�occupied properties to either rental
estate assets in a dedicated property-�holding or some shared-�equity form of ownership,
entity. including community land trusts or limited-�
Any single initiative may not be able to equity cooperatives. Another tool is a
deal directly with a large percentage of responsible form of lease-�purchase program,
vacant buildings in a city or metropolitan preferably managed by a housing nonprofit
area. It is more likely that particular neigh- that maintains a strong commitment to
borhoods will be targeted. The negative treating tenants fairly (Schaeffing and
spillovers of vacant properties can make the Immergluck, 2010). In this way, homes can
problem quite daunting. For example, if an be converted to lease-�purchase units in
initiative is able to purchase only 25% of the which residents lease for a number of years,
vacant properties in a small area—which after which they become eligible to purchase
might be a sizable number of homes—it may the home. An example of the lease-Â�purchase
be difficult to make the acquired houses mar- approach is a project led by Self-�Help, the
ketable either for purchase or for rental prominent North Carolina community
given the remaining vacancies in the area. In development credit union (Schaeffing and
neighborhoods with many vacant properties, Immergluck, 2010). Self-�Help is making
“onesey-Â�twosey” market-Â�based approaches, loans to a local nonprofit partner in Char-
where investors or developers may come in lotte for units that are then rented through a
and pick up a few properties here and there, lease-�to-buy arrangement to tenants some of
are unlikely to be successful. High concen- whom will become eligible to purchase the
trations of vacant homes may limit “free houses within five years. Tenants are evalu-
market” responses in some neighborhoods. ated at the beginning of their tenancy for
In communities with fewer foreclosures, pri- their ability to assume ownership later and
vate—as well as nonprofit or public—buyers then will be reevaluated at the point of pur-
may be able to move quickly and effectively chase. The program also requires homeown-
to return properties to the market. ership counseling for tenants.
Some properties may be too dilapidated In Washington, DC, CityFirst Enterprises,
for rehabilitation, or the recovery of all the a community development financial institu-
vacant homes would put too much down- tion, is using New Markets Tax Credits for
ward pressure on an already distressed local a project that involves the purchase and
market. These sorts of situations will likely rehabilitation of foreclosed homes that will
require an acquisition-�to-demolish strategy then be sold to moderate-�income families
with an aim for some sort of public or (Living Cities, 2008). CityFirst will provide
private open space (e.g., parks, urban a silent second mortgage that will involve
gardens, side lots) or another sort of reuse. owners sharing any equity appreciation with
For other properties or in other neighbor- CityFirst, which in turn will roll over the
hoods, there will be significant demand for subsidy for future buyers in order to pre-
housing but the buildings will be in need of serve affordability.
significant rehabilitation. Finally, there may One key obstacle to recovery efforts is
also be properties where the surrounding the difficulty in accessing accurate, com�
market may be relatively strong, and the prehensive, and timely data on foreclosed
96 |╇╇ D. Immergluck

properties. This includes not only the loca- Foreclosure may force owners or tenants
tion of foreclosed properties but also the into homelessness, which can create signific-
identity and contact information for those ant challenges for adults and children.
who control the properties and information Unfortunately, renters may be viewed by
on their physical condition. Few local gov- some local officials as less desirable citizens
ernments have a good handle on even the than homeowners, so when they are evicted
number and locations of vacant properties. because of foreclosure, it may be more diffi-
Property records systems are often not well cult to get policymakers to express serious
designed to provide this information, and concerns.
local county recorders or clerks often do not Foreclosure can put severe strains on
maintain it in a readily accessible form. In local shelters and human service programs,
fact, property records are often compiled by as well as the families themselves. The set-
private data vendors who then process and tlement between Bank of America (in their
repackage the data in expensive databases role as acquirer of Countrywide Financial)
that planners and community developers and the attorneys general of 11 states
cannot easily afford. included $70 million in relocation assistance
The availability of quality and timely to foreclosed households (Morgenson,
data—and related analyses—on foreclosures 2008). Families with children may need to
and vacant properties varies a great deal find new schools—and may find it difficult
across cities and states. Some of this vari- to find decent rental housing in areas with
ation stems from state- or county-�level laws good schools. School mobility, especially
or property records systems. However, there when occurring in the middle of an aca-
are also significant differences in local demic year, can have lasting negative
capacity to compile, present, and analyze impacts on school performance (Rumberger,
relevant data. In Cleveland, NEOCANDO, 2002). One important issue that has received
a neighborhood indicators project based at little attention, and that is difficult to quan-
Case Western University, has compiled data tify, is the damage that forced relocation can
that can be used to track foreclosures, do to social networks and support systems.
predict foreclosure hot spots, and track the This may be particularly true for low- and
fate of properties over the longer term. In moderate-�income homeowners who often
Chicago, the Woodstock Institute regularly rely on family and friends in their existing
tracks foreclosure data for the region, and neighborhood for basic needs and support,
its deep knowledge of mortgage-�related such as child or sick care (Dawkins, 2006).
issues allows it to spot emerging problems. Foreclosed borrowers may be locked out
In Memphis, the Center for Community of the homeownership market for several
Building and Neighborhood Action at the years and may face difficulties accessing
University of Memphis has used data on quality rental housing. Many landlords rely
foreclosures and original data generated heavily on credit scores to screen tenants.
from visual surveys to track the trajectory of This may constrain the options of foreclosed
properties in the city. families into a narrower, less desirable
segment of the rental market.
Some local governments and many rental
HELPING HOUSEHOLDS RECOVER housing advocates have made efforts to
increase tenancy protections for renters in
Helping households recover from foreclos- foreclosed properties. The City of Chicago
ure has been the least discussed area of worked with local advocates to help pass a
response to the crisis. Household recovery state law requiring 120 days’ notice to evict
pertains not just to borrowers but also to tenants, and the City of Baltimore has taken
renters displaced by foreclosure. Both bor- similar steps. In 2009, federal law provided
rowers and renters may face difficulties in for 90-day notice for most tenants of fore-
attempting to find new housing or to stay in closed properties, but states can go further
the same neighborhood or school district. than this.
 Community Response to Foreclosure╇╇ | 97

Another aspect of household recovery the civic community more generally as they
that has received little attention is the need plan and implement new and continuing
to rebuild credit and financial health. Credit responses.
counseling and community development
agencies can be key players here, as well as
legal aid groups and tenant advocates. Local NOTE
and state government can also play a role by
supporting these organizations in household 1. Acknowledgement: This chapter draws heavily
recovery efforts. However, many of these from an earlier, longer paper published by the
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Immergluck,
groups are overwhelmed as they focus on 2008).
preventing additional foreclosures.
The use of credit scores has become much
more widespread in recent years. They are
REFERENCES
frequently used by employers in evaluating
job applicants, by utilities in processing Dawkins, C. (2006). Are social networks the ties that
applications for service, and by landlords in bind families to neighborhoods? Housing Studies,
assessing potential tenants, and by insurance 21, 867–881.
companies in underwriting and pricing auto- Evren, E. (2004, January). SHRM workplace violence
survey. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource
mobile insurance. The U.S. Fair Credit
Management.
Reporting Act allows access to credit data Furletti, M. (2002, June). An overview and history of
to firms that deliver a good or service prior credit reporting. Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank
to receiving payment. of Philadelphia.
A substantial deterioration in an indi- Hartwig, R. & Wilkinson, C. (2003, June). The use of
credit information in personal lines insurance under-
vidual’s credit score can create a substantial
writing. New York: Insurance Information Institute,
web of barriers to employment, quality Retrieved from http://server.iii.org/yy_obj_data/
housing, and affordable goods and services. binary/729782_1_0/credit.pdf.
For example, an estimated 90% of auto Immergluck, D. (2008, October 10). Community
insurers use credit data in underwriting new response to the foreclosure crisis: Thoughts on local
interventions. Community Affairs Discussion Paper
policies, although some states prohibit the
No. 01–08. Atlanta: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
use of credit data in underwriting and Immergluck, D., Alexander, F., Balthrop, K., Schaeff-
pricing auto insurance (Hartwig and Wilkin- ing, P., & Clark, J. (2011, January 27). Legislative
son, 2003). In 2003, the Society for Human responses to the foreclosure crisis in nonjudicial
Resource Management found that 35% of states. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
employers it surveyed were using credit data papers.cfm?abstract_id=1749609.
Immergluck, D. & Lee, Y. S. (2008, August). An analy-
in screening applicants, up from 19% in sis of foreclosure notice activity in the 5-county
1996 (Evren, 2004). In 2002, TransUnion, Atlanta metropolitan area and in City of Atlanta
one of the three large credit bureau firms, neighborhood planning units V, X and Y from June
reported that banks and credit unions 2007 to May 2008. A report to the Annie E. Casey
Foundation Atlanta Civic Site.
had€ been overtaken as the largest users of
Living Cities. (2008). Mitigating the impact of concen-
credit data in the Philadelphia region by trated foreclosures on neighborhoods. Retrieved
nonbank entities such as hospitals, telecom- from www.livingcities.org/2008_files/Living_Cities_
munication firms, and utilities (Furletti, Mitigating_Impact.pdf.
2002). Morgenson, G. (2008, October 6). Countrywide to set
aside $8.4 billion in loan aid. New York Times,
The goal of this chapter was to lay out a
p.€B1.
broad description of different local Rumberger, R. (2002, June). Student mobility and aca-
responses to the foreclosure crisis. Given the demic achievement. Eric Digest. EDO-Â�PS-02–1.
large scale of the foreclosure problems Chicago: Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
facing so many communities, it is just one Childhood Education.
Schaeffing, P. & Immergluck, D. (2010). Responsible
attempt to try to get a handle on the poten-
lease-�purchase programs: A review of the practice
tial and actual near-�term responses to and research literature on nonprofit programs.
surging foreclosures and the constraints Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
faced by local government, nonprofits, and cfm?abstract_id=1691194.
98 |╇╇ D. Immergluck

Swanstrom, T., Chapple, K., & Immergluck, D. (2009, Communities, Addressing the Negative Impact of
May 27). Regional resilience in the face of foreclos- Foreclosures,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Fran-
ures: Evidence from six metropolitan areas. Working cisco. Retrieved from http://stlouisfed.org/RRRSer-
Paper 2009–05. Berkeley: University of California ies/event_2.html.
Institute for Urban and Regional Development. U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2008). Vacant and
Retrieved from http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ abandoned properties: Survey and best practices.
pubs/reports/2009–05.pdf. Retrieved from http://usmayors.org/vacantproperties/
Ter Wisscha, G. (2008, July 15–16). Redevelopment VacantandAbandonedProperties08.pdf.
through lending. A presentation at “Stabilizing
 CHAPTER 10

Community Development Financial Institutions

Expanding Access to Capital in Under-�Served Markets

Lehn Benjamin, Julia Sass Rubin, and Sean Zielenbach

Affordable credit, basic financial services, the late 1880s (Du Bois, 1907). The 1930s
and investment capital are critical to com- and 1940s saw the emergence of credit
munity health. Individuals need mortgages unions, many of which were designed to
to purchase and maintain their homes. serve African Americans who did not have
Developers require financing to build and access to credit (Isbister, 1991). Several of
rehabilitate commercial properties, com- the community development corporations
munity facilities, and affordable housing. (CDCs) that were first created in the late
Businesses need capital in order to grow. 1960s and early 1970s provided financing
Community residents and local institutions for small businesses as part of their broader
require safe, affordable financial accounts economic revitalization efforts (Halpern,
where they can keep and build their assets. 1995; Perry, 1987). The 1980s saw the
Unfortunately, low-�income communities emergence of nonprofit loan funds that
and individuals have limited access to finan- worked to promote affordable housing and
cial services, affordable credit, and invest- small business development. Many of these
ment capital. The lack of such financing has organizations—including the Local Initia-
hampered efforts to improve conditions in tives Support Corporation, the Enterprise
these areas. Foundation, Boston Community Loan Fund,
This chapter looks at one response to this and the Delaware Valley Reinvestment
problem: the community development finan- Fund—focused primarily on helping CDCs
cial institution (CDFI). CDFIs work to obtain the financing and technical skills
improve economic conditions for low-� necessary to carry out their projects
income individuals and communities. They (Walker, 1993).
provide a range of financial products and The coalescence of these various initia-
services that often are not available from tives into a recognized development finance
more mainstream lenders and financiers. industry occurred in the early 1990s, facili-
CDFIs augment their financing with coun- tated by two federal initiatives actively sup-
seling and educational services that increase ported by the Clinton administration. The
their borrowers’ economic capacities and first involved increased enforcement of the
potential. There currently are 748 certified federal Community Reinvestment Act
CDFIs throughout the country, ranging in (CRA). Enacted in 1977, the CRA mandates
asset size from $5,000 to more than $1 that banks address the credit needs of their
billion (www.cdfifund.gov; CDFI Data entire service area and prohibits them from
Project, 2003). Institutional forms vary, discriminating against any portion of their
from federally regulated banks and credit markets. Clinton-�supported revisions in
unions to unregulated, nonprofit and/or for-� 1995 judged banks more on their actual
profit loan funds, and venture capital funds. lending and investment performance than
Today’s CDFIs have a number of prede- on their marketing and outreach efforts in
cessors. The first minority-�owned banks tar- low-�income and minority communities,
geting low-�income areas were established in which contributed to greater lending in
100 |╇╇ L. Benjamin et al.

these areas (see Belsky, Schill, & Yezer, necessary to purchase a home. Low-�income
2001). households without transaction accounts are
The second, related initiative involved the 43% less likely to have positive net financial
establishment of the Community Develop- assets, 13% less likely to own a home, and
ment Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund in 8% less likely to own a vehicle than those
1994. First championed by candidate with such accounts (Carney & Gale, 2001).
Clinton and based in large part on his With 8.7% of U.S. families having no check-
experiences with the Chicago-�based South ing or savings accounts with an insured
Shore Bank, the Fund sought to increase the financial institution, the need for affordable,
availability of affordable capital in histori- accessible financial services is clear (Bucks,
cally underserved markets. It has fostered Kennickell, & Moore, 2006).
the development of community development Community development credit unions
banks, credit unions, loan funds, and and community development banks provide
venture capital funds. The Fund certifies basic financial services at little or no cost to
organizations as CDFIs, ensuring that they their members or customers. They offer
meet a certain set of institutional criteria. It basic savings and checking accounts with no
also provides capital to CDFIs both directly monthly fees and very small ($10 or less)
and indirectly through regulated banks and minimum balance requirements. CDCUs
thrifts. Since its inception, the Fund has pro- and CD banks also offer certificates of
vided a total of more than $775 million in deposit (CDs) that can be purchased for as
direct funding to over 300 CDFIs and has little as $100, and special savings vehicles
facilitated approximately $1 billion in such as Individual Development Accounts
CDFI-�related investments from banks (Sherraden, 1991). Virtually all CDCUs and
through its Bank Enterprise Award program. CD banks spend considerable time helping
The Fund’s efforts have significantly their members and customers improve their
expanded the development finance industry, credit ratings—principally by reducing debt
as the number of certified CDFIs more than and repairing credit histories—with the goal
doubled from 1996 to 2006. (A list of certi- of increasing their asset-�building capacities.
fied CDFIs can be found at www.cdfifund. CDCUs and CD banks are the only CDFIs
gov.) to make consumer loans to households for
This chapter provides an overview of critical purposes such as purchasing an
CDFIs in the context of development automobile, paying for health care, and
finance. It explores issues regarding the investing in education.
assessment of CDFIs’ impact and looks at CD banks and credit unions also work to
some of the challenges CDFIs face going combat “fringe banking” in low-Â�income
forward. communities. “Fringe bankers” include
payday lenders, currency exchanges, check-�
cashing outlets, pawnshops, and rent-�to-
BASIC FINANCIAL SERVICE own stores—each of which typically charges
PROVISION high transaction and/or loan fees. Users of
fringe bankers often pay two or more times
Checking and savings accounts are the most as much in interest and fees as they would if
basic financial assets that most households they had an account at a regulated institu-
own. When housed in insured depository tion (Mullen, Bush, & Weinstein, 1997;
institutions, these kinds of accounts provide Stegman, 1999; Caskey, 2001).
a safe place to keep money, create oppor- CD banks and credit unions provide an
tunities to build wealth, and often serve as accessible alternative to fringe bankers.
prerequisites for obtaining credit. House- Most CD banks and credit unions are
holds without such accounts face a number located in low-�income areas and/or serve
of financial disadvantages, including having predominantly low-�income individuals.
to use currency exchanges to cash checks Their numbers have increased significantly
and struggling to establish the credit history over the last decade. As of 2003, there were
 CDFIs: Expanding Access to Capital╇╇ | 101

54 CDFI Fund-�certified CD banks with The growing emergence and activity of

almost $8 billion in assets and at least 265 CDFI lenders has coincided with substan-
CD credit unions with $4 billion in assets tially increased lending in lower-�income
(CDFI Data Project, 2003). markets on the part of conventional finan-
cial institutions (Bostic & Robinson, 2004).
Heightened CRA enforcement, along with
HOUSING FINANCE greater understanding of the profit potential
within lower-�income markets, has led con-
Community development and development ventional lenders to develop “subprime”
finance efforts have historically focused products that better address the needs of
most on the creation and/or rehabilitation borrowers making as little as 50% of the
of housing. The home is the primary asset area median income. For example, borrow-
for most Americans, and homeownership is ers can now make down payments of 3% or
a time-Â�tested way of building individual and less of the home’s purchase price. In certain
family wealth. Homeownership also serves areas (Boston, for example), banks have
as a linchpin of broader neighborhood offered subordinated second mortgages in
development strategies, as it tends to con- conjunction with conventional firsts so as to
tribute to more stable residential areas and reduce further the amount of up-�front equity
can spark additional investment (Rohe & a borrower must provide (Campen & Calla-
Stewart, 1996). han, 2001). Such loans may also carry more
flexible terms than conventional mortgages
and generally have higher interest rates to
Single-�Family Financing
compensate for higher risks of borrower
The stability of a residential area depends default.
on the availability of affordable mortgage The increased availability of capital in
financing. For many years a number of these markets has led CDFIs to adapt and
banks redlined poorer and minority neigh- expand their financing products. While
borhoods, and, even now, banks struggle to some CDFIs offer first mortgages, the insti-
manage the risks associated with lending in tutions generally are more supplementary
these areas. Mortgage default rates in low-� lenders. Most of the home purchase lending
income census tracts are generally 15% on the part of NeighborWorks members, for
higher than in moderate-Â�income ones and example, involves “soft” second (or even
31% higher than in middle-�income ones third) mortgages. These loans, which are
(Capone, 2001). Low-�income borrowers are subordinate to first mortgages held by more
also more likely to default than are moder- conventional financial institutions, typically
ate- or middle-�income borrowers (Van cover up to 30% of the purchase price and
Order & Zorn, 2001). carry significantly below-�market interest
The vast majority of borrowers in these rates. CDFIs also offer down payment,
areas do not default, however, and advo- closing cost, and home repair/maintenance
cates for these communities have helped loans. Taken together, these products help
create alternative financing institutions to make homeownership more affordable for
meet local capital needs. CDFIs such as the lower-Â�income borrowers, ensure the homes’
South Shore Bank, the Santa Cruz Com- livability, mitigate default risk for conven-
munity Credit Union, the Colorado Assisted tional lenders, and preclude the physical
Housing Corporation, and many organiza- decline of neighborhoods.
tions within the Neighborhood Reinvest- Prospective CDFI borrowers often must
ment Corporation’s NeighborWorks attend homeownership training before being
network were developed partly in response able to obtain a loan. Such education may
to unmet mortgage needs. The Neighbor- involve a series of group sessions over mul-
Works members alone have provided mort- tiple weeks (the typical NeighborWorks
gage financing to over 60,000 low-�income model) and/or one-�on-one meetings with a
families in the past 10 years. CDFI staff member. The goal is to enable
102 |╇╇ L. Benjamin et al.

the prospective borrower to address prior the creation of the Low Income Housing
credit issues and meet the CDFI’s (and/or a Tax Credit (LIHTC). Since its implementa-
conventional lender’s) underwriting stand- tion in 1986, the LIHTC has enabled
ards. Many CDFIs also offer post-�purchase taxable investors to take a credit against
counseling to help buyers make their their federal income tax for investing monies
payments and identify and avoid predatory in low-�income housing developments. The
refinancing or other deceptive lending resulting equity has substantially reduced
practices. project financing costs and has contributed
to the creation of thousands of additional
housing units for lower-�income families
Multi-�Family Financing
(Cummings & DiPasquale, 1999; DiPas-
Just as CDFIs serve as intermediaries quale & Cummings, 1992; McClure, 2000).
between low-�income households and con-
ventional financial markets, they often serve
as a conduit between nonprofit housing COMMUNITY FACILITY FINANCING
developers and mainstream capital provid-
ers. Some of the larger community develop- Many nonprofits struggle to obtain finan�
ment loan funds—including LISC, the cing for important neighborhood projects
Enterprise Foundation, and the Low Income such as childcare centers, health clinics, and
Investment Fund—have historically concen- charter schools. Nonprofit organizations’
trated significant resources on building the reliance on grant funds as their primary
financial and organizational capacity of source of revenue, along with the inherent
CDCs and similar affordable housing organ- uncertainty of philanthropic and public
izations. They have helped the organizations support amid shifting economic and polit-
develop sound financial and accounting ical winds, often makes conventional lenders
practices, identify contractors, address asset hesitant to finance these projects. CDFIs
management issues, and generally become offer various predevelopment, construction,
more business-�like in their orientation to and working capital financing to enable
real estate development. They have also these projects to go forward. Many of the
worked to involve conventional lenders in loans are structured with balloon repay-
projects, usually by providing up-�front, ments of principal, so they can easily be
higher-�risk financing to help the projects get replaced by conventional financing in the
underway. LISC, for example, was a pioneer future. Community facility financing
in the creation of “pre-Â�development” loans: remains a relatively small percentage of the
low- or no-Â�interest debt with balloon repay- CDFI industry’s overall portfolio but has
ments of principal to cover various land grown substantially in the past few years.
acquisition, architectural, environmental,
legal, and other up-�front costs associated
with preparing a site for development. SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING
CDFIs have often provided CDC developers
with construction loans to build or rehabili- A healthy, growing business sector provides
tate the planned housing units. As conven- critical goods, services, and employment
tional lenders grew comfortable enough opportunities to local residents. Without
with projects to provide permanent mort- access to external capital, companies must
gage financing, the CDFIs’ loans have gener- use their own earned income to finance their
ally taken subordinate positions. growth and investments, limiting how
Developments require a significant quickly they can expand. Equity capital is
amount of subsidy for lower-�income indi- particularly crucial for young companies,
viduals to be able to afford the units. In which lack the cash flows necessary for debt
addition to helping developers identify and repayment.
obtain various grant monies, CDFIs such as Minority, female, and low-�income entre-
LISC and Enterprise successfully pushed for preneurs, as well as small businesses located
 CDFIs: Expanding Access to Capital╇╇ | 103

in distressed communities, frequently strug- Equity

gle to obtain necessary financing. Higher
Community development venture capital
transaction costs associated with making
(CDVC) funds provide equity to businesses
small loans; higher default risks inherent in
in exchange for a portion of ownership in
lending to smaller, less well capitalized com-
the form of preferred or common stock in
panies; and residual racial, ethnic, or gender
the companies. Such investments serve as
discrimination have combined to limit debt
patient capital, giving young firms the funds
capital available to these companies.
they need but not requiring immediate
Venture capitalists, the primary source of
repayment. Unlike traditional equity provid-
conventional equity capital, are reluctant to
ers, which look for the promise of signific-
invest in companies unless they are very
ant economic growth before investing in a
rapidly growing, have the potential for
firm, CDVCs often invest in companies that
quick, highly lucrative exits, are located in a
have only moderate growth but significant
handful of states and major markets, and
job creation potential. Most CDVC funds
need at least $2 million or more.
target manufacturers, which typically offer
higher wages and better benefits than service
Debt sector jobs and can employ individuals with
lower education and skill levels (Mayer,
CDFIs work with small businesses with the
1998; Phillips-�Fein, 1998). CDVCs also tend
potential to generate benefits for low-�income
to be more willing to invest in companies
people and/or communities. Among the
located in rural and low-�income areas
typical criteria are the creation of jobs that
(Rubin, 2001).
require minimal skills and hold opportun-
CDVCs must exit their investments in
ities for advancement, commitments to
order to make a profit and free up capital
livable wages and employee benefits, and
for new investments. Most CDVC exits
environmentally friendly practices. In most
occur when the portfolio company is
cases, the businesses are unable to meet their
acquired by another business or when the
capital needs from more traditional sources.
company’s owner or management buys out
This is especially true for microenterprises,
the CDVC’s share. In general, CDFI equity
companies that usually have five or fewer
investors tend to hold their investments
employees and annual revenues of $250,000
much longer than traditional venture capi-
or less. (For more information on microen-
talists. That tendency reflects both the
terprises, see Edgcomb, Klein, & Clark,
greater difficulty of exiting the types of com-
1996; Clark, Kays, Zandniapour, Soto, &
panies in which CDVCs invest and the
Doyle, 1999; and Servon, 1999.)
unwillingness of CDVC managers to force
CDFI financing generally goes toward
exits that would hurt the companies’ longer-Â�
facility purchase, expansion, and moderni-
term prospects (Rubin, 2001).
zation; working capital; and equipment pur-
CDFIs that finance businesses typically
chase. Loans typically carry three- to
provide intensive technical assistance to
five-�year terms and market or below-�market
their borrowers and portfolio companies.
rates. They may be structured as lines of
For example, CDFIs help emerging com-
credit or may convert to equity or otherwise
panies with writing business plans, develop-
contain warrants, royalties, or other features
ing marketing strategies, and establishing
that enable the CDFI to share in the busi-
financial management systems. They do so
ness’s success. Unlike conventional lenders,
through their own staff members as well as
CDFIs often provide small business loans
through outside experts brought in to
for as little as $1,000. CDFIs lend both
increase the companies’ knowledge, sophis-
independently and in conjunction with con-
tication, and market readiness.
ventional lenders. In some cases, CDFIs may
guarantee a portion of banks’ loans in order
to help borrowers build relationships with
conventional financial institutions.
104 |╇╇ L. Benjamin et al.

ASSESSING CDFIs’ IMPACT Indirect effects are those that materialize

later as a result of factors including, but not
Like all entities engaged in community solely related to, the CDFI’s activities (the
development, CDFIs struggle to identify new piece of equipment enables the business
appropriate indicators for measuring the to expand into a new market, hire addi-
impact of their activities. CDFIs generally tional employees, and pay more taxes; the
have described their impacts in terms of spe- new homeowners help stabilize the sur-
cific, quantifiable measures such as jobs rounding community). Obviously, the
created, housing units refurbished, mort- impacts become increasingly diffused as we
gages provided, and day care facilities move farther away from the original finan-
developed. These impacts are assumed to cial transaction, and measuring and attrib-
lead to broader, longer-�term improvements uting them accurately becomes more
in their targeted markets. Unfortunately, difficult.
definitions of impact, along with the indic- We also need more realistic expectations
ators and measurement used, vary widely. of CDFI impacts. After all, CDFIs are rela-
Attributing causality is also problematic. tively small financial institutions that
For example, most affordable housing devel- provide related education and counseling
opments have a number of different funding activities. The impact of any CDFI is inevi-
sources. While a CDFI’s involvement may tably limited relative to broader economic
have been critical to the deal’s viability, each and political forces. Affordable homeowner-
of the other capital providers could easily ship ultimately depends less on the structure
argue that its monies were equally essential. of a CDFI’s loan than on the strength of the
There also are many factors external to the local housing market and the effect of
CDFI that help determine if a project or national interest rates. An expansion of the
business succeeds. Consider the case of a Earned Income Tax Credit is likely to have
CDFI making a business loan for the pur- a much greater impact on reducing poverty
chase of a new piece of equipment. Over in a given community than will the efforts
time the business grows and hires additional of even the largest and most effective CDFI.
workers. Part of that growth likely stems
from the enhanced productivity resulting
from the new equipment, and part results CDFI PROSPECTS
from the growing market for the business’s
goods and strategic actions taken by the An ongoing question is the appropriate
company’s management and workforce. Is long-Â�term role for CDFIs. Are they altern-
the CDFI, therefore, responsible for creating atives to conventional financial institutions,
the new jobs? The CDFI’s financing and necessary intermediaries between such insti-
related technical assistance likely contrib- tutions and lower-�income communities, or
uted to the improved health of the company, financial innovators that demonstrate the
but is unlikely to have been the sole relevant viability of such communities? CDFIs clearly
factor. Furthermore, determining the rela- cannot meet all of the financial service needs
tionship between the CDFI’s activities and of lower-Â�income communities by themselves.
the growth of the company’s workforce At the same time, most conventional finan-
becomes increasingly difficult over time. cial institutions currently are not (and likely
How, therefore, should we assess CDFIs’ never will be) providing some of the prod-
impact? One way would be to think in terms ucts and services that CDFIs offer. From a
of direct and indirect effects of a CDFI’s policy perspective, is it better to support
activities. Direct effects are those that result further expansion of CDFI capacity or to
immediately and specifically from a CDFI’s enable and encourage conventional financial
financing or technical assistance (a business institutions to take over the CDFIs’ finanÂ�
purchases a new piece of equipment with a cing activities? Additionally, little attention
CDFI’s loan dollars, a family purchases a has been paid to the important role that
home thanks to a CDFI mortgage, etc.). CDFIs play in advocating for lower-�income
 CDFIs: Expanding Access to Capital╇╇ | 105

communities, helping to shape policies that REFERENCES

affect their financial health.
While CDFIs appear to have helped Belsky, E. S., Schill, M., & Yezer, A. (2001). The effect
of the Community Reinvestment Act on bank and
expand access to affordable credit and
thrift home purchase mortgage lending. Proceedings,
investment capital in many previously (May), 271–300.
under-�served communities, sustaining and Bostic, R. with Robinson, B. (2004). Community
building upon these gains is hardly guaran- banking and mortgage credit availability: The impact
teed. To date, CDFIs have relied on subsi- of CRA agreements. Journal of Banking and Finance,
28,€3069–3095.
dized capital to make most of their activities
Bucks, B. K., Kennickell, A., and Moore, K. B. (2006).
possible. It is no accident that the most dra- Recent changes in U.S. family finances: Evidence
matic increases in financial service provision from the 2001 and 2004 survey of consumer
in lower-Â�income markets occurred in the finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin, pp. A1–A38.
1990s, a time of widespread economic pros- Retrieved from http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/
oss/oss2/2004/bull0206.pdf.
perity, strong political support for domestic
Campen, J. T. & Callahan, T. M. (2001, April). Bos-
development finance, and consistent enforce- ton’s soft-Â�second program: Reaching low income
ment of the CRA. These factors enabled and minority homebuyers in a changing financial
CDFIs to receive significant financial support services environment. Paper presented at Federal
from banks, foundations, and the federal Reserve System’s conference on Changing Financial
Markets and Community Development, Washing-
CDFI Fund. Conditions have changed dra-
ton.
matically since 2000. The economy has Capone, C. A. (2001). Research into mortgage default
weakened, foundation enthusiasm for CDFIs and affordable housing: A primer. LISC: The Center
has waned, there has been little if any for Home Ownership. Retrieved from www.liscnet.
support for community development and org/resources/2002/05/affordable_793.shtml?
reinvestment from the Bush administration, Carney, S. & Gale, W. (2001). Asset accumulation in
low-�income households. In T. M. Shapiro & E.
and funding from all levels of government Wolff, (Eds.), Assets for the poor: The benefits of
has been limited by severe budget shortfalls. spreading asset ownership (pp. 165–206). New
CDFIs have recognized the need for York: Russell Sage Foundation.
innovation in order to survive the current Caskey, J. P. (2001). Check cashing and savings pro-
grams for low-�income households: An action plan
political and economic environment. Indi-
for credit unions. Madison, WI: Filene Research
vidual CDFIs have merged and formed part- Institute, Center for Credit Union Research.
nerships to cut costs. Many CDFIs have CDFI Data Project. (2003). Community development
identified and focused on their most lucra- financial institutions: Providing capital, building
tive and socially meaningful activities, while community, creating impact. Retrieved from www.
cfed.org/enterprise_development/CDFIData/ [January
outsourcing loan processing and back office
2004].
operations to cut expenses. Other CDFIs Clark, P., Kays, A., Zandniapour, L., Soto, E., &
have diversified their base of borrowers and Doyle, K. (1999). Microenterprise and the poor:
their mix of products. There also has been Findings from the self-�employment learning project
an industry-�wide effort to find ways to five year study of microentrepreneurs. Washington,
DC: Aspen Institute.
attract and use market-�rate capital and to
Cummings, J. L. & DiPasquale, D. (1999). The low-�
free up existing capital by selling CDFI-� income housing tax credit: An analysis of the first
originated loans on the secondary market. ten years. Housing Policy Debate, 10(2), 251–307.
Regardless of the role that CDFIs ultimately DiPasquale, D. & Cummings, J. L. (1992). Financing
play, their experiences to date have demon- multifamily rental housing: The changing role of
lenders and investors. Housing Policy Debate, 3(1),
strated both the financial needs and the
77–116.
market opportunities of lower-�income Du Bois, W. E. B. (Ed.). (1907). Economic co-�operation
communities. among Negro Americans. Atlanta: Atlanta Univer-
sity Press. Retrieved from http://docsouth.unc.edu/
church/dubois07/menu.html.
Edgcomb, E., Klein, J., & Clark, P. (1996). The prac-
tice of microenterprise in the U.S. Washington, DC:
Self-�Employment Learning Project of Aspen Insti-
tute.
Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history
106 |╇╇ L. Benjamin et al.

of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in the Rohe, W. M. & Stewart, L. S. (1996). Home owner-
United States. New York: Columbia University ship and neighborhood stability. Housing Policy
Press. Debate, 7(1), 37–81.
Isbister, J. (1991). Thin cats: The community develop- Rubin, J. S. (2001). Community development venture
ment credit union movement in the United States. capital: A double-�bottom line approach to poverty
Davis: University of California, Center for Coopera- alleviation. Proceedings of the Changing Financing
tives. Markets and Community Development, Second
Kennickell, A. B., Starr-�McCluer, M., & Surette, B. J. Federal Reserve System Community Affairs research
(2000). Recent changes in U.S. family finances: conference, 121–154. Washington, DC: Federal
Results from the 1998 survey of consumer finances. Reserve System.
Federal Reserve Bulletin, 86, 1–29. Servon, L. J. (1999). Bootstrap capital: Microenterprise
McClure, K. (2000). The low-�income housing tax and the American poor. Washington, DC: Brookings
credit as an aid to housing finance: How well has it Institution Press.
worked? Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), 91–114. Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new
Mayer, N. (1998). Saving and creating good jobs. American welfare policy. New York: Sharpe.
Washington, DC: Center for Community Change. Stegman, M. A. (1999). Savings for the poor: The
Mullen, E., Bush, M., & Weinstein, S. (1997, March). hidden benefits of electronic banking. Washington,
Currency exchanges add to poverty surcharge for DC: Brookings Institution Press.
low-�income residents. Woodstock Institute. Rein- Van Order, R. & Zorn, P. (2001). Performance of low-�
vestment Alert 10. Retrieved from http://woodstock- income and minority mortgages. Washington, DC:
inst.org/document/alert10.pdf. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from www.jchs.
Perry, S. E. (1987). Communities on the way: Rebuild- harvard.edu/publications/homeownership/
ing local economies in the United States and Canada. liho01–10.pdf.
Albany: State University of New York Press. Walker, C. (1993). Nonprofit housing development:
Phillips-�Fein, K. (1998). The still-�industrial city: Why Status, trends and prospects. Housing Policy Debate,
cities shouldn’t just let manufacturing go. American 4(3), 369–413.
Prospect, 40, September–October, 28–37.
 CHAPTER 11

The Economic Development of Neighborhoods and

Localities
Wim Wiewel, Michael Teitz, and Robert Giloth

INTRODUCTION NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE
The practice of neighborhood-�based eco-
nomic development arises out of decades of This section discusses eight forms of neigh-
community organizing and antipoverty borhood economic development practice.
efforts. Housing rehabilitation and construc- After a brief definition, we analyze each by
tion are the main activities of most com- exploring its theoretical basis in regard to
munity development corporations (CDCs) (a) the economic basis of the practice in
and other neighborhood groups, but they terms of the neighborhood economy and its
also engage in economic development, linkage to the larger economy, and (b) the
which includes assisting business creation assumptions in regard to the normative
and retention, developing commercial and basis for action and the sociopolitical con-
industrial space, and job training programs. ditions that make success possible. Table
Yet despite these many years of experi- 11.1 summarizes this section.
ence, we still lack a comprehensive theory of Business retention involves neighborhood
community economic development. A good organizations promoting the stabilization of
theory of neighborhood economic develop- existing businesses and industrial districts
ment needs to include an accurate and com- (Center for Urban Economic Development,
plete economic perspective, which explains 1987). These businesses are frequently
both internal dynamics and linkages bypassed by market trends and by public
between neighborhoods and the larger actors because of their location, size, sector,
economy. Second, such a theory must be or profit level. Neighborhood business reten-
based on a realistic understanding of socio- tion identifies business problems, organizes
political conditions to gain clarity for action: business leaders, provides technical assist-
what the basis for intervention at the neigh- ance and loan packaging, organizes collect-
borhood level can be, and how, when and ive services (e.g., security or employment
where interventions can be effective. But referral), launches industrial real estate
because such a theory does not currently projects (e.g., industrial parks or incuba-
exist, this chapter begins with practice, to tors), and advocates for public policies (e.g.,
discover elements of implied theory in the industrial protection, land-�use controls, or
actual work of neighborhood economic specialized loan programs) beneficial to spe-
development practitioners. This review of cific industrial locations, economic sectors,
strategies and their relative success will help and firm sizes (Giloth and Betancur, 1988).
in the exploration of an integrated theory of Commercial revitalization involves neigh-
neighborhood economic development. borhood organizations promoting the eco-
nomic growth of commercial districts by
sponsoring marketing campaigns, special
service (i.e., taxing) districts, commercial
strip management (as at shopping centers),
108 |╇╇ W. Wiewel et al.

Table 11.1╇ Forms of neighborhood economic development

Neighborhood Economic assumption Sociopolitical assumptions

economic
development Neighborhood Region Levers for intervention Conditions for
strategies effectiveness

Business retention Business– Neighborhood Plant closing Business

neighborhood jobs business part of characteristics
link regional economy State of economic
Appropriate scale development
organization

Commercial Commercial areas Regional hierarchy Commercial strip Modest incomes

revitalization linked to of commercial decline Slow pace of change
neighborhood places Effects on residential
income Competition neighborhood

Business ventures Lack of Disinvestment/ Neighborhood Exceptional markets,

entrepreneurs barriers income leaks people, and
Lack of Potential Plant shutdowns organizations
neighborhood $$ marketplace
Lack of
Undervaluation of entrepreneurs
neighborhood

Entrepreneurship Underuse of Barriers Life skills of Ongoing support

neighborhood human Marketplace residents system
resources Lack of alternatives Self-reliance
Welfare reform

Neighborhood Neighborhoods have Disinvestment by Lack of Level of investment

capital underused/ larger institutions neighborhood Leadership
accumulation disinvested organization and
resources financial resources Scale and nature

Education and Underused human Regional economic Consensus on need Private sector role
training resources assets for educational Broader involvement
reform and of public/private
competitive
workforce
Impact on poor

Labor-based Neighborhood as Growing regional Plant shutdowns Existing industry–

development workplace and sectors neighborhood links
residence Sectoral clustering
Economic clustering

Community Unequal power and Targets for change Inequitable resource Legal guidelines
organizing/ resources distribution Strength of coalitions
planning Strength in numbers Support of public
and organizations sector

business attraction and retention services, Business ventures. Neighborhood organi-

and targeted real estate development. Neigh- zations initiate or facilitate new business
borhood business organizations undertake ventures because neighborhood locations
this work because it represents a common lack indigenous entrepreneurs and are unat-
interest that no single business can tractive to market-�driven actors. The
accomplish. assumption underlying this strategy is that
 Economic Development of Neighborhoods╇╇ | 109

local businesses hire locally and spend flow of resources and opportunities to
locally, hence strengthening neighborhood neighborhoods. Community organizing/
economies. Common ventures include con- planning mobilizes the power of numbers—
struction companies, cooperatives, property residents, businesses, and institutions—to
management firms, and recycling businesses advocate, demand, negotiate, and plan. Fre-
(Wiewel and Mier, 1986). quently, neighborhoods band together in
Entrepreneurialism is a variant of the city-�wide coalitions to maximize their
business venture strategy that assumes that strength and to address systemic biases in
homegrown entrepreneurs will enhance the decision-�making processes and actual
neighborhood ownership, employment, and allocations of public and private resources.
development. It therefore trains and nur- Typical targets for such organizing/planning
tures entrepreneurs, attempting to tap are city hall, banks, federal dollars (e.g.,
human resources that have been underused CDBG), and big development projects
(McKnight and Kretzmann, 1990). (Giloth, 1988)
Neighborhood capital accumulation
involves neighborhood ownership and
control over land, businesses, investment, LINKAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
and financial capital because neighborhood AND REGIONAL ECONOMY
resources and opportunities are being
drained, disinvested, or neglected (Gunn and What are the theoretical notions reflected in
Gunn, 1991). Frequently this strategy these neighborhood development strategies?
requires establishing new institutions, such First, what does each strategy assume about
as CDCs, land trusts, community develop- the neighborhood economy and its linkage
ment credit unions, or development loan to the larger economy?
funds that invest resources in neighborhood Business retention assumes that there is a
development ventures. beneficial relationship (or a potential one)
Education, training, and placement as a between neighborhood industries, residents,
strategy invests in the human capital of and retail businesses because of proximity.
neighborhoods and attempts to connect It combines this social benefit orientation
people with jobs. This strategy addresses the with a recognition of the importance of
mismatch in regard to skills and geography market-�based factors of industrial location,
of neighborhood residents and the labor such as infrastructure, transportation, access
market. Its initiatives provide basic skills, to markets and suppliers, and labor force.
employment training, transportation, job Neighborhoods may also be the most
readiness, antidiscrimination efforts, job appropriate organizational level at which to
linkages, and ongoing on-�the-job supports. gather information, bring together busi-
Labor-�based development begins by iden- nesses for cooperative purposes, and imple-
tifying the employment skills of neighbor- ment service programs. When organized at
hood residents, particularly the unemployed the city-�wide level, such activities are fre-
and recently displaced workers; it then seeks quently dominated by downtown interests,
industries that require similar occupational the largest firms or sectors, or promising
skills. Industries that meet this criterion and high-�growth sectors. Consequently, neigh-
are growing in the region are then analyzed borhood industrial councils resemble mini-�
in terms of their location, employment, growth coalitions and comprise landowning
capital, and business assistance needs. firms, banks, utilities, and realtors that
Finally, a plan is developed to address how promote specific industrial districts.
these industries can be attracted to specific Neighborhood industries are connected
industrial districts and sites and linked with to regional markets, are affected by
the existing labor force (Ranney and Betan- inter-�industry and corporate relationships,
cur, 1992). experience locational and agglomeration
Community organizing/planning alters advantages or disadvantages, and are
the power relationships that constrain the the€ target of competition for economic
110 |╇╇ W. Wiewel et al.

development between regions. Con- from business development but that are not
sequently, if regions lose competitive counted on the private balance sheet (e.g.,
advantage or experience disinvestment, employment effects on crime, social welfare,
neighborhood locations within these regions family life) (Wiewel and Mier, 1986).
will falter as well. Hence regional economic Lack of business development and own-
development policies (and national policies ership in neighborhoods means that income
with regional implications) affect the viabil- is drained elsewhere. Moreover, outside
ity of neighborhood business locations. institutions—for example, banks—may
Commercial revitalization. Neighbor- undermine the neighborhood business envir-
hoods are part of a market-�based hierarchy onment by creating a scarcity of capital.
of commercial places defined by types of Alternatively, business ventures that capital-
goods, family income, and transportation ize on neighborhood locational attributes
access. The neighborhood shopping district (e.g., amenities, history, culture) may
is home to a mix of convenience and trade become regional attractions.
goods sold by businesses that depend upon Entrepreneurship shares the basic
the consumer incomes of neighborhood resi- assumptions of the business venture strategy
dents. When consumer preferences are not but is also concerned with underused human
met in neighborhoods, neighborhood resources. That underuse occurs because of
income leaks to other shopping districts. diminished opportunities and the lack of
Changes in neighborhood income and sociocultural supports needed to encourage
demographic characteristics, modes of trans- entrepreneurs.
portation, consumer preferences, retail effi- While the larger region may be a compet-
ciencies, and the emergence of shopping itor for a neighborhood, especially for its
malls have disrupted neighborhood shop- commercial businesses, it also serves as a
ping districts over the past 20 years. Con- potential marketplace for newly inspired or
sequently, neighborhood commercial groups organized entrepreneurs.
also function like mini-�growth coalitions, Neighborhood capital accumulation.
marketing the viability of specific neighbor- Even poor neighborhoods have financial,
hood commercial areas. human, and organizational resources that
Neighborhood shopping districts are part can provide a foundation for neighborhood
of regional hierarchies of commercial areas development (Gunn and Gunn, 1991).
that are constantly evolving—particularly in Unfortunately, these resources are drained
response to the decline of city populations from neighborhoods by absentee ownership,
and the growth of suburbia. As a result lack of local businesses, and institutional
neighborhood shopping districts compete disinvestment. That drain of resources from
with other city and suburban retailing neighborhoods is often related to race and
centers. class.
Development of business ventures as a The neighborhood drain of resources
strategy is grounded in the lack of neighbor- occurs because of gaps in neighborhood
hood entrepreneurs, leaks of neighborhood economies and because of structured forms
income, and the undervaluing of neighbor- of disinvestment (i.e., redlining or deindus-
hood market opportunities due to racial trialization) that are directed by regional
prejudice. and national institutions. As a development
The insufficient rates of return for neigh- strategy, neighborhood-�based financial insti-
borhood businesses result from low neigh- tutions have been able to attract social
borhood income, high operating costs, and investments from the region.
higher thresholds of profit required by larger Employment, training, and placement.
businesses. This perspective even questions Many inner-�city neighborhoods are defined,
whether a market-�defined rate of return is in labor market terms, as redundant,
an appropriate measure for business invest- surplus, or marginalized. The roots of this
ment in neighborhoods given the theorized pattern lie in the functioning of the labor
social benefits that accrue in neighborhoods market in conjunction with the historic
 Economic Development of Neighborhoods╇╇ | 111

legacy of racism. Lack of trained and job-� however. Strategies must resonate with
ready workers has prompted business com- values and they must be appropriate to the
munities in many areas to advocate social and political situation. What are the
educational reform. Their impetus is the assumptions of these strategies regarding the
negative impact of the lack of highly trained, basis for action and the conditions for
technical workers on the competitive posi- success?
tion of the region and their own businesses. Business retention. Threats of firms
Teitz (1989) posited a neighborhood’s labor closing or moving may precipitate the
force as its key economic asset and in fact involvement of neighborhood organizations.
its only developable one. One problem with Usually the possibility of losing a neighbor-
such a strategy, however, is that it may hood anchor, or having residents laid off, is
simply let successfully trained individuals a powerful motivator.
leave the neighborhood. Variables related to the scale, diversity,
Labor-�based development seeks to rees- ownership, sectoral clustering, and location
tablish the neighborhood as workplace and of industries on a regional and neighbor-
residential space. That strategy may work hood basis affect whether cooperative strat-
best with a cluster of neighborhoods, or a egies among neighborhood industries are
subsection of the city, because of the work- feasible. The level of economic development
place/residence separation and the need to organization within the neighborhood and
have a critical mass of specific skills to its city also affects whether neighborhood
attract specific industry. Sectors and firms business retention is a viable strategy
growing or attracted to the region are the (Ranney, 1988).
target for the labor-�based strategy, in par- Commercial revitalization. Declining
ticular, manufacturing sectors that contain sales, strip deterioration, and changing
smaller firms and are labor intensive. demographic characteristics have encour-
Community organizing/planning. Low- aged neighborhood retailers to join together
and moderate-�income neighborhoods have to redefine the focus, management, and mar-
unequal political power in relation to major keting strategies for their commercial areas.
private interests and public sector bureauc- The negative effects of declining commercial
racies. Neighborhoods are viewed as sec- areas on nearby residential neighborhoods
ondary in relation to land-�based interests have also spurred community action. Suc-
that promote downtown and big develop- cessful commercial revitalization requires
ment projects as the engines for city growth. modest income levels and a controllable
Community organizing builds upon the pace of neighborhood change. It also works
neighborhood strength of numbers of people when there are few nearby competitors—
and organizations. It focuses on city-�wide/ suburban or city shopping malls, for
regional patterns of power and resource example.
distribution, attempting to increase the Business venture opportunities result
recognition of neighborhoods and the from an analysis of neighborhood income
responsiveness of regional institutions to leaks, export opportunities, business shut-
neighborhood concerns. downs, and sheltered neighborhood
markets. Their pursuit is often motivated by
the perceived absence of any viable altern-
SOCIOPOLITICAL CONDITIONS AND atives. They have proven difficult except
THE BASIS FOR ACTION AND SUCCESS when there are exceptional markets, human
resources, and organizational capacity.
Organizations continue to use these strat- Neighborhood organizations frequently do
egies because they rest on plausible theoret- not have the entrepreneurial experience,
ical notions about the economy. How well drive, and resources to make fledgling busi-
they work in particular situations depends nesses thrive; their ventures face all the
on how well they fit particular economic rigors that confront start-�up businesses in
conditions. Sound economics is not enough, addition to the challenges of operating in
112 |╇╇ W. Wiewel et al.

neighborhoods or markets that private popular education at the school, family, and
entrepreneurs ignore (Wiewel and Giloth, neighborhood levels, and innovative job
1988). training, placement, and support programs.
Entrepreneurship. Most people have life The differential impact on minority and
experiences and skills that are translatable poor communities has also provided a
into business opportunities, even when busi- touchstone for community outcry.
ness is defined as a micro-�business or self-� These initiatives are complicated; their
employment. Here, too, the absence of other success for any neighborhood depends upon
viable alternatives is an important motiva- the strength of the contacts with the private
tion and so is the American image of the sector, the stability of the job base, and the
“self-Â�made man.” A public sector motiva- support for basic skills, job readiness, as
tion is the concern for enabling welfare well as ongoing support. In a broader sense,
recipients to get off welfare; with few jobs overhauling the education and welfare
available, and a lack of child care and basic systems that inhibit quality employment and
skills, part-�time self-�employment is a viable lifelong learning is a long-�term strategy that
alternative. reaches beyond individual neighborhoods.
Most small businesses fail—an outcome Labor-Â�based development. A catalyst for
that probably also applies to firms initiated this strategy is a plant shutdown or a series
by entrepreneurial and micro-�business pro- of shutdowns that affect sectoral clusterings
grams as well. These efforts, however, of firms (e.g., steel, fabrication) that result
despite the failures, may enable people to in massive displacement of workers with
become more self-�reliant and to learn from accumulated skills. Retraining is one option
failure. In this regard, the most successful to get them back in the labor force; the
programs are those that provide ongoing labor-�based approach designs development
supports for entrepreneurs; neighborhood strategies based upon their existing job
organizations have been able to organize skills.
such support models (Center for Urban Eco- This strategy attracts higher wage jobs to
nomic Development, 1987). neighborhoods by offering an array of
Neighborhood capital accumulation. inducements, including labor force training
Lack of financial resources for investment in and business support services. It is most
viable neighborhood ventures often precipi- effective where there are industrial districts
tates interest in establishing alternative that already employ neighborhood people
financial or development organizations. and have locational and infrastructure
That issue is often highlighted by Commun- attributes attractive to a broad range of
ity Reinvestment Act (CRA) analyses that firms.
show lack of credit flows to neighborhoods Community organizing/planning. The
by mainstream financial institutions. ongoing motivation for community organ-
There has been a proliferation of izing is the inequitable distribution of
neighborhood-�oriented financial institutions; resources to neighborhoods and the social
very often, however, these institutions and economic impacts related to that distri-
operate in larger environments than just bution. Handles for community organizing,
single neighborhoods. At the neighborhood given these inequities, include public budg-
level, capital accumulation has been aided eting, the use and abuse of public incentives,
by community development corporations, planning, and approvals by private develop-
through their development and ownership ers for large public/private projects that
of housing and other real estate. yield questionable benefits for neighbor-
Employment, training, and placement. hoods. Legislation such as the CRA provides
The employment needs of the business com- a more predictable path for raising these
munity and the deplorable state of public resource issues.
education in U.S. cities have created the Community organizing/planning depends
policy space for the overhauling of educa- upon legislative or administrative guidelines
tional bureaucracies, experimentation with (e.g., the CRA), the breadth and depth of
 Economic Development of Neighborhoods╇╇ | 113

community coalitions, the supportiveness of PROBLEMS AND POTENTIALS IN

public institutions, the profitability of COMMUNITY ECONOMIC
private development, and the localized DEVELOPMENT THEORY
nature of proposed solutions. Organizing
has been less successful when it has chal- How well does current community eco-
lenged private decision-�making and owner- nomic development theory stand up to these
ship or has advocated broad redistributional criteria and how might it be improved? On
programs. Occasionally, community organ- the whole, it does not do well. While prac-
izing has spilled over into political cam- tice has generated an array of approaches
paigns that, when successful, have made and, to some extent, techniques, there is
bureaucracies more supportive of neighbor- little in the way of an integrated theoretical
hood economic development (Clavel and framework that can give those elements
Wiewel, 1991). coherence.
Although the variety of approaches sug-
gests that this field is dominated by instru-
WHAT DOES A THEORY OF mental thinking, virtually none of the
NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIC approaches contains the essential elements
DEVELOPMENT NEED? of instrumentality, namely, guidance as to
when and how they may be more or less
The first section of this chapter identified effective and predictive power about their
two substantive requirements for commun- impacts. The theoretical and substantive
ity economic development theory. First, the content of most books being written about
theory should concern itself with the neigh- economic development is thin. Careful
borhood economy and its linkages. Second, assessment of the effectiveness of the prac-
the theory must also be sociopolitical tice elements laid out above has not been
because the activity with which it is con- done. Not much is known about where they
cerned is rooted in a particular form of do and do not work or how they interact
social institution and its practitioners act with each other. For instance, does provid-
explicitly within a political framework. ing job training cause an exodus of skilled
The actual experience of practitioners people from the neighborhood rather than
suggests three additional, more abstract improvement in conditions? Good theory is
requirements for a theory. First, the theory essential as a guide to practice, both to build
must be instrumental, that is, it should the arguments for innovation and to provide
provide guidance for action rather than support to continue when innovations fail.
simply a positive explanation of how things What about the normative content of
behave. Second, it should also be normative, current theory? Is that not an area of great
that is, it must embody a set of objectives strength? At one level, this is certainly the
and arguments for realization. This asser- case. Practitioners are committed to com-
tion is closely related to the idea of instru- munity goals in the face of enormous obsta-
mentality in the sense that an instrumental cles and pressures, often to their own
theory demands some goal. It is also consist- personal disadvantage. Yet, there are also
ent with the entire history of community problems of normative scope.
economic development, which has been The nature of the field itself gives rise to
driven by the desire for change and improve- serious conflicts in objectives among its pro-
ment in the conditions under which people ponents, probably far more so than in con-
live. Third, a neighborhood economic devel- ventional economic development. Although
opment theory requires a positive under- practitioners are aware of such conflicts and
standing of the contextual world in which live with them every day, virtually no theo-
the action that it deals with will be played retical attention has been paid to their
out. This term describes the kind of under- nature and to their resolution. Where solid-
standing of relationships and interactions arity is conceived of as a supreme virtue,
necessary for effective action. recognition and acceptance of the reality of
114 |╇╇ W. Wiewel et al.

conflicting objectives are difficult to attain. discrimination, and prejudice. A broadly

But when serious attention is paid to objec- accepted theory of community economic
tives and building consensus, as in the case development is a long way off, and practice
of community organizing, the effort may be reflects this.
so great and the compromises so deep that Are there some substantive elements that
the original economic objectives are lost in might contribute to a theory of development
the political mobilization. and practice? One important consideration
The third abstract characteristic of a flows from the experiences of the few
community economic development theory— instances where community economic devel-
namely, an appropriate positive understand- opment has been brought to the forefront of
ing of the contextual environment in which policy. These experiences suggest that the
actions will be taken—presents a mixed central role of community economic devel-
picture. Certainly, economic development opment action is to employ political means
practitioners are all too aware of the con- to achieve broadly redistributive goals
straints of the larger economy under which through economic growth focused on par-
they work. Yet, it is also the case that com- ticular populations and communities. The
munity groups often do not understand or essential purpose is communitarian, but the
accept the reality of those constraints. In method is to employ market mechanisms,
part, this is a tribute to their determination reinforced by political efforts to generate the
to achieve change in the face of what are necessary resources for investment and to
formidable, indeed, impossible, obstacles. establish rules that are consistent with the
Does this mean that community groups larger market environment, yet supportive
should know more about supply and of community goals. There are, then, three
demand? In some instances, yes; the history necessary requirements to be satisfied by the
of worker takeovers demonstrates quite process, and they must be mutually consist-
clearly the cost of illusions about business ent for it to work.
viability, and it is encouraging that more First, the gains to communities should
recent efforts are recognizing this most arise primarily from the enhancement of the
explicitly. But in a larger sense, conventional productivity and creation of assets of com-
economic theory is not the only way in munity populations rather than solely
which to understand development. There is through redistributive transfers. This implies
too much legitimate questioning and debate that the realities of the market must be
for that. The questions raised by conven- understood, recognized, and dealt with.
tional theory about the way in which Second, the objectives of community devel-
markets work in a capitalist economy opment are established at the local level, but
cannot, however, be ignored, no matter they have to be realizable and consistent.
what injustice and distributional inequity Third, the use of political power in rela-
may exist in their operation. tion to community economic development is
Similar problems exist in relation to the primarily to facilitate the process of produc-
substantive content of community economic tivity enhancement and asset creation. The
development theory. Clearly, a theoretical distinction here is between the politics of
basis for this field must be both economic economic development in the community
and sociopolitical in nature. Current prac- realm and the politics of other social goals,
tice revolves around activities that are eco- such as effective participation. It is, to some
nomic in nature, but they are not integrated extent, an artificial distinction in practice,
into an economic theory of community especially because the various elements of
development that has much real content. In community development are intended to be
part, this is due to the history and evolution mutually reinforcing, but, from the perspec-
of the field, which has emerged from polit- tive of economic development, it emphasizes
ical struggles and attempts to preserve com- the political willingness to come to terms
munities in the face of change and enhance with the market. This agenda is modest
their well-�being in the face of exploitation, in€ comparison with the conceptions of
 Economic Development of Neighborhoods╇╇ | 115

sweeping social change that have historically theoreticians are usually far removed from
informed some forms of community devel- the entrepreneurs and firms that make
opment. Nonetheless, it can form a viable decisions, in community economic develop-
basis for integrating actions for economic ment those who practice are frequently also
development. those who think, speak, and occasionally
A second consideration that might be write about it. Obviously, under these cir-
brought to a theoretical structure focuses on cumstances theory often takes a back seat,
what community economic development and not as much theoretical work is being
means and what the community itself brings produced as one might wish. But what there
to the process. It is important, and overdue, is, is close to the field, and likely to be tested
to sort out what it is in development that in practice. Given the newness of the field, it
enhances the community and what it is that is reasonable to expect that continued
flows to the individual, the family, and the growth and development in the years and
household or other smaller social units. This decades ahead.
inevitably again raises the definitional
problem of community. Do neighborhoods
and communities in fact have collective or REFERENCES
organic qualities for purposes of goal
Brehm, R. (1991). The city and the neighborhoods:
setting? The origins and character of com-
Was it really a two way street? In P. Clavel & W.
munity development suggest so, but this Wiewel (Eds.), Harold Washington and the neigh-
requires caution about the form and borhoods (pp. 238–269). New Brunswick, NJ:
meaning of collective or aggregate goals. Rutgers University Press.
From a developmental point of view, it leads Center for Urban Economic Development (1987).
Community economic development strategies: A
to the issue of the relationship between the
manual for local action. Chicago: Center for Urban
potential state that a community might real- Economic Development, University of Illinois at
istically achieve and what it brings to the Chicago.
development process. Clavel, P. & Wiewel, W. (1991). Harold Washington
What does the community provide for and the neighborhoods: Progressive city government
in Chicago, 1983–1987. New Brunswick, NJ:
the development process? While it is a
Rutgers University Press.
common part of conventional practice to Giloth, R. (1988). Community economic development:
carry out some sort of resource assessment, Strategies and practices of the 1980s. Economic
there is little theoretical basis to assign Development Quarterly, 2(4), 343–350.
meaning and significance to those resources Giloth, R. (1991). Making policy with communities:
Research and development in the Department of
for economic development. What exactly
Economic Development. In P. Clavel & W. Wiewel
does constitute community or neighborhood (Eds.), Harold Washington and the neighborhoods
resources? This is an issue that is worth (pp. 100–120). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer-
much more theoretical exploration, espe- sity Press.
cially with respect to those aspects of com- Giloth, R. & Betancur, J. (1988). Where downtown
meets neighborhood: Industrial displacement in
munity that do not inhere in any particular
Chicago, 1978–1987. Journal of the American Plan-
individual or specific piece of property. For ning Association, 54(3), 279–290.
example, if a community is attractive for Gunn, C. & Gunn, H. D. (1991). Reclaiming capital:
investment by virtue of its collective charac- Democratic initiatives and community development.
ter or location, who should realize the gain Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
and who should bear the cost? It is equally McKnight, J. & Kretzmann, J. (1990). Mapping com-
munity capacity. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban
important, however, to ask what those col- Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern Univer-
lective resources actually are, how they sity.
affect development, and what will happen Ranney, D. (1988). Plant closings and corporate disin-
to them if development does occur. vestment. Journal of Planning Literature, 3(1),
22–35.
One of the exciting aspects of community
Ranney, D. & Betancur, J. (1992). Labor force based
economic development is that it is being development: A community oriented approach to
created largely through practice. Unlike tra- targeting job training and industrial development.
ditional economic theory, where academic Economic Development Quarterly, 6(3), 286–296.
116 |╇╇ W. Wiewel et al.

Teitz, M. (1989). Neighborhood economics: Local neighborhood tool box (pp. 22–23). Chicago: Center
communities and regional markets. Economic Devel- for Neighborhood Technology.
opment Quarterly, 3(2), 111–122. Wiewel, W. & Mier, R. (1986). Enterprise activities of
Wiewel, W., Brown, B., & Morris, M. (1989). The not-�for-profit organizations: Surviving the new fed-
linkage between regional and neighborhood develop- eralism? In E. Bergman (Ed.), Local economies in
ment. Economic Development Quarterly, 3(2), transition: Policy realities and development poten-
94–110. tials (pp. 205–225). Durham, NC: Duke University
Wiewel, W. & Giloth, R. (1988). Should your group Press.
start a business venture? In M. O’Connell (Ed.), The
 CHAPTER 12

Conceptual Overview of What We Know about Social

Entrepreneurship
Brigitte Hoogendoorn, Enrico Pennings, and Roy Thurik

INTRODUCTION and a discussion of empirical findings of

each school of thought are presented in the
“The idea of ‘social entrepreneurship’ has final section.
struck a responsive chord,” wrote Dees
(1998, p.€1). One may conclude that in the
10 years since Dees’ statement, the “respon­ DEFINING SOCIAL
sive chord” has only become more respon­ ENTREPRENEURSHIP
sive, given the growing attention from
media, support organizations, policymakers, Despite a growing focus on social entrepre­
and targeted university research centers and neurship (and much like the entrepreneur­
teaching programs. Where entrepreneurship ship field in its early days), the field of social
is widely acknowledged for bringing growth entrepreneurship lacks a unifying paradigm,
and economic wealth to society, social entre­ and its boundaries are fuzzy with respect to
preneurship is assumed to play the same role other fields of research (Mair, Robinson, &
in creating social wealth in times where Hockert, 2006). This situation is not sur­
pressing social and ecological needs are prising because a variety of conceptual per­
abundant. spectives have been applied to social
In spite of numerous contributions, the entrepreneurship derived from a number of
scholarly field of social entrepreneurship is different domains, such as entrepreneurship,
still in a stage of infancy (Dees & Battle philanthropy, public management, nonprof­
Anderson, 2006; Dorado, 2006; Light, its, and social issues in management. For
2008; Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009, example, notions of social entrepreneurship
Hoogendoorn, Pennings, & Thurik, 2010). include the following: nonprofit organiza­
The aim of this chapter is to provide a con­ tions that apply business expertise to
ceptual overview of different perspectives on become more efficient in providing and
social entrepreneurship. Four schools of delivering their social services (Boschee &
thought on social entrepreneurship are pre­ McClurg, 2003; Reis & Clohesy, 2001); for-
sented, key defining characteristics of each �profit businesses run by nonprofits to help
school are described, and findings of empiri­ offset costs and become independent from
cal studies concerning each school are grants and subsidies (Wallace, 1999); high
discussed. donor control philanthropy, where donors
This chapter is structured as follows. In pursue their own personal social vision
the next section, a broad description of (Ostrander, 2007); and socially responsible
social entrepreneurship is provided. Then, businesses that offer innovative solutions to
four different approaches to social entre­ persistent social, economic, and ecological
preneurship are presented followed by a problems using market-�based models (Dees
section dedicated to describing the defining & Battle Anderson, 2006; Dorado, 2006).
characteristics that distinguish these In addition, a range of closely related terms
approaches from each other. Conclusions exists such as sustainable entrepreneurship,
118 |╇╇ B. Hoogendoorn et al.

community-Â�based entrepreneurship, indigen­ time, decreasing funding by the government

ous entrepreneurship, and the fair trade in face of free market ideology, and an
movement. As such, “[s]ocial entrepreneur­ increasing demand for improved effective­
ship represents an umbrella term for a con­ ness and efficiency for both the social sector
siderable range of innovative and dynamic and nonprofit institutions. These and other1
international praxis and discourse in the general developments together with region
social and environmental sector” (Nicholls, specific factors such as socioeconomic con­
2006, p. 5). ditions gave rise to dissimilar approaches to
In general terms social entrepreneurship social entrepreneurship in different contexts
may be described as a type of entrepreneur­ and resulted in various schools of thoughts.2
ship that concerns the process of discover­ In this section two American schools
ing, evaluating, and pursuing opportunities of€ thought (i.e., the Innovation School of
primarily and intentionally aimed at the cre­ thought and the Social Enterprise School of
ation of social value by addressing social thought) and two European approaches
needs. Although the distinctiveness of social (i.e., EMES approach and UK approach) are
entrepreneurship may lay in its motives and explored. Although the approaches are often
mission (Dacin, Dacin, & Matear, 2010; mixed in popular discourse, they reveal dif­
Zahra, Rawhouser, Bhawe, Neubaum, & ferent perspectives and research preferences.
Hayton, 2009), the activities and processes In order to compare the schools of thought,
through which individuals and organiza­ the main distinctions and commonalities are
tions achieve these specific outcomes bear summarized in the subsequent section.
on the field of conventional entrepreneur­ The Innovation School of thought. The
ship. It is the social component which adds Innovation School of thought focuses on the
to the concept’s inherent complexity (Cho, social entrepreneurs as individuals who
2006). In general, social value creation is the tackle social problems and meet social needs
contribution of the individual’s entrepre­ in an innovative manner. According to one
neurial effort to the broader society, such as recent examination, “[t]he school is focused
the provision of clean water and education on establishing new and better ways to
to deprived communities, the empowerment address social problems or meet social
of women, and providing jobs for disabled needs” (Dees & Battle Anderson, 2006, p.
people. What contributes to the complexity 41). Social entrepreneurs do so by either
of the social component is that there is no establishing a nonprofit enterprise or a for-�
consensus on which social objectives benefit profit enterprise. For both schools of
society. According to Cho (2006), this dis­ thought within the American tradition,
cussion inevitably requires political choices private foundations that promote the stra­
and hence involves a “value” dimension, tegic development of the sector and their
with regard to which concerns can claim to founders have contributed significantly to
be in society’s “true” interest. However, the fundamentals of the schools. For the
within the extant literature on social entre­ Social Innovation School of thought, Bill
preneurship even within conceptual articles, Drayton, founder of Ashoka, is considered
the social element is often taken for granted. the leading figure. This school of thought on
social entrepreneurship is rooted in the body
of knowledge of commercial entrepreneur­
FOUR DISTINCT APPROACHES TO ship on the discovery, evaluation, and
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP exploitation of opportunities. In the case of
social entrepreneurship, these opportunities
The growing attention paid to social entre­ are found in social needs exploited by innov­
preneurship from both a practitioner’s and ative means to satisfy those needs.
an academic’s point of view can be explained The Social Enterprise School of thought.
by several general developments in recent Within the Social Enterprise School of
decades such as a growing awareness of the thought, the main subject of study is the
persistent social and ecological ills of our enterprise, described as an entrepreneurial,
 Social Entrepreneurship: An Analysis╇╇ | 119

nonprofit venture that generates “earned-Â� social enterprise within this approach. As in
income” while serving a social mission. In the Social Enterprise School, the unit of
order to guarantee continuity of service pro­ observation is the enterprise. In the case of
vision, this school focuses on generating the EMES approach, the social enterprise
income streams independent from subsidies has an explicit aim to benefit the commun­
and grants. In addition to the theme of ity, is launched by a group of citizens, enjoys
funding, this school also promotes the idea a high degree of autonomy, is participatory
that adopting business methods is a success­ in nature, and does not base decision-Â�
ful way to improve the effectiveness of non­ making power on capital ownership. In
profit organizations and make them more general, the organizations within this
entrepreneurial. Edward Skloot is one of the approach consist of the following types:
pioneers of this school of thought. He associations, cooperatives, mutual organiza­
founded New Business Ventures for Non­ tions, and foundations. In contrast to the
profit Organisations in 1980, the first con­ Social Enterprise School, which applies a
sultancy firm working exclusively for non-�distribution constraint to profits, the
non-Â�market companies, thus acknowledging EMES approach allows for some profit dis­
a new niche and a relevant topic of interest tribution due to the inclusion of coopera­
for the third sector. The National Gathering tives. Although such cooperatives exist
of Social Entrepreneurs,3 led by Jerr Boschee within the United States, they are not subject
and Jed Emerson, amongst others, became to the social enterprise discourse.
an influential private initiative promoting UK approach. Despite the broadness of
the development of a more effective and the definition applied by the EMES Research
independent nonprofit sector. Network, the UK approach to social entre­
Both above-�mentioned schools of thought preneurship is distinct from the EMES
that are part of the American tradition approach and the American tradition and
where social entrepreneurship refers above therefore allows for a separate approach.
all to market-�oriented economic activities When the Labour Party came to power in
that serve a social goal irrespective of sector the UK in the late 1990s, it proactively tried
(Nyssens, 2006). Within this tradition, to stimulate partnerships between civil
social entrepreneurship is considered a sub­ society, the public sector, and the private
field of entrepreneurship that results in sector. In order to promote the establish­
scholarly attention both from business ment of social enterprises throughout the
schools and social sciences. Strategic devel­ country, the Blair government launched
opment such as the promotion of social the€ Social Enterprise Coalition and created
entrepreneurship and the creation and the Social Enterprise Unit within the Depart­
improvement of sector infrastructure is ment of Trade and Industry (DTI). The DTI
orchestrated by private foundations, of defined social enterprise as comprising
which Ashoka and the Skoll Foundation are “businesses with primarily social objectives
probably the most well known. whose surpluses are principally reinvested
The EMES approach. The Emergence of for that purpose in the business or the com­
Social Enterprise in Europe (EMES) munity, rather than being driven by the need
Research Network began in 1996 and con­ to maximize profits for shareholders and
sists of scholars cooperating in order to owners.”4 Since 2006, all social enterprise
investigate the social enterprise phenomenon affairs have been the responsibility of a
and establish a broad definition that allows newly established ministry of the Third
for the national differences within the Euro­ Sector dedicated to improving the profes­
pean Union. The main objective of the sionalism of the sector, ameliorating access
research of the EMES network is the emer­ to financial sources, and refining the legal
gence and growth of social enterprises framework in favor of sector growth. UK
within the European Union. The “ideal social enterprises are subject to a limited
typical” definition used by the EMES distribution of profits and can be initiated
network defines the characteristics of the by individuals, groups of citizens, or by legal
120 |╇╇ B. Hoogendoorn et al.

entities. In contrast to the EMES approach, The approaches, as described above,

the goods and services provided can be share one main commonality: their empha­
related, unrelated, or central to the venture’s sis on the creation of social value. While it is
mission. In addition, the social enterprises in a long-Â�held belief that entrepreneurs con­
the UK are trading within the market. tribute positively to society, it is motivation
Within the European approach, social and the relative importance of social value
enterprises are generally of the nonprofit or creation (as opposed to economic value cre­
cooperative type, are dedicated to the crea­ ation) that distinguishes social entrepreneurs
tion of social impact for the community, from commercial entrepreneurs (Hoogen­
and combine revenue generation with the doorn, 2011).
work or participatory activity of program The distinctions of the different schools
beneficiaries (Defourny, 2009; Nyssens, of thought are described along seven lines
2006). Strategic development is initiated by and summarized in Table 12.1. Taken
governments rather than by private foun­ together, the ideas behind these distinctions
dations. In contrast with the American tra­ and the creation of social value reveal a
dition, social entrepreneurship mainly broad overview of the main research sub­
attracts scholarly attention from the social jects within the field.
sciences. Unit of observation. The Social Innova­
tion School assigns the social entrepreneur
an important role. Illustrative is the follow­
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT ing quotation from Bill Drayton: “People
APPROACHES understand this field by anecdote rather
than theory, so a fellow we decide to elect
Although the different schools of thought becomes a walking anecdote of what we
and approaches are distinct from each other, mean by a social entrepreneur” (Bornstein,
there are no strict boundaries between them. 2007, p. 120). For the other approaches, the
In fact, they are still evolving, a point well enterprise is the central unit of observation,
illustrated by a recent argument proposing and attention shifts from the individual to
to converge the two American schools of teams of entrepreneurs. In addition, the ini­
thought into a single concept called “Enter­ tiator of the social enterprise differs between
prising Social Innovation” (Dees & Battle the various approaches. Within the Innova­
Anderson, 2006). Despite this blurring of tion School, the initiation of a social venture
boundaries, exploring the distinctions and is mainly associated with a single individual,
commonalities contributes to an under­ whereas within the EMES approach the ini­
standing of conceptual differences. tiator is by definition a group of citizens.

Table 12.1╇ Distinctions between schools of thought on social entrepreneurship

Distinctions American tradition European tradition

Social Innovation Social Enterprise EMES approach UK approach

School School

Unit of observation Individual Enterprise Enterprise Enterprise

Link mission–services Direct Direct/indirect Direct Direct/indirect
Legal structure No constraints Nonprofit Some constraints No constraints
Innovation Prerequisite Not emphasized Not emphasized Not emphasized
Profit distribution No constraint Constraint Limited constraint Limited constraint
Earned income Not emphasized Prerequisite Not emphasized Important
Governance Not emphasized Not emphasized Multiple stakeholder Multiple stakeholder
involvement involvement
emphasized recommended
 Social Entrepreneurship: An Analysis╇╇ | 121

The remaining two approaches are less distribution of profits. In contrast, for the
explicit in this respect, and individuals, Social Enterprise School, a nondistribution
groups of citizens, or legal entities can initi­ constraint on profits is one of the fundamen­
ate the establishment of a social enterprise. tal principles and is inherent to the non­
Relationship between mission and serv- profit status of the enterprises within this
ices. A second dissimilarity is the connection particular school. Social enterprises within
between the mission and the products and the EMES and the UK approaches encom­
services provided. Within the Social Enter­ pass enterprise types that are subject to a
prise School and the UK approach, a direct total nondistribution constraint as well as
link between mission and activities is not a those, such as cooperatives, that may dis­
necessity. Goods and services provided can tribute profits to a limited extent as long as
be related, unrelated, or central to the ven­ profit maximizing behavior is avoided
ture’s mission. This allows for more flexibil­ (Nyssens, 2006).
ity in running for-�profit ventures aiming to Earned income. The Social Enterprise
generate an independent income stream. In School, and to a lesser extent the UK
both of the other approaches, the connec­ approach, emphasize the importance of
tion is either central or related. raising commercial income independent of
Legal structure. The Social Innovation grants and subsidies to secure sustainability
School and the UK approach put no limita­ and financial viability. Within the EMES
tion on legal structure. The Social Enterprise approach, “financial viability depends on
School exclusively considers nonprofits. the effort of its members to secure adequate
Within the EMES approach, it is the resources to support the enterprise’s
degree€ of autonomy of the venture that is mission” (Nyssens, 2006, p. 12). The viabil­
important, a focus that allows for certain ity is irrespective of the amount of income
restrictions on the juridical form. Social generated by the enterprise. Hence, income
enterprises are not to be managed directly generation is not an important issue within
or indirectly by public authorities or other this approach.
organizations. Governance. Governance is an important
Innovation. Innovation is clearly one of subject within the EMES approach. Multiple
the defining features of the Innovation stakeholder involvement, democratic man­
School. The level of innovativeness is one of agement, and the participative nature of the
the main criteria for Ashoka in the decision ventures are all fundamental to this
process of supporting a social entrepreneur. approach. Within the UK approach, govern­
ance is considered an important topic, but
Ashoka cannot elect someone to the Fellow­ direct or indirect involvement of stakehold­
ship unless he or she is possessed by a new ers can vary in accordance with the legal
idea—a new solution or approach to a social structure of the enterprise. It is by no means
problem—that will change the pattern in a as fundamental for the UK approach as for
field, be it human rights, the environment, or the EMES approach. The Social Innovation
any other.5 School is in favor of involving stakeholders
by creating partnership and networks
For those involved in this school of thought, through which ideas, knowledge, and exper­
fundamental change or Schumpeterian tise can flow between organizations aiming
change is considered a prerequisite. The to achieve the same social objective. Demo­
other approaches acknowledge the impor­ cratic management is not considered an
tance of creativity and innovativeness, but issue. The Social Enterprise School is in
neither principle is fundamental to the basis favor of leaving the founders of the enter­
of any of these approaches. prise complete freedom to achieve their
Profit distribution. The Social Innovation goals. From this perspective, multiple stake­
School leaves the entrepreneur free to holder involvement is to be discouraged if it
choose whatever is necessary to achieve her hinders the effective management both of
goals; this means no constraints on the economic and of social goals.
122 |╇╇ B. Hoogendoorn et al.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION cial income in the market and becoming or

staying independent from grants and subsi­
The main contribution of this chapter is to dies is one of the fundamentals of the Social
define more clearly the concept of social Enterprise School of thought. Surprisingly,
entrepreneurship and to characterize the earned income and income strategies seem
four main existing schools of thought. We to be almost completely absent from the
lay out the goals and approaches of each reviewed articles irrespective of their
school. However, it is very difficult to assess research tradition.
the extent to which goals are met and how We encounter another gap when consid­
much actual practices reflect the commit­ ering the second key characteristic of the
ments of the school’s adherents. Hoogen­ Social Enterprise School, namely, limited or
doorn and colleagues (2010) analyzed the complete profit distribution. None of the
content of the 31 empirical studies and some empirical studies pay attention to this
of the main findings concerning each school subject, despite the fact that the effects of
of thought are summarized below. the constraints on otherwise presumed
The defining characteristics of the Innova­ profit-Â�maximizing behaviors are interesting,
tion School of thought are twofold: (1) the especially in light of the current discussions
individual social entrepreneur who is on misconduct in profit maximizing behav­
assigned a series of exceptional qualities, ior by commercial enterprises.
and (2) innovation in order to bring about Governance is an important distinction in
structural social change. The empirical the EMES approach. Several studies focus
results on the individual level neither on this particular defining characteristic
confirm nor deny the presence of excep­ with mixed results. Whereas a study by
tional qualities that the Social Innovation Nyssens (2006) reveals that the representa­
School tends to assign to social entrepre­ tion of numerous stakeholders on the board
neurs. Apart from some specific motives and is indeed a good way to efficiently manage
use of language, social entrepreneurs do not the multiple goal character of the social
seem to be very different from their com­ enterprises, other studies draw less favora­
mercial counterparts. In fact, current ble conclusions about the governance of
research provides little insight on the indi­ social enterprises. Sharir and Lerner (2006)
vidual entrepreneur compared with the find­ conclude that governing board performance
ings obtained for popular themes in research is poor and Borzaga and Defourny (2001)
on conventional entrepreneurship such as found that multiple stakeholder involvement
demographics, personality characteristics, is a source of inefficiency in the case of con­
attitudes toward risk and financial rewards, flicting interests since it limits the ability to
and educational experiences. react to a changing environment.
With regard to innovation, some studies The defining distinction of the UK
captured this topic, but extensive empirical approach is not a single characteristic that
research remains scarce. Especially within sets it apart from the other schools of
this particular school, the absence of thought. The wide scope of the construct
research on disruptive change, addressing and, hence, the flexibility of the approach is
and changing the structures that caused what makes it distinct from other traditions.
social and environmental problems in the The discussion so far in this final section has
first place, is a glaring omission. In fact we focused on an individual and on an organ­
may conclude that innovation is one of izational level of analysis. With regard to
social entrepreneurship’s defining elements, the UK approach, we would like to switch
rather than being empirically grounded. to a macro or aggregate level of analysis.
When it comes to the Social Enterprise Research on a national, regional, and even a
School the defining characteristics of this sectoral level is completely lacking in our
research tradition are again twofold: (1) inventory of research findings, and the
earned income strategies, and (2) the non­ achievement of the UK in putting “social
distribution constraint. Earning a commer­ entrepreneurship” successfully on top of the
 Social Entrepreneurship: An Analysis╇╇ | 123

agenda offers a chance to address this void. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
Evaluation of current UK policies, the 23(5–6), 373–403.
Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social
factors obstructing and promoting policy entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. New
implementation, and possibilities for repli­ York: Oxford University Press.
cation are particularly relevant for policy­ Borzaga, C. & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of
makers. Even on a more basic level, it is social enterprise. London: Routledge.
worthwhile to explore the actual degree of Boschee, J. & McClurg, J. (2003). Towards a better
understanding of social entrepreneurship: Some
social entrepreneurial activity in a country,
important distinctions. Retrieved October 9, 2008,
as well as potential differences and determi­ from www.caledonia.org.uk/papers.
nants that might explain these differences. Cho, A. H. (2006). Politics, values and social entrepre­
Although some insights regarding the level neurship: A critical appraisal. In J. Mair, J. A. Rob­
of social entrepreneurial activity are availa­ inson, and K. Hockert (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship
(pp. 34–56). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
ble for the UK (Harding & Cowling, 2006),
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010).
this is not the case for other countries. Actu­ Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a
ally, the macro level of analysis opens a new new€ theory and how we move forward from
field of unexplored research opportunities here.€ Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2),
concerning subjects such as employment, 36–56.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneur­
investments, policy formation, and service
ship. Stanford University: Draft Report for the
provision. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership,
If social entrepreneurship is to be con­ 6p.
sidered a valid means of achieving social Dees, J. G. & Battle Anderson, B. (2006). Framing a
goals it is important that research is theory of entrepreneurship: Building on two schools
employed to determine whether the of practice and thought. ARNOVA Occasional
Paper series: Research on Social Entrepreneurship:
approach is successful, and if so what are Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging
the aspects of each model that are crucial to Field, 1(3), 39–66.
success. We also need to better understand Defourny, J. (2009, June 23–26). Concepts and realities
the contextual and resource constraints and of social enterprise: A European perspective. Second
supports that relate to more and less suc­ Research Colloquium on Social Entrepreneurship,
Duke University, Durham, NC.
cessful ventures. Degroote, N. (2008). L’entreprise sociale aux Etats-Â�
Unis et en Europe: Analyse comparative de cinq
approaches (Master’s thesis). Université de Liège,
NOTES Belgium. Supervisor: Defourny, J.
Dorado, S. (2006). Social entrepreneurial ventures: Dif­
1. See for a more detailed description of these devel­ ferent values so different process of creation, no?
opments Hoogendoorn et al., 2010. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(4),
2. These approaches draw on work of Dees and 319–343.
Battle Anderson who can be credited with the dis­ Hoogendoorn, B. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in the
tinction between the Social Innovation School of modern economy: Warm glow, cold feet (PhD. Series
thought and the Social Enterprise School of No. 246). Erasmus Research Institute of Manage­
thought (Dees & Battle Anderson, 2006) and ment (ERIM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rot­
Bacq & Janssen (2011), Degroote (2008), and terdam, the Netherlands.
Kerlin (2006). Hoogendoorn, B., Pennings, E., & Thurik, A. R.
3. In 2002, the National Gathering of Social Entre­ (2010). What do we know about social entre­
preneurs was renamed Social Enterprise Alliance preneurship: An analysis of empirical research.
after merger with SeaChange, a foundation with International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2),
comparable aims. 71–112.
4. See www.socialenterprise.org.uk. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United
5. See www.ashoka.org. States and abroad: Learning from our differences.
ARNOVA Occasional Paper series: Research on
Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding and Con-
tributing to an Emerging Field, 1(3), 105–125.
REFERENCES Light, P. C. (2008). The search for social entrepreneur-
ship. Washington, DC,. Brookings Institution Press.
Bacq, S. & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of Mair, J., Robinson, J., & Hockert, K. (Eds.). (2006).
social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Mac­
issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. millan.
124 |╇╇ B. Hoogendoorn et al.

Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009).
New models of sustainable social change. New York: Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contribu­
Oxford University Press. tions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepre-
Nyssens, M. (Ed.). (2006). Social enterprise: At the neurship Journal, 3(2), 161–194.
crossroads of markets, public policies and civil Wallace, S. L. (1999). Social entrepreneurship: The role
society. London: Routledge. of social purpose enterprises in facilitating commun­
Ostrander, S. A. (2007). The growth of donor control: ity economic development. Journal of Develop-
Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Non- mental Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 153–174.
profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum,
356–372. D. O., & Hayton, J. C. (2008). Globalization of
Sharir, M. & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic
of social ventures initiated by individual social entre­ Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2), 117–131.
preneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6–20.
 CHAPTER 13

Communities as Place, Face, and Space

Provision of Services to Poor, Urban Children and their Families 1

Tama Leventhal, Jeanne Brooks-�Gunn, and Sheila B. Kamerman2

INTRODUCTION (1)€ categorical programs; (2) family and

community support services; (3) community
Research on neighborhoods undertaken in development corporations (CDCs); and (4)
the 1980s and 1990s was partially a comprehensive community initiatives
response to the worsening conditions in (CCIs). Services are generally delivered
poor neighborhoods in America’s cities through categorical programs, which consist
beginning in the 1970s (Wilson, 1987, of federally mandated programs, such as
1997). Scholars from a variety of disciplines Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC), Head
began to document the detrimental impacts Start, and Temporary Assistance for Needy
of neighborhood poverty on child and Families (TANFâ•›). A number of programs,
family well-Â�being. Much of this work, as such as the State Children’s Health Insur-
exemplified in the publication of Neighbor- ance Program (S-�CHIP), are funded under
hood Poverty: Context and Consequences block grants to states giving more local
of Children (Brooks-�Gunn, Duncan, & autonomy to these programs. The second
Aber, 1997a, 1997b), used demographic strategy concentrates on integrating services
information on neighborhoods from the US for children and families in a community-�
Decennial Census in conjunction with data based setting as well as fostering ties among
on individual children and families. Policy community residents through the provision
attention increasingly focused on the alarm- of family and community support services.
ingly high number of children living in The third approach, CDCs, focuses on
urban neighborhoods marked by high con- housing, job creation, and civic infrastruc-
centrations of poverty (in excess of 30%; ture. The fourth strategy, CCIs, integrates
Kahn & Kamerman, 1996; O’Hare & the first three approaches to service delivery
Mather, 2003). by providing coordinated and integrated
How do communities, especially those services in a neighborhood-�based setting and
with high concentrations of poor people, incorporating housing and community
actually provide services and strengthen development.
families’ efforts to provide food, love, Accordingly, this chapter addresses three
shelter, health care, safe streets, and learn- issues: (1) how to conceptualize the relation-
ing experiences for their children? This ships among children, families, and neigh-
chapter focuses on the ways in which neigh- borhoods; (2) how social science has
borhood research can be used to inform the enhanced our understanding of urban chil-
design of services for low-Â�income, urban dren’s lives, particularly as related to service
families with children (and, indirectly, in provision, and (3) how the provision of
reforming or altering the systems in which services to poor, urban children varies as a
services are embedded), and to evaluate the function of the definition of community
outcomes of service initiatives. We make a employed and informs the design of urban
distinction between four general approaches services for children.
to delivering services to children in cities:
126 |╇╇ T. Leventhal et al.

CHILDREN IN FAMILIES IN attainment, particularly for male youth.

COMMUNITIES Neighborhood low income was adversely
associated with adolescents’ mental health,
This section addresses how neighborhoods criminal and delinquent behavior, and
affect children directly as well as how neigh- sexual and fertility outcomes.
borhoods may indirectly influence children The studies reviewed identified specific
by affecting their families—especially structural dimensions that were associated
parents. with particular classes of outcomes, but do
not address the mechanisms through which
neighborhood effects are transmitted to chil-
Neighborhood Effects on Children
dren and youth. We proposed several theo-
Prior to the publication of Neighborhood retical models, highlighting different
Poverty in 1997, relatively few studies had underlying processes, to explain potential
considered how neighborhood structural pathways of neighborhood influences (Lev-
conditions might affect children’s develop- enthal and Brooks-Â�Gunn 2000). The first
ment (Brooks-�Gunn et al., 1997a, 1997b). model, institutional resources, posits that
What followed was an expanded body of neighborhood influences operate by means
neighborhood research. Neighborhood of the quality, quantity, and diversity of
income or socioeconomic status (SES)—a community resources—learning, recrea-
combination of social and economic indica- tional, social, educational, health, and
tors—has been the most commonly investi- employment. The second model, relation-
gated neighborhood structural dimension. ships and ties, highlights families as a poten-
Researchers often separate measures of tial mechanism of neighborhood effects
neighborhood SES into high-�SES/affluence including parental attributes (e.g., mental
(e.g., income, percent professionals, and and physical health, coping skills, and effi-
percent college educated) and low-�SES/ cacy), social networks, and behavior (e.g.,
poverty (e.g., percent poor, percent female-� supervision/monitoring, warmth, and harsh-
headed households, percent on public assist- ness) as well as home environment charac-
ance, and percent unemployed) because the teristics (e.g., learning and physical
presence of poor and affluent neighbors may environments, family routines, and viol-
have differential associations with child and ence). The last model, norms and collective
adolescent outcomes. Other structural efficacy, hypothesizes that neighborhood
characteristics frequently examined include influences are accounted for by the extent of
racial/ethnic mix (e.g., percent Black, community formal and informal institutions
percent Latino, and percent foreign-Â�born) present to monitor residents’ behavior,
and residential instability (e.g., percent particularly peer groups, and physical
moved in last five years, percent households threats in the neighborhood, notably viol-
in current home fewer than 10 years, and ence and availability of illegal and harmful
percent renters). substances. The models are intended to be
We conducted several large-�scale reviews complementary rather than conflicting, with
of the neighborhood research which found the utility of each model for explaining
that for preschool and school-�age children, neighborhood effects on child well-�being
neighborhood affluence (compared to depending, in part, on the outcome studied,
middle income) was positively associated and, in part, on the age group examined.
with their verbal ability, IQ scores, and
school achievement (Leventhal and Brooks-�
Neighborhood Effects on Families
Gunn, 2000). Neighborhood low income
(compared to middle income), on the other As indicated by the relationships and ties
hand, was associated with children’s mental model, the effects of neighborhood-Â�level
health problems. For adolescents, high-� conditions on children may operate indi-
income/SES neighbors were also associated rectly through parental behavior and family
with school achievement and educational functioning. Some data support this premise:
 Place, Face, and Space╇╇ | 127

over and above sociodemographic factors, resources for families, but their efficacy
neighborhood characteristics are associated depends largely on the family and the
with both maternal characteristics, such as community.
depression, as well as with parenting behav-
iors, such as warmth and harshness. Several
studies explicitly examining indirect neigh- PROVISION OF SERVICES AND
borhood effects via the home environment DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNITY
report that quality of the home environment
accounted for associations among neighbor- Defining or operationalizing the notion of
hood SES and children’s academic achieve- community (as is common practice in
ment, verbal abilities, and behavior problem neighborhood-�based research) is not a high
scores. priority for designers of community-�based
Given that neighborhood characteristics services (Sullivan, 1996). Predicaments may
affect parental well-�being, parenting, and arise if alternative definitions of community
the home environment, focusing on the are used by family and community support
intersection of families and neighborhoods services, CDCs, CCIs, and categorical pro-
appears to be central for the provision of grams (and with categorical programs not
services to urban children. Perhaps one of doing it the same way either—e.g., health
the most important facts is that parents are districts, police precincts, school districts).
advocates or brokers for their children’s Drawing upon the work of Kubisch (1996)
receipt of community resources. Parents and Sullivan (1996), we have identified three
must interact with community-�level agencies different approaches to defining communit-
and institutions to garner resources for their ies: (1) communities as “place,” (2) com-
children. For example, parents select pre- munities as “face,” and (3) communities as
schools and schools for their children, “space.” Defining communities as “place” is
obtain health services for their children common in much of social science research,
(especially for children with disabilities or where communities are conceived of as
risk conditions), and create extra-�curricular neighborhoods (geographical locales) and
activities for their children. Few studies, bureaucratically defined catchments.
however, provide information on the Viewing communities as “face” emphasizes
process by which parents in poor communit- the psychological associations that residents
ies obtain, create, and structure opportun- have within their community; in other
ities for their children despite scarce words, the community comprises relation-
institutional resources. ships and social supports. The last defini-
In the same vein, federal policy initiatives tion, communities as “space,” views
for children also must be viewed in the communities as physical and built environ-
context of children in families in communit- ments for living, working, and political
ies. Many programs intended to serve (pri- organizing. Clearly, these different defini-
marily low-�income) children, such as tions of community have implications for
immunization campaigns and Early Periodic service delivery. This section will illustrate
Diagnostic and Screening Test (EPDST), how the provision of services to poor, urban
encounter surprisingly low levels of partici- children and their families varies as a func-
pation, especially among poor families or tion of the definition of community
those residing in poor neighborhoods (albeit employed.
varied levels of outreach). Parental involve-
ment appears to be a missing component to
Communities as Place
the design and implementation of these serv-
ices. Alternatively, the success of Head Start Viewing communities as “place”—neighbor-
is often attributed to its efforts to engage hoods or geographical or bureaucratic
parents as well as local community members locales—suggests that communities are man-
in the program. Thus, federal and commun- ageable units around which to organize and
ity programs are important neighborhood deliver services (Kubisch, 1996). Employing
128 |╇╇ T. Leventhal et al.

a place-�based definition of community has services. In particular, categorical funding,

two main implications for the provision of standardized program operations, equity in
services to urban children. The more moder- distribution of services, and short-�term goals
ate and ubiquitous approach is categorical pervade the contemporary culture of human
programs, and the more ambitious strategy services (Schorr and Both, 1991). This dis-
is system reform. crepancy continues to fuel the service reform
Categorical programs. While categorical movement.
programs (e.g., WIC, Head Start, Healthy In general, the criticisms of categorical
Start, and Medicaid) are federally mandated, programs as well as system reform are rele-
they are delivered at the community level vant regardless of the age group being
(according to bureaucratic units). Not all served. Which elements of successful pro-
communities have the same number, intens- grams are central to serving children has not
ity, quality, or availability of services (phys- yet been identified. Clearly, service reform
ical and mental health, social, recreational, programs need to target families, not indi-
child care, educational, job training). Poor, viduals, because even within families, indi-
urban communities typically lack available viduals are served by different programs
and high quality services. Thus, a critical (children themselves also receive services
issue that most researchers and policymak- from different programs; Ooms, 1996).
ers have failed to address adequately is how Thus, viewing communities as places
to determine what programs and services permits modest service reforms that make
are available in the community (the U.S. current categorical services more user
Decennial Census does not measure avail� friendly and less bureaucratic, but does not
ability of services), and whether or not encompass a more coordinated and integ-
available services are effective. rated approach to service delivery as dis-
Service reform. Although categorical pro- cussed in the next section.
grams utilize geographical definitions of
community, not all categorical programs
Communities as Face
define community the same way. Con-
sequently, service reform has become a In defining communities as “face,” relation-
popular, place-�based initiative. Place-�based ships between individuals constitute com-
definitions may be more flexible than the munity. Hence, community in many ways
bureaucratic systems (i.e., categorical pro- comprises psychological associations more
grams) in that they represent more precisely than geographic units. The community is
the local community. For example, the New perceived of as a system of supports
Futures initiative funded by the Annie E. (Kubisch, 1996), and this definition, in
Casey Foundation in five cities seeks to terms of policies and programs, translates
restructure the way communities organize, into the integration of services provided to
finance, and deliver educational, health, and children and families as well as communit-
other services to at-�risk youth. ies, representing a more holistic approach
Schorr with Both (1991) attributed the than service reform. Typically, programs
success of system reform programs to their consist of community-�based multiservice
(1) flexibility, comprehensiveness, and organizations that promote the well-�being
responsiveness, (2) child orientations as well of children and families (i.e., family and
as family and community orientation, (3) community support services). Establishing
high-�quality staff, (4) efforts to reach the these programs usually requires system
most at-Â�risk populations and target services reform—interagency coordination, creation
accordingly, (5) superior management, and of an umbrella agency, or some combination
(6) theoretical approach rooted in client ori- of both (Kagan and Pritchard, 1996).
entation and long-�term prevention models. Several relationships are highlighted by this
Clearly, these characteristics stand in con- approach: (1) relationships within families,
tradistinction to current ways that most (2) relationships between families and
bureaucratic institutions and systems deliver service providers, (3) relationships among
 Place, Face, and Space╇╇ | 129

service providers, and (4) relationships funding (Schorr and Both, 1991). Several
among members of the community. other barriers that need to be addressed
Relationships within families. Families include relations between federal and local
are the smallest psychological unit that con- authorities as well as locus of leadership,
stitutes community. Parents are typically technical obstacles (such as creating uniform
seen as the provider and overseer of chil- data systems), and discrepant regulations
dren’s linkages with services. This perspec- across systems (Kagan and Pritchard, 1996).
tive depicts a rather dyadic, uni-�directional For example, in one community initiative,
view of families. However, relationships children in the custody of child protective
within families are bi-�directional (i.e., chil- services were placed with neighborhood
dren influence parent’s behaviors) and families rather than with foster care homes
triadic or higher (i.e., fathers as well as adult in the suburbs. Thus, the ultimate strength
kin are part of the family system). Closer of building relationships between service
appraisal of family functioning by services providers is predicated on maintaining the
providers is merited. Supports available face of families who receive the respective
within the family may play a large role in services.
linking children with services in the Relationships within communities. Com-
community. munity relationships frequently are placed
Relationships between families and under the umbrella of family support. Often
service providers. Relationships also put a an implicit (rather than explicit) goal of
face on families and service providers. Spe- integrated service programs is to build social
cifically, Ooms (1996) has argued that connections among community residents.
despite references to children and families, Although building social networks is not a
service programs tend to emphasize indi- primary target of CDCs (which are dis-
viduals within the family rather than focus- cussed later), it may be a secondary outcome
ing on family functioning and relational of these community-�based programs. A
systems. Consequently, a primary means of study of three CDCs found that residing in
facilitating services to poor, urban children the CDCs affected community social rela-
is for service providers to recognize their tions (Briggs, Mueller, & Sullivan, 1997).
embeddedness with family and community Residents of the CDCs were more likely to
systems. Such a notion points to the need to greet or exchange words with their neigh-
coordinate and integrate community-�based bors than were non-�CDC residents. These
services for families—the goal of the family findings suggest that intimate connections
support movement. Although the service within neighborhoods may be less likely in
integration model has received widespread poor neighborhoods than in more middle-�
support, the related initiatives have prima- income neighborhoods. Thus, supportive
rily been instituted at only the state and relations within the community context may
local levels. This approach, however, may be less in close relationships and more in
be overrated in some respects. Programs weak or informal ties and such connections
typically act as entry points to services and probably reduce feelings of isolation. Pro-
do not necessarily deliver services directly to grams attempting to build community ties
children and families. This fact places note that they grow incrementally and are
increased importance upon the relationship often hard won.
among service providers.
Relationships among service providers.
Communities as Space
The whole notion of service integration is
based in part on the premise of putting a Defining communities as “space” identifies
face on service providers. In essence, the aim communities as physical and built places for
is to build a community among service pro- activity—living, working, and political
viders. Again, this goal requires restructur- organizing. The primary target of CDCs and
ing the context of social services as well as initiatives such as the Empowerment Zone
increasing the flexibility of categorical and Enterprise Communities have been
130 |╇╇ T. Leventhal et al.

housing and economic development (Briggs “place,” “face,” and “space.” Specifically,
et al., 1997). The former activity entails the CCIs are comprehensive, community-�based,
creation and management of affordable multiservice organizations that define com-
housing and the latter activity involves both munities as geographic places around which
job training and job creation. Organizational to organize services (“place”), foundations
governance is another component, but since for social support networks (“face”), and
this aspect of CDCs has more distal effects areas of residence, commerce, and civic
on children, it is not discussed here. Little activity (“space”). Theoretically, such an
research, however, exists on the effect of approach enables poor, urban communities
CDCs on residents, and virtually nothing on (and the families and children who reside in
their impact on families and children. them) to develop the capacity to address a
This fact reiterates the point that range of problems they confront (Brown
although community development initiatives and Richman, 1997). For example, the
influence children, they are not typically Center for Family Life in Brooklyn, New
child oriented. For example, both housing York (funded by the Annie E. Casey Foun-
and economic development only indirectly dation as one of four child services pro-
affect children by potentially improving grams) is designed to be a preventative,
families’ economic circumstances. AffordÂ� collaborative, comprehensive, flexible, and
able housing may free up income for other family-�focused community-�based initiative.
family needs. Economic development vis-Â�à- The Center runs job training and placement
vis maternal employment also may have programs, operates advocacy workshops,
positive effects on children despite contin- and offers an emergency food program. In
ued low income. Given the salience of famil- addition, the Center administers school-�
ial factors in predicting child outcomes over based programs for children, youth, and
and above neighborhood factors (Leventhal families in three community schools. A
and Brooks-�Gunn, 2000), the ability of range of services are provided free of charge
CDCs and other community development including counseling and therapy,
initiatives to enhance familial outcomes is neighborhood-�based foster care programs,
likely to have serious benefits for children. school-�age child care and after-�school pro-
In the previous section, we discussed the grams, summer programs for children and
fact that many CDCs often have an effect youth, recreational activities for children,
on community building, which appears to youth, and families, youth employment pro-
influence children as well. CDCs also may grams, and parent workshops. As in the
influence children’s and families’ lives by example provided, components of these pro-
improving the safety of neighborhoods. grams that focus on children include educa-
While programs to improve neighborhood tion and family support services and
safety are not necessarily considered to provision of extra-�curricular activities.
belong to the domain of spatial definitions Other features of CCIs that are less child
of community, CDCs often regard reducing focused entail housing, commercial revitali-
neighborhood danger and in turn enhancing zation, small business development, and
safety as instrumental to improving housing, community organization.
economic development, and community As evident from CCIs, definitions of com-
building. Moreover, safety may be one of munity may vary by the age of the residents.
the most important benefits of CDCs for For example, children may be more geo-
children. graphically bounded or place based than
adults. With several exceptions, children in
most cases go to neighborhood schools, play
The Integration of Place, Face, and Space
on nearby playgrounds, and have friends
The final strategy for delivering services to who live close by. Adults, in contrast, have
poor, urban children and their families— more far flung networks (i.e., face-Â�based per-
CCIs—takes the most holistic approach by ceptions of community). In urban communit-
viewing communities as the integration of ies, few individuals live in neighborhoods
 Place, Face, and Space╇╇ | 131

around places of work as in the old working Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
class neighborhoods (i.e., less space-�based Program, which supplies milk, cereal, etc.
communities). This discrepancy between The earned income tax credit and minimum
children’s and adult’s geographic bounded- wage are aimed at giving families (parents)
ness suggests that CCIs have a more critical more disposable income. Child-�oriented
role to play for children and families with services for mothers moving off welfare
children (as opposed to individuals or famil- include a few parenting classes and referrals
ies, in general). to local child-�care agencies. In addition,
If social organizations or place-�based mothers making the transition from welfare
institutions are the most salient community to work are given vouchers (i.e., cash subsi-
for children, then bootstrapping on existing dies) to obtain child care. Thus, the lack of
social connections (school, playground, a child-�centered approach among categori-
neighborhood, health clinic) may be the cal programs may impede service delivery to
most effect route to serving poor, urban poor children. Parental involvement appears
children and their families (Sullivan, 1996). to be a missing link in the design of these
Since schools are one of the only institutions programs.
that see virtually all children, many compre- Changes in the allocation of some federal
hensive programs have targeted the school funds to the states and the fact that states
as the center of the community. Increas- do not have to match funds for specific pro-
ingly, schools have taken on other missions, grams in the way that they have been
such as social and health services, in addi- required to do, has altered the way in which
tion to education. It is essential to examine some services are delivered to children and
whether or not we can expect schools to families. At the minimum, these changes
provide a range of services and whether or have affected the level of dollars allocated to
not in doing so, we jeopardize the quality of programs, such as TANF. What seems
education provided. apparent is that for poor and near-�poor
urban communities, child- and family-�
oriented services have been reduced. What
CONCLUSION remains less clear is how these cuts affect
families and, consequently, the communities
We have considered four general types of in which these families reside.
service delivery models for poor, urban chil- Block grants (used for programs such as
dren and families that vary as a function of TANFâ•›) give states and local governments
the definition of community employed. The greater flexibility to administer these pro-
mechanisms for providing services to poor, grams. In theory, this approach allows
urban children and families covered were states and local communities to tailor pro-
categorical programs, family and commun- grams to meet the needs of their popula-
ity support services, CDCs, and CCIs. Of tion. Critics, however, argue that block
the approaches discussed, family and com- grants give states too much latitude and
munity support services (integrated services) could jeopardize the well-�being of children
are the most explicitly child focused. and families if funds are not used to provide
Most income transfer programs provide family support and child services and are
money (or food stamps) to parents, and shifted to other types of programs. One
do€ not directly serve children. Programs potential advantage of block grants is that
typically focus on mothers going to it could foster system reform and increased
work€ and not on children’s needs (i.e., if coordination across service delivery systems,
the€ mother reaches her welfare time limit, since states will have greater flexibility to
then cash benefits are terminated). Even run programs.
food stamps are given to parents (with the Community development initiatives
exception of the school lunch programs, have€as their primary goal housing develop-
which provide food to children directly), ment, economic rejuvenation (creation
and, in a sense, food stamps through the of€ jobs) as well as job training. Several
132 |╇╇ T. Leventhal et al.

community-�based strategies incorporate a REFERENCES

social dimension; although, this aim is still
not necessarily a child-�centered approach. Briggs, X. de S., Mueller, E., & M.L. Sullivan. (1997).
From neighborhood to community: Evidence on the
Thus, community initiatives need to look at
social effects of community development. Commun-
families more explicitly. Some recent CCIs ity Development Research Center, Graduate School
are attempting to examine children and fam- of Management and Urban Policy, New School for
ilies more concretely. However, it is still Social Research, New York.
important to acknowledge that, frequently, Brooks-�Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (1997a).
Neighborhood poverty: Vol. 2. Policy implications
child-�oriented programs are embedded in
in studying neighborhoods. New York: Russell Sage
the service of adult-�oriented programs. Foundation.
The Carnegie Corporation (1994) report, Brooks-�Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (1997b).
Starting Points, first brought attention to the Neighborhood poverty: Vol. 1. Context and con-
declining status of young children in the sequences for children. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
United States. One of the final recommenda-
Brown, P. & Richman, H. A. (1997). Neighborhood
tions was to mobilize communities to effects and state and local policy. In J. Brooks-�Gunn,
support children and their families. Federal, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood
state, and local action as discussed in this poverty: Vol. 2. Policy implications in studying
chapter were called for to meet the needs of neighborhoods (pp. 164–181). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
children and families. To date, however,
Carnegie Corporation. (1994). Starting points: Meeting
little systematic effort has been initiated at the needs of our youngest children. New York: Carn-
the community-�level on behalf of children. egie Corporation of New York.
Despite shifting resources to the community- Kagan, S. L. & Pritchard, E. (1996). Linking services
�level, children are usually not a primary for children and families: Past legacies, future possib-
ilities. In E. F. Zigler, S. L. Kagan, & N. W. Hall
target of these funds. Thus, we still have a
(Eds.), Children, families, and government: Prepar-
long way to go in meeting the report’s call ing for the twenty-Â�first century (pp. 378–393). New
to action. York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahn, A. J. & Kamerman, S. B. (1996). Children
and€ their families in big cities: Strategies for
service€ reform. New York: Cross-�National Studies
NOTE Program, Columbia University School of Social
Work.
1. More extended text and references are available in Kubisch, A. C. (1996). On the term community:
the original chapter upon which the current An€ informal contribution. In A. J. Kahn and
chapter was adapted (with permission): Leventhal, S. B. Kamerman (Eds.), Children and their families
T., Brooks-�Gunn, J., & Kamerman, S. (1997). in big cities: Strategies for service reform (pp.
Communities as place, face, and space: Provision 256–260). New York: Cross-Â�National Studies
of services to young children and their families. In Program, Columbia University School of Social
J. Brooks-�Gunn, G. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Work.
Neighborhood poverty: Policy implications in Leventhal, T. & Brooks-�Gunn, J. (2000). The neigh-
studying neighborhoods (Vol. 2, pp. 182–205). borhoods they live in: Effects of neighborhood resi-
New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. dence upon child and adolescent outcomes.
2. We would like to thank the Foundation for Child Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309–337.
Development and the U.S. Department of Housing O’Hare, W. & Mather, M. (2003, October). The
and Urban Development for their support of neigh- growing number of kids in severely distressed neigh-
borhood programs and the Aspen Institute Round- borhoods: Evidence from the 2000 census. The
table on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Population Ref-
Children and Families, the Russell Sage Founda- erence Bureau, Baltimore, MD.
tion, and the Social Science Research Council for Ooms, T. (1996). Where is the family in comprehensive
their support of neighborhood research. We also community initiatives for children and families?
would like to acknowledge the National Institute Family Impact Seminar, Washington, DC.
of Child Health and Human Development Research Schorr, L. B. & Both, D. (1991). Attributes of effective
Network on Child and Family Well-�Being. In addi- services for young children: A brief survey of current
tion, we would like to thank Mercer Sullivan for knowledge and its implications for program and
his helpful comments on the original chapter. The policy development. In L. B. Schorr, D. Both, & C.
authors are particularly grateful to the Big Cities Copple (Eds.), Effective services for young children
seminar participants at Columbia University for (pp. 23–45). Washington, DC: National Academy
their stimulating discussion. Press.
 Place, Face, and Space╇╇ | 133

Sullivan, M. L. (1996). Local knowledge and local Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The
participation: Lessons from community studies for innercity, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago:
community initiatives. Paper prepared for Round� University of Chicago Press.
table on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Wilson, W. J. (1997). When work disappears. New
Children and Families. Washington, DC: Aspen York: Alfred J. Knopf.
Institute.
 CHAPTER 14

Connecting Public Schools to Community Development

Connie Chung

Public schools are intimately linked with schools sport “big-Â�box” designs, create
communities. They serve as centers of learn- “school sprawl,” and generate traffic con-
ing. They employ residents, and they gestion, they are seldom viewed as commun-
connect neighbors with one another. As ity assets.
place-�based institutions, they are part of a To address the disconnect between public
neighborhood’s physical fabric, impacting schools and neighborhoods, new networks
local housing markets and influencing the of planners, community development pro-
aesthetic character of a community. More- fessionals, educators, and policymakers are
over, public schools have access to myriad being formed to explore the connections
local resources including funding, land, and between schools and communities. Their
political goodwill. Given the central role efforts have uncovered the valuable contri-
that public schools play in communities, butions that schools can bring to housing
community development practitioners are and community development efforts, and
beginning to consciously include them in vice versa. Simultaneously, the U.S. Depart-
neighborhood building and economic devel- ment of Education’s National Clearinghouse
opment efforts. for Educational Facilities, an online research
In recent years, a national movement to portal, has drawn attention to the links
link public schools with community devel- between public school facilities and smart
opment efforts has unfolded, uncovering an growth, sustainable development, and com-
expansive range of synergies. From enhanc- munity engagement. By raising awareness of
ing urban revitalization efforts to providing the benefits of working together, this
community-�oriented spaces, public schools research has encouraged greater interaction
are emerging as invaluable partners for com- between public schools and communities.
munity development practitioners on a wide Several trends have helped to accelerate
array of fronts. This chapter offers an intro- the process. In recent years, the nation’s
ductory look at the roles that public schools school-�age population has risen dramatically,
play in community development, and how and many communities have been challenged
these linkages help to address neighborhood to accommodate a growing number of chil-
needs. dren. At the same time, the nation is facing a
school facilities crisis. Many of the country’s
aging public schools, particularly in low-�
THE BACKDROP income urban areas, are in need of capital
improvements and modernization. The
School districts have not always been per- demand for school facilities is creating intense
ceived to be willing partners in community competition for land and other resources,
development efforts. Residents are rarely especially for other community needs, such
engaged in a school’s capital planning proc- as affordable housing, parks, and community
esses, and school planners often overlook centers. Out of necessity, some community
community concerns. Moreover, as many development practitioners, planners, and
 Public Schools and Community Development╇╇ | 135

public school officials are beginning to Community development practitioners

combine and coordinate school and com- can also use their development expertise to
munity development efforts. Today, whether assist in the rehabilitation and enhancement
driven by need or inspired by research, of existing school facilities. These projects
community-�based organizations are becom- offer an opportunity to add or improve a
ing increasingly involved in the development resource that benefits the entire community,
and support of public schools, generating such as a computer learning center or a
partnerships that achieve broader community playground. In Massachusetts, for example,
development goals. some community development corporations
have been involved in the Boston School-
yards Initiative. This public–private partner-
THE LINKS ship rehabilitates the city’s public
schoolyards, not only benefiting the schools’
Community development organizations are students, but also providing assets to the
linking up with schools in a variety of ways, surrounding neighborhoods.1
depending on their institutional experiences,
focus, and capacity. Most strategies fall into Sustainable Development
two categories: onsite and offsite
approaches. In onsite strategies, community Public schools can play a valuable role in
development organizations directly affect sustainable development and smart growth
the school—its size, shape, use, location, efforts. Infill strategies can be employed to
staff, and student body—in ways that curb what smart growth advocates have
benefit the community. Offsite, or indirect, termed “school sprawl”—the trend to build
strategies tie nearby community develop- new schools in outlying areas that are dis-
ment efforts, such as affordable housing ini- connected from existing neighborhoods.
tiatives or neighborhood improvements, to a Additionally, the pressing demand for new
school. Many of the strategies are interre- school facilities, especially in the inner city,
lated and can be used alone or in combina- makes a school a desirable candidate for the
tion with one another, depending on the redevelopment of a brownfield or other
desired outcomes and the availability of underutilized site.
resources. Community development practitioners
have worked with local government and
school district officials to successfully
promote smart growth projects. They have
ONSITE STRATEGIES
ranged from building small-�sized schools
with rooftop playgrounds to the adaptive
Public School Facility Development
reuse of buildings and the preservation of
Community development practitioners can historic school facilities. Pueblo Nuevo
use their real estate and development exper- Development in Los Angeles, California, for
tise to support a school district’s efforts to example, rehabbed a declining strip mall
build more neighborhood-�oriented school into an award-�winning charter school.2 The
facilities. For example, some community Pratt Institute Center for Community and
organizations have helped to develop new Economic Development and the Cypress
charter schools. These innovative schools Hills Community Development Corporation
are designed to meet community needs, and in Brooklyn, New York, are currently rehab-
community development organizations are bing an old industrial building for the
supporting their creation by locating and Cypress Hills Community School.3
developing facilities for them. Similarly,
some community groups have worked to
Joint Uses
bring new public schools to their neighbor-
hoods by developing and leasing property to Community groups can also promote the
school districts. shared use of facilities between schools and
136 |╇╇ C. Chung

other community entities. The joint use of a members. In schools where these types of
library or a park, for instance, offers an adult-�learning programs already exist, com-
effective solution in urban areas where land munity development organizations are
for new community facilities is not readily working to enhance current offerings and
available. In rural areas, shared-�use projects better link classes with local economic devel-
can make economic sense for communities opment initiatives.
that must concentrate their resources.
One joint-�use strategy that has received
considerable attention is the use of public Youth Development
schools as community centers. Often Community development organizations can
referred to as the “schools-Â�as-centers-Â�of-the-Â� create neighborhood service-Â�learning oppor-
community” concept, the idea is to create tunities and after-Â�school programs for youth
new public service facilities, such as a health that benefit both schools and communities.
clinic, gym, or senior center on a school site. Designing projects that take the classroom
The concept also promotes the use of exist- into the community, community groups
ing school facilities for community activities have organized a wide variety of programs
during off-�school hours. Noble High School from neighborhood clean-�ups to tree plant-
in North Berwick, Maine, is an example of ings, design projects, tutoring programs, and
the concept in practice. The school serves as technical assistance help for local businesses.
a community center for three nearby towns These projects benefit the community at
and includes a restaurant, an adult educa- large, enrich the educational experience of
tion center, a performing arts center, and a students and school staff, and foster a sense
health clinic.4 By benefiting the whole neigh- of neighborhood pride.
borhood, joint-�use projects draw the
support of empty nesters, senior citizens,
and other residents who might not other-
OFFSITE STRATEGIES
wise have a vested interest in a neighbor-
hood school.
Affordable Housing Development
Public schools can play an important role in
Economic Development
the development of affordable housing.
Schools are often the largest institutions and School quality can have a significant impact
employers in a neighborhood, making them on a local housing market, with healthy,
an invaluable partner in economic develop- stable neighborhoods supported by healthy
ment efforts. Community development schools. Developers of affordable housing
organizations can harness this economic can boost the long-�term viability of their
influence by linking schools with the local projects by investing in the quality of nearby
business community and labor force. For schools. Similarly, community development
example, community groups have actively groups can make neighborhood improve-
encouraged public schools to purchase sup- ments near a public school to attract famil-
plies and services from local businesses and ies and qualified teachers to a neighborhood.
to award school construction and capital These projects can be as simple as neighbor-
improvement projects to local contractors. hood clean-�ups or as complex as addressing
In some communities, schools are now specific infrastructure needs, such as side-
emphasizing local hiring practices. The walk improvements.
Cypress Hills Community School in Brook- Improving schools and the surrounding
lyn, for example, developed a program to area can be a particularly useful strategy to
employ parents in its cafeteria lunch support the success of mixed-�income
program. housing projects. A high-�quality school in the
Some communities are also partnering neighborhood can entice home buyers to pur-
with schools to provide job training and chase market-�rate units in a mixed-�income
trade school classes for community development. However, organizations should
 Public Schools and Community Development╇╇ | 137

be mindful that many factors, such as local Community Building

housing market conditions and community
Often, local school reform efforts work dis-
outreach efforts, affect the ultimate success
parately from community organizing initia-
of these projects. For example, despite
tives. As a result, the relationship between
improvements to the local elementary school
good neighborhoods and good schools is lost.
in the Cabrini Green area of Chicago, Illi-
In some communities, school reform advo-
nois, occupants of market-�rate units within
cates and community organizing groups are
the area’s mixed-Â�income housing develop-
working together to create a unified and
ment still chose to send their children to
comprehensive neighborhood strategy. The
private schools.
Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in
More generally, there are many ways that
Boston, Massachusetts, the Northeast Com-
housing developers can coordinate efforts
munity Clergy Coalition in the South Bronx
with schools to the mutual benefit of one
area of New York City, and the national
another. For example, building affordable
Association of Community Organizations for
housing in conjunction with the develop-
Reform Now (ACORN) have all developed
ment of a new school can create a stable
education initiatives that directly relate to
base of students for the school, as well as
their community building goals. These and
increase the housing stock for low-�income
other efforts to tie education and community
households. Locating senior housing near a
building together have proven effective in
school can create a safer environment for
persuading state and local decision-�makers.
students by providing more watchful eyes
The Neighborhood Capital Budget Group in
on the street, as well as present student vol-
Chicago, Illinois, for example, has success-
unteer opportunities that benefit seniors.
fully organized communities to oppose school
Finally, community development practition-
closures. In cases where the schools are even-
ers can work with schools to develop work-
tually closed, the group has effectively organ-
force housing for teachers, enabling school
ized school officials and neighbors to
staff to live in the communities they serve.
advocate keeping the facilities open for other
community-�oriented uses.7
Transportation
Community development organizations can
work with public school districts to alleviate OVERCOMING OBSTACLES
neighborhood traffic concerns. According to
the Local Government Commission, only As illustrated above, there are a variety of
10% of today’s students get to and from strategies to successfully engage public
school by bicycling or walking, compared schools in community development efforts.
with 50% in 1980.5 To help reverse this However, it is crucial to recognize that
trend, Safe Routes to School initiatives have public schools are complicated entities. They
popped up all over the country to encourage face a host of social and political challenges
more students to bike and walk to school.6 that are beyond the scope of what commun-
Additionally, many community development ity development organizations can address
organizations are advocating the placement alone. Additionally, school districts have
of schools within walking distance of resi- various levels of bureaucracy that can create
dential areas and transit stops. They are also potential obstacles for community develop-
working to ensure that school areas contain ment efforts. Given the unique nature of
sufficient bicycle racks, traffic-�calming school districts, three key considerations
devices, and other pedestrian-�friendly safety must be made when including public schools
amenities. These transportation strategies in community development strategies:
not only reduce school traffic in neighbor-
hoods, but also help to address childhood 1. Stakeholder Collaboration and Com-
obesity by encouraging children to walk to munity Outreach. First, stakeholder
school. outreach is a necessary element of every
138 |╇╇ C. Chung

community/public school partnership. school that had been struggling with

Whether the task at hand is to choose a low enrollment.8
site for a new public school or to design 3. Creative Financing. The final considera-
an addition to a school facility, buy-�in tion when involving public schools in
from all interested parties is essential. community development strategies is
End-�users of the facilities and other resi- the possible need for creative financing
dents of the neighborhood can be inval- mechanisms to bring projects to frui-
uable sounding boards, helping to tion. Public schools are public facilities
determine the most appropriate site that must meet costly development
location, design, or implementation standards, yet these institutions offer
strategy. Other stakeholders, such as virtually no financial returns for inves-
developers, businesses, and local gov- tors. Given this paradigm, it can be
ernment officials, can offer perspectives difficult to entice a community develop-
on what resources and opportunities are ment financial institution to commit
available. funds for projects that include public
2. Intergovernmental Collaboration. Col- schools. The challenge is to make the
laboration between different govern- case to funders that community/school
mental agencies is also essential. While partnerships make sense and can
the majority of school districts are gov- produce significant social benefits.
erned primarily by their state depart- As the number of partnerships has
ment of education, various government increased over the years, funders have
agencies play a role in school-�related been more willing to invest in commun-
land use, traffic, and infrastructure ity/school projects. The Rockefeller
issues. Intergovernmental cooperation is Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and
particularly crucial in joint-�use projects the Knowlegeworks Foundation have all
or those that employ innovative designs. funded various school and community
Community development organizations development-�related studies and
and school districts must communicate projects. To date, however, most finan�
their intentions to all government stake- cing has remained at the advocacy,
holders early in the planning process. By policy, and research levels. A few com-
working collaboratively, resources and munity development financial institu-
information can be shared and projects tions, including LISC and the Low
can be coordinated. Income Investment Fund, have awarded
The need for intergovernmental col- loans to community-�based organizations
laboration between public housing for the development of school facilities.
authorities and school districts has Additionally, public funding is becom-
drawn national attention. In 2002, the ing available for school/community devel-
U.S. Conference of Mayors recom- opment projects in some states. In New
mended that school districts and public Jersey, for instance, the state’s School
housing authorities work together to Renaissance Zone program is funding
address the need for affordable housing pilot projects that use smart-�growth strat-
in the United States. At a hearing of the egies in the redevelopment of public
Atlanta Millennial Housing Commis- school facilities. Some community devel-
sion in 2000, Beverly Hall, superintend- opment organizations are accessing more
ent of Atlanta Public Schools, also general school-�related public funding,
emphasized the importance of such as capital improvement bonds or
coordinating housing and schools. She health grants, to leverage financing for
related how crossing agency boundaries their projects. In Los Angeles, the non-
by talking to the Atlanta Housing profit New Schools, Better Neighbor-
Authority about their plans to build a hoods organization leverages school bond
HOPE VI project ultimately prevented dollars with other funding to build joint-�
the slated closure of a nearby public use educational centers.9
 Public Schools and Community Development╇╇ | 139

IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOLS IN ╇ 9. City of Paramount and Paramount School

COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY District approve work with NSBN on plan-
ning for joint use at Los Cerritos Elementary
DEVELOPMENT
School. New Schools, Better Neighborhoods
(December 5, 2003).
Including public schools in community 10. Grogan, P. & Procio, T. (2000). Comeback
development strategies is one way commun- cities: Blueprint for urban neighborhood
ity development practitioners can achieve revival. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
more comprehensive results in their work. It
is approaching what some have called “the
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
next frontier” in community development.10
From locating community health clinics Beaumont, C. & Pianca, E. G. (1999). Why Johnny
within a school to creating pedestrian-Â� can’t walk to school: Historic neighborhoods in the
friendly school routes, community develop- age of sprawl. Washington, DC: National Trust for
ment organizations are improving Historic Preservation.
neighborhoods by reestablishing community Bingler, S., Quinn, L., & Sullivan, K. (2003). Schools as
centers of community: A citizen’s guide for planning
and school links. Together, advocacy for and design (2nd ed.). U.S. Department of Education.
long-�term education policy solutions and Chung, C. (2002, October). Using schools as commun-
greater efforts to link public schools with ity development tools: Strategies for community
community development initiatives will both based developers. Working Paper, Joint Center for
Housing Studies of Harvard University and the
improve the nation’s public schools and
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
increase the effectiveness of community Finucan, K. (2000) Location, location, location. Plan-
development efforts. ning, 66(5), 4–8, 11.
Hartman, C. (2002). High classroom turnover: How
children get left behind. In D. M. Piche, W. L.
Taylor, & R. A. Reed (Eds.), Rights at risk: Equality
NOTES in the age of terrorism, citizen’s commission on civil
rights (pp. 227–244). Washington, DC: Citizens’
╇ 1. Boston Schoolyards Initiative, online at Commission on Civil Rights.
www.schoolyards.org/home.htm. MacKinnon, C. (2001). Viewing school facilities as
╇ 2. Pueblo Nuevo Development, online at www. community development projects: The case of Hines-
pueblonuevo.org. burg, Vermont. Small Town, 30(2), 28–31.
╇ 3. Pratt Institute Center for Community and New schools for older neighborhoods. (2001). National
Economic Development, online at www. Association of Realtors and Local Government Com-
picced.org. mission, Washington, DC.
╇ 4. Marcotte, R. M., & Greim, C. W. (2003, Sanborn, P. D., Barrett, J., Connery, J., Byron, K., &
March). Maine’s noble success. Engineered Coolidge, M. (2003, August). Housing the Com-
Systems. monwealth’s school-Â�age children: The implications
╇ 5. Local Government Commission, online at of multifamily housing development for municipal
www.lgc.org/community_design/schools. and school expenditures. Citizens’ Housing and
html. Planning Association, Boston.
╇ 6. Center for Health Training and the National Schneider, J. W. (2002) Noble endeavor. School Con-
Highway Traffic Safety. (2004). Safe routes struction News, 5(1), 22–25.
to school: Practice and promise. Center for Special Issue: Communities and schools. (2001, July/
Health Training and the National Highway August). Shelterforce.
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Depart- Stone, C., Doherty, K., Jones, C., and Ross, T. (1999).
ment of Transportation. Schools and disadvantaged neighborhoods: The
╇ 7. Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, online community development challenge. In R. Ferguson
at www.ncbg.org/schools/schools.htm. & W. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and commun-
╇ 8. Hall, B. (2001, March). The role education ity development (pp. 339–369). Washington, DC:
and schools play in the long-�term viability of Brookings Institution.
community revitalization efforts. Testimony Weathersby, W., Jr. (2002). Timothy Dwight Elemen-
before the Millennial Housing Commission, tary School, New Haven, Connecticut. Architectural
Atlanta, Georgia Record, 190(2), 104–107.
 CHAPTER 15

Capacity Building
The Case of Faith-�based Organizations

Michael Leo Owens

The issue of capacity is as important to and economic development to social services

faith-�based community development specifi- and community organizing. The effects of
cally as it is to community development gen- faith-Â�based organizations’ activities in disad-
erally (Glickman and Servon, this volume). vantaged communities, however, may be
In the current policy context, federal laws negligible. Faith-�based organizations may
and a growing number of state laws invite yield few outputs and achieve small out-
partnerships between the public and faith comes because their capacity cannot accom-
sector—both taxpayer supported and volun- modate the needs of community renewal.
tary—for community development, inclusive This may be so, despite a policy attitude
of social welfare services provision. The that faith-�based organizations, above all
laws seek to improve the ability of present other organizations, have the capacity for
and future initiatives to rely on faith-�based community development. Whether faith-�
organizations to help residents of disadvan- based organizations have the capacity for
taged communities overcome afflictions and community development is an empirical
addictions that prevent them from achieving question that remains unanswered. Never-
economic self-�sufficiency and their neighbor- theless, observers note that faith-�based
hoods from becoming decent and stable organizations have “created some of the
places. They intend to sponsor and help most persistent and innovative community
expand programs that reform the personal development programs in cities, they have
situations and environmental conditions of organized significant resources for the
the poor. benefit of the poor, and they have contrib-
The laws promoting public–faith sector uted to the national dialogue about faith-Â�
partnerships contain an implicit policy based development” (Thomas & Blake,
assumption about the capacity of faith-� 1996).
based organizations for community develop- Many observers see faith-�based organiza-
ment: faith-Â�based organizations have the tions as “rising stars” in the universe of
ability to foster physical and social change. community development, with vast distances
This assumption rests on the belief that to cover before reaching their apex in terms
faith-�based organizations have considerable of services and effects. The most observed
resources—large memberships, sizable organizations among the ascending stars are
annual incomes, and a store of expert vol- faith-�based community development corpo-
unteers—that give them the ability to design, rations (CDCs), especially those associated
deliver, and sustain community develop- with African-�American churches. This
ment. In short, convention holds that con- chapter, however, attends to another type of
gregations possess the “bricks, bodies, and faith-Â�based organization responsible for cre-
bucks” for rebuilding neighborhoods and ating most faith-Â�based CDCs in the United
strengthening families (Hacala, 2001). States—the congregation. It addresses
The efforts of faith-�based organizations capacity, a topic in need of empirical
range from affordable-�housing production investigation.
 Faith-based Organizations╇╇ | 141

If it is true that congregations have the Others aver that community development
capacity for effective community develop- via “faith-Â�based initiative has an even higher
ment, we may expect the faith sector gener- standard to follow” than secular initiative
ally to do more to help the poor reform (College of Biblical Studies, 2001). Many
their lives and the conditions they endure in caution against the claim. Hein (2000), for
their neighborhoods. We may also then example, has stated,
believe that congregations have the capacity
to resolve collective problems in poor neigh- we need to be very careful not to set the bar
borhoods, such as affordable-Â�housing short- too high. We shouldn’t set the bar higher for
ages and limited employment opportunities. faith-�based organizations .╛.╛. We do need to
If the answer to the question is false, look at the unique characteristics of faith-�
however, we may need to look to other based organizations, but we somehow
organizations in the faith sector, even other shouldn’t test them above what we expect in
sectors of society, to improve the assets our regular and secular training programs.
of€ disadvantaged communities and their
residents. We may also need to see cong� I define faith-�based community develop-
regations specifically and faith-�based ment as the practice by organizations from
organizations generally as tangential, not the faith sector to produce services that
central, to community renewal in the United increase the assets of poor neighborhoods
States. and expand the socioeconomic opportun-
After defining “faith-Â�based community ities for their residents. Faith-Â�based com-
development” and providing an overview of munity development is a process composed
congregational involvement in the United of four elements—crisis relief, services and
States, this chapter moves to an empirical counseling, economic and social advocacy,
examination of congregational capacity for and market intervention—that take the faith
faith-Â�based community development. It sector “beyond helping—to the initiation,
relies on data from a survey of congrega- sustenance and management of long-�term
tions in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, growth, improvement, and change”
Georgia. Subsequently, the chapter identifies (Pickman et al., 1987). Elements of faith-�
key issues for those concerned specifically based community development include
with helping congregations build capacity to emergency assistance (for example, shelter-
expand their services, become more effect- ing victims of domestic abuse), ministry
ive, and achieve sustainability. (such as assisting youth to make moral
decisions), physical improvements (for
example, housing production), commercial
FAITH-�BASED COMMUNITY enterprise (such as owning retail properties),
DEVELOPMENT and community organizing (for example,
fostering neighborhood associations and
Faith-�based community development is con- lobbying for policy changes).
ceived of in numerous ways. Some conceive The ability of the faith sector to move
of faith-�based community development as a past emergency relief requires that it collab-
distinct type of community development, orates with other sectors of society. The
but others find such an idea unintelligible. faith sector by itself cannot develop com-
Others believe that the term explicitly munities. It needs to couple its human, phys-
incorporates religious activities (for ical, economic, social, and political capital
example, prayer and proselytism), while to that possessed by the public, philan-
some contend that it does not. Some see thropic, and market sectors to improve the
only certain types of faith-�based organiza- physical, economic, and social conditions of
tions (such as Christian churches) when they disadvantaged communities. When the
peruse the community development land- coupling of capital among the sectors
scape, whereas others are less myopic and endures, faith-�based community develop-
more panoramic. ment increases its capacity for strengthening
142 |╇╇ M. L. Owens

families and transforming neighborhoods. Nationally, a minority of congregations

It€becomes, borrowing from de Souza Briggs engages in activities typical of community
(1998), a conduit for the poor to “get by” development organizations (Chaves, 1999).
and “get ahead.” Table 15.1 confirms this fact, relying on
data from the National Congregations Study
(Chaves, 1998), a random survey of 1,236
CONGREGATIONS AND FAITH-�BASED congregations in the United States. It shows
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: A the community development involvement of
NATIONAL OVERVIEW congregations nationwide, those in cities
and those in urban poverty neighborhoods,
At its best, “faith-Â�based community devel- for a select set of activities. It also identifies
opment is comprehensive, asset based, and the involvement of suburban congregations
driven from the bottom up” (Ramsay, for comparison purposes.
1998). Congregations do not necessarily Most congregations participate in or
control it. Most congregations do not prac- support some social welfare service, such as
tice community development, and congrega- services apart from sacramental activities,
tions typically do not engage in community annually. Their service, however, involves
development through congregation-�affiliated mainly emergency relief for individuals and
subsidiaries, such as separate nonprofit or families, youth-�focused outreach, or services
commercial organizations (De Vita & for senior citizens. As the Reverend Dr. Fred
Palmer, 2003a; Owens & Smith, 2005). Lucas, observes,

Table 15.1╇ Select community development activities of congregations, 1998

Activity Congregations

National sample Urban areas Urban low-poverty Urban high-poverty

(%) (%) areas (%) areas (%)

Housing 18 21 23 12
Habitat for Humanity 13 7 8 4
Homeless assistance 8 14 15 9
Employment assistance 1 2 2 2
Job training 0 0 0 1
Health 4 5 5 2
Education 6 8 8 8
Any social welfare service 57 60 62 55

Suburban areas Suburban low-poverty Suburban high-poverty

(%) areas (%) areas (%)

Housing 19 19 11
Habitat for Humanity 9 8 5
Homeless assistance 7 8 7
Employment assistance 1 1 1
Job training 0 0 1
Health 6 4 2
Education 3 6 6
Any social welfare service 55 59 46

Source: Author’s independent analysis of the National Congregations Study dataset (Chaves, 1998).
Note: “High-poverty areas” are census tracts with poverty rates exceeding 30% as of 1990 that are located in cities. Census
tracts with less than 30% poverty are “Low-poverty areas.”
 Faith-based Organizations╇╇ | 143

the preponderance of [congregations] have remainder participates in partnerships that

not yet found the proper equation for signific- provide direct service to the immediate
ant community impact. Although many run needs of the poor (such as food, cash assist-
soup kitchens or youth programs successfully, ance, clothing). It provides resources that
expanding into building housing or economic
help people survive, but not necessarily get
development is a huge leap that most churches
beyond their conditions, through linkages to
do not have the capacity to accomplish.
(cited in Walker, 2001) other community institutions. As one study
of congregations in a Chicago urban poverty
neighborhood concludes, “the bridging is
Few congregations engage in housing or
meager” (Laudarji & Livezey, 2000).
workforce development, the two pivotal
The meager bridging to prosperity that
“product sectors” of community develop-
congregations provide the poor is rooted in
ment in the United States. The national data
a set of factors. Among the factors that
suggest that the effects of the community
explain congregational involvement in social
development work of congregations, com-
welfare services specifically and community
pared to the scale of community problems
development generally, congregation size
and needs, is extremely limited, especially in
determines much of the type and scale of
urban areas of high poverty. Chaves and
outreach by congregations. Congregations
Tsitsos (2001) conclude from the National
with large memberships are more likely to
Congregations Study data that the social
practice community development than those
welfare services that congregations particip-
with small memberships. Theology matters,
ate in or support tend to have short dura-
too, as congregations from liberal Christian
tions and address the problems of a
traditions are more likely to engage in com-
relatively small population of clients.
munity development than those that are not.
The lack of overt action in the commun-
Yet capacity may explain much of the
ity development arena by congregations
limited involvement of congregations in
does not mean they necessarily keep them-
community development. It may also
selves out of it. Vidal (2001) explains:
account for why scholars find that many
urban congregations are disengaged from
Congregations have two preferred approaches
reforming conditions in the geographic com-
to service: they donate small amounts of cash
or in-�kind goods to other service delivery munities where they are located (McRob-
groups, or they provide small groups of vol- erts, 2003; Smith, 2001).
unteers to conduct relatively well-�defined, The conceptualization of capacity by
periodic [activities]. By contrast, community Norman J. Glickman and Lisa Servon (this
development activities require regular and sus- volume), along with extensions and refine-
tained involvement in a range of complex ments of it by Elliot (2002), identifies a con-
processes and tasks. ventional set of capabilities as essential to
effective community development organiza-
Therefore, congregations may not see the tions. Glickman and Servon’s set includes
necessity for practicing community develop- five categories of capabilities—organiza-
ment themselves. Alternatively, they may tional capacity, resource capacity, program-
perceive a need but lack the ability to matic capacity, network capacity, and
address it. If so, the capacity of congrega- political capacity. The five interdependent
tions may structure the preferences of con- capabilities determine and measure the
gregations for community development and overall capacity of community development
approaches to it. organizations to foster physical and social
Nationally, of those congregations change in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
involved in their communities through part-
nerships with other organizations to provide
neighborhood services, 10% identify their
activities as aiding or supporting community
development (Ammerman, 2001). The
144 |╇╇ M. L. Owens

THE ABILITIES OF CONGREGATIONS facilitating the community reentry of ex-�

FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: prisoners (58%), treating substance abusers
FINDINGS FROM METROPOLITAN (55%), and providing child care (50%).
ATLANTA These perceptions imply that many clergy
believe that faith-�based organizations gener-
Many perceive faith-�based organizations to ally have the capacity to accomplish a diver-
have a comparative advantage over other sity of social welfare goals falling under the
sectors of society when it comes to com- rubric of community development.
munity development. They believe that this Conjecture aside, congregations may lack
advantage comes from the presence, diver- the capacity for community development, as
sity, and resources of the faith sector. measured by the five dimensions of capacity
Former U.S. Housing and Urban Develop- that seem to determine the effect of com-
ment Secretary Henry Cisneros observes, munity development. The Atlanta data
“faith communities are still there” in the suggest that organizational capacity may be
neighborhoods of need (1996). Presence the weakest ability congregations possess for
gives faith-�based organizations a clearer community development. The program-
understanding than other nonprofit organi- matic, resource, and political capacities of
zations and government agencies of the bar- congregations may be mixed. Congregations
riers that face the disadvantaged and the may be strongest in terms of network
solutions to removing them. Presence may capacity.
correspond to indigenous knowledge of the
cause, scope, and scale of problems in poor
places. WEAK CONGREGATIONAL ABILITY:
In considering the “relative ease” of con- ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
gregations for community development, this
chapter reports findings based on data from To assess critical elements of the organiza-
a random sample of clergy in the metropoli- tional abilities of congregations, the survey
tan area of Atlanta, Georgia, surveyed by asked Atlanta clergy, who indicated that
telephone in April 2002. The diversity of the their congregations would apply for govern-
faith sector also may provide recipients of ment money, a series of questions that per-
its services with more alternative types of tained to their ability to submit an
programs, perhaps ones better suited to application. It makes sense to focus on the
their needs, particularly their spiritual ones. ability of congregations to seek funding
The multiplicity of faith traditions poten- because of the skills required to accomplish
tially can speak to almost every type of indi- the task. Initially, the survey asked clergy if
vidual in need, whereas the services of their congregations would need assistance in
government agencies and many secular non- applying for public funds. Approximately 7
profits cannot. Furthermore, the faith sector of 10 pastors (69%) maintained that their
has moral and spiritual resources govern- congregations lacked the ability to complete
ment and secular nonprofit agencies lack. a request for qualifications or proposals by
Depending on the situation, those resources themselves. Following the initial inquiry, the
may be more appropriate to resolving the survey posed a battery of questions that
problems of individuals and families. identified specific forms of organizational
Across a range of service areas, most assistance their congregations might need to
clergy in the Atlanta sample say that faith-� apply for or administer public funding. Each
based organizations, not secular nonprofit item on the survey identified an ability one
organizations or government agencies, would associate with “inner capacity” of
would best provide services to the needy. community development organizations that
Clergy assume that faith-�based organiza- have high organizational capacity.
tions are more capable than the public agen- Table 15.2 shows how the Atlanta clergy
cies and secular service providers at perceive the organizational needs of their
addressing homelessness and hunger (58%), congregations along five dimensions related
 Faith-based Organizations╇╇ | 145

Table 15.2╇ Technical assistance needs of congregations

Type of assistance needed Congregations

Metropolitan Atlanta (%) Urban Atlanta (%) Suburban Atlanta (%)

Grant or proposal writing

Yes 91 96 88
No 11 4 12

Program administration and management

Yes 74 78 71
No 26 22 29

Legal counsel
Yes 71 67 73
No 29 33 27

Staff development
Yes 67 74 65
No 33 26 35

Computer and information systems management

Yes 53 56 52
No 47 44 48

Source: Faith and the City Survey of Atlanta Clergy, 2000.

Note: Proportions may not equal 100 due to rounding.

to the pursuit and expenditure of public strong grant mechanics and quality content
funding: grant or proposal writing, program [are] the keys to successful applications”
administration and management, legal (2001). Congregations improve their
counsel, staff development, and computer chances of acquiring external support by
and information systems management. writing persuasive proposals. The Atlanta
Three-�quarters reported that their congrega- data suggest strongly, however, that most
tions would need assistance in three or more congregations lack the ability to write
of the organizational areas to apply for funding proposals on their own. The pre-
public funding to operate social service pro- ponderance (91%) of clergy acknowledges
grams. More than one-�half (58%) would the need for assistance in writing a funding
need assistance in at least four of the five proposal.
areas. The preparation of a proposal for a
For congregations, tithes and offerings public grant or contract can be complicated.
account for most of their annual revenue It involves more than writing well about the
and their community development initiatives goals, design, and outcomes of an organiza-
may require resources beyond what these tion and its programs. Furthermore, organi-
internal sources permit. Accordingly, they zations seeking to improve their chances of
may seek external support in the forms of funding may need to acquire formal non-
grants or contracts, which requires an ability profit status from federal and state regula-
to write a funding proposal. This ability tors. Also, because community development
may be most critical to a congregation initiatives involve potential legal and finan-
obtaining material funding from external cial risks for organizations, the public
sources for its community development ini- request-�for-qualifications process encour-
tiatives. As Farnsley concludes, “even in this ages organizations considering whether to
friendly environment for faith-�based groups, bid to provide services to seek legal counsel
146 |╇╇ M. L. Owens

during and following the submission of its and information systems management assist-
proposal. ance is the lowest priority for congregations
The operation of community develop- that currently lack the ability to compete for
ment initiatives requires organizations to public funding for their social welfare
extend their human resources. Staff size may programs.
affect the ability of organizations to be
effective and expand their programs to a
scale comparable to the needs of its clients.
MIXED CONGREGATIONAL ABILITIES:
Few congregations have large professional
RESOURCES, PROGRAMS, AND
staff devoted to their social service pro-
POLITICS
grams. For instance, the National Congrega-
tions Study data show that 6% of
Resource Capacity
congregations have paid employees that
devote one-�quarter or more of their work to A fundamental dimension of the resource
the administration of congregation-�based capacity of congregations is membership
social welfare programs. This could limit the size. Prior studies suggest that the size of a
ability of congregations to design and congregation determines its access to mater-
manage new or extant social services pro- ial resources be it given as tithes and offer-
grams. Overcoming the limitation requires ings by attendants or provided by
more than the recruitment or retention of government agencies and philanthropies as
skilled principal and programmatic staff. It contracts and grants (Chaves & Tsitsos,
also involves improving the abilities of exist- 2001; Owens & Smith, 2005).
ing staff through education and training. Beyond congregation size, knowledge of
Most clergy in metropolitan Atlanta potential external funding sources is a com-
admit they need staff development skills. ponent of resource capacity. A congregation
Such skills remain a low priority, however, cannot obtain funds for community devel-
compared to most other needs related to opment unless it can identify sources for it.
increasing resource capacity. Slightly more The federal government draws the most
than two-�thirds (68%) of clergy report their debate as a potential source of external
congregations would need staff development funding. That is not to suggest that other
assistance to prepare a proposal. Not only important external sources do not exist.
are effective program administration and Federal funding, however, either directly as
management important to the ability of an grants from federal agencies or indirectly via
organization to demonstrate its qualifica- states and localities as grants or contracts,
tions to receive external support for its provides a pivotal source of material
work, they are fundamental to the outputs resources. The receipt of federal financial
and outcomes of the organization. assistance, for example, may legitimize the
Lastly, some funding agencies may require community development work of congrega-
electronic submissions of proposals, along tions. Such legitimacy may enable organiza-
with evidence that an organization can show tions to leverage greater private funding for
measures and evaluations of the outcomes of their programs.
their current programs. They may also The receipt of external funding by an
inquire about the ability of an organization organization for its programs is another var-
to track and document future programmatic iable that gauges resource capacity.
changes, as well as submit electronic reports Although elements of political capacity may
over the duration and at the conclusion of a influence the receipt of governmental
funding period. The ability to meet these funding (Owens, 2007), the acquisition of
requirements necessitates that organizations government financial support by a congre-
invest time and resources in computer tech- gation suggests that it has the ability to
nology. Almost one-�half (47%) of the Atlanta obtain resources to manifest its mission. To
sample believe it is not a need of their con- assess this dimension of resource capacity,
gregations. The data signify that computer the Atlanta survey inquired of clergy whose
 Faith-based Organizations╇╇ | 147

congregations operate social services if gov- congregations collaborating with public

ernment agencies fund their programs. As agencies to achieve it (Sherman, 2000).
other surveys of congregations have found The survey of Atlanta clergy asked
(Chaves, 1998; De Vita & Palmer, 2003b; respondents from congregations that
Owens & Smith, 2005), the preponderance provide services whether any of their pro-
(86%) of sample congregations operating grams were a direct response to welfare
social welfare programs in Atlanta does not reform. One in 10 clergy answered affirma-
receive any form of government funding. Of tively, which raises a concern about the flex-
those congregations that do not receive gov- ibility of congregations. The clergy’s
ernment funding for their social services, response also raises the question of whether
more than one-�half (60%) of clergy aver congregations prefer to create programs in
that they would not apply for public money response to local needs rather than national
if it became an option for them. That is, and state policies.
they would choke off a potential source of
funding, perhaps limiting their overall
Political Capacity
resource capacity as congregations.
Politics can affect community development,
even faith-�based community development
Programmatic Capacity
(Owens, 2007). Community development
Common sense suggests that staff develop- organizations that garner internal and exter-
ment, along with program administration nal support for their missions, goals, and
and management, influences the ability of activities may be better able to navigate the
organizations to plan and execute their com- politics of community development. The
munity development activities. The Atlanta Atlanta clergy responded to questions that
data do not permit an extensive considera- identified aspects of the political capacity of
tion of the programmatic capacity of con- congregations for community development.
gregations, but they allow a consideration The first question asked whether clergy
of the provision of social welfare services. should encourage their congregants to affect
Atlanta congregations are almost on par the decisions of policymakers through polit-
with congregations nationally in terms of ical action: 93% agreed. A subsequent ques-
their operation of social welfare programs tion asked whether clergy did encourage
generally. More than one-�half (54%) of their congregants to take political action,
clergy report that their congregations with 84% of respondents claiming to behave
operate programs to aid poor single-�parent in that manner, and 79% claiming to have
families, poor children, or unemployed done so in the last five years.
fathers. The data suggest that many congre- The survey asked clergy about their “pro-
gations have a programmatic foundation on phetic voice.” Clergy were asked whether
which to build and expand their efforts in they spoke on behalf of specific policy issues
the community development arena. in a public forum, as well as whether they
The data also speak to the responsiveness lobbied legislators for a specific piece of legis-
of congregations to policy changes, another lation. Most clergy either do not have a pro-
element of programmatic capacity. That is, phetic voice or they do not use their
we can consider the ability of congregations prophetic voice. Most clergy claimed to be
that provide social welfare services to design neither outspoken on public issues (56%) nor
and implement new programs in response to advocates on behalf of or opponents of legis-
external needs and pressure. Since the 1996 lation (63%). Finally, the survey asked clergy
changes to the federal welfare laws, national to gauge the involvement of their congrega-
and subnational agencies have encouraged tions in local public policy issues as part of
congregations to take on more responsibility its congregational mission. Most clergy
for meeting the needs of the disadvantaged. (61%) responded that their congregations
Moreover, some studies find that welfare were “somewhat” or “very” involved in the
reform has increased the number of public policy issues of their communities.
148 |╇╇ M. L. Owens

STRONG CONGREGATIONAL CONCLUSION

ABILITY: NETWORK CAPACITY
The faith sector is valuable to community
Two measures of network capacity are the renewal in the United States. Its value comes
attitude of organizations toward collabora- from the store of social capital the sector
tion and their actual collaboration with produces, maintains, and transfers. Congre-
other organizations. Congregations that gations, specifically, and faith-�based organi-
support the idea of collaboration, for zations, generally, may expend social capital
example, are inclined to reach out to others. on behalf of disadvantaged people and
Building network capacity begins with this places in at least three ways (Foley,
initial step. Likewise, congregations that McCarthy, & Chaves, 2001). First, faith-�
who actively build relationships to address based organizations may provide resources
collective problems will be involved in larger to poor individuals and poor community
networks and therefore have more network institutions from their own stock or through
capacity than others. linkages with governmental and nongovern-
On the first measure, Atlanta clergy were mental resources. Second, they may prose-
asked: Clergy should partner their congrega- lytize in poor communities in an effort to
tions with secular organizations to improve absorb poor individuals and families into
neighborhood conditions. A large majority religious groups already endowed with
of clergy (83%) responded affirmatively to social capital. Third, they may attempt to
the statement. On the second measure, empower poor communities by employing
clergy were asked to agree or disagree with their own social capital in ways that benefit
the statement: As a member of the clergy, I not only their own members but also indi-
partner my place of worship with secular viduals and families who are not members.
organizations to improve neighborhood Although social capital may enable the faith
conditions. Again, a large majority of clergy sector to make positive differences for dis-
(72%) agreed with the statement, although advantaged places and people, it alone is
noticeably dropping off from the first inadequate for community change.
question. Do congregations, along with other faith-�
Another measure of network capacity is based organizations, have the capacity for
the ability of organizational leaders to inter- community development? The answer
act with other groups to achieve mutual depends on the aspects of capacity one
goals. This ability can be measured by assesses, as well as the measures applied. If
whether organizational leaders attend meet- the Atlanta findings indicate the abilities of
ings or volunteer with other groups. Most congregations nationally, the capacity of
Atlanta clergy (82%) report they attend congregations for community development
issue meetings sponsored by other commun- is mixed. Generally, congregations have
ity organizations. Of the clergy that attend many of the requisite abilities to practice
community meetings, 67% volunteer their community development. For instance, they
time with community organizations other have networks that keep them aware of
than their own congregation. community issues, clergy who interact with
Leaders who interact with other groups those outside their congregations, and
on community issues demonstrate a modest congregations predisposed to collaboration,
form of networking. Partnerships for com- all of which may yield greater social capital
munity problem-�solving make for a stronger for community change. Congregations,
form of networking. Therefore, the survey however, possess varying levels of the five
asked clergy operating social services pro- abilities necessary for optimal capacity for
grams whether their congregations operate community development.
most of their programs alone or in collabo- Regardless, some claim that faith-�based
ration with others. Approximately one-�half organizations can address all problems.
of the respondents (49%) claim they collab- Those who make these claims mortgage
oratively deliver social services. capacity to hope for things unseen.
 Faith-based Organizations╇╇ | 149

Unfortunately, “faith-Â�based” answers to the Farnsley, A. (2001). Can faith-Â�based organizations

question of the capacity of the faith sector compete? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-
terly, 30(1), 98–111.
for transforming neighborhoods and Foley, M. W., McCarthy, J. D., & Chaves, M. (2001).
strengthening communities are insufficient. Social capital, religious institutions, and poor com-
This chapter begins filling the empirical gap munities. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, & M.
between what we believe and what we know Warren (Eds.), Social capital in poor communities
about the abilities of faith-Â�based organiza- (pp. 215–245). New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Press.
tions to produce services that increase the Hacala, J. R. (2001). Faith-�based community partner-
assets of poor neighborhoods and expand ships: Toward justice and empowerment. In E. J.
the socioeconomic opportunities for their Dionne, Jr. & M. H. Chen (Eds.), Sacred places,
residents. civic purposes: Should government help faith-�based
charity? (pp. 140–142). Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Hein, J. (2000, May 17). Remarks made at the Nelson
REFERENCES A. Rockefeller Institute of Government Symposium,
Reforming welfare through charitable choice, New
Ammerman, N. T. (2001). Doing good in American York City.
communities: Congregations and service organiza- Laudarji, I. B. & Livezey, L. W. (2000). The churches
tions working together. Hartford, CT: Organizing and the poor in a “ghetto underclass” neighborhood.
Religious Work Project, Hartford Institute for Reli- In L. W. Livezey (Ed.), Public religion and urban
gion Research. transformation (pp. 83–106). New York: New York
Briggs, X. de Souza. (1998). Brown kids in white University Press.
suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces of McRoberts, O. M. (2003). Streets of glory: Church and
social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), community in a black urban neighborhood. Chicago:
177–221. University of Chicago.
Chaves, M. (1998). National congregations study: Data Owens, M. L. (2007). God and government in the
file and codebook. Tucson, AZ: University of ghetto: The politics of church–state collaboration in
Arizona, Department of Sociology. black America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chaves, M. (1999). Congregations’ social service activ- Owens, M. L. & Smith, R. D. (2005). Congregations in
ities. Charting Civil Society No. 6. Washington, DC: low-�income neighborhoods and the implications for
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban social welfare policy research. Nonprofit and Volun-
Institute. tary Sector Quarterly, 34, 316–339.
Chaves, M. & Tsitsos, W. (2001). Congregations and Pickman, J., Baxter, G., Roberts, B., Piolet, P., &
social services: What they do, how they do it, and Proscio, A. (1987). Religious institutions as actors in
with whom. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar- community development. New York: Structured
terly, 30(4), 660–683. Employment Economic Development Corporation.
Cisneros, H. G. (1996). Higher ground: Faith com- Ramsay, M. (1998). Redeeming the city: Exploring the
munities and community building. Cityscape: A relationship between church and metropolis. Urban
Journal of Policy Development and Research, 2(3), Affairs Review, 33(5), 595–626.
71–84. Sherman, A. (2000). The growing impact of charitable
College of Biblical Studies. (2001). Faith-�based afford- choice: A catalogue of new collaborations between
able housing development and finance resource government and faith-�based organizations in nine
guide. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation. states. Washington, DC: The Center for Public
De Vita, C. J. & Palmer, P. (2003a). D.C. congrega- Justice.
tions in three low-�income wards and their experi- Smith, R. D. (2001). Churches and the urban poor:
ences with government funding. Paper presented at Interaction and social distance. Sociology of Reli-
the Independent Sector Spring Research Forum, gion, 62(3), 301–313.
Bethesda, MD. Thomas, J. M. & Blake, R. N. Jr. (1996). Faith-�based
De Vita, C. J. & Palmer, P. (2003b). Church–state community development and African-Â�American
partnerships: Some reflections from Washington, neighborhoods. In W. D. Keating, N. Krumholz, &
D.C. Washington, DC: Center on Nonprofits and P. Star (Eds.), Revitalizing urban neighborhoods (pp.
Philanthropy, The Urban Institute. 131–148). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Elliot, G. L. (2002). Capacity as a fundamental objec- Vidal, A. C. (2001). Faith-�based organizations in com-
tive: Definition and measurement in the munity development. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
AmeriCorps*VISTA—Habitat for Humanity Inter- ment of Housing and Urban Development.
national Affiliate Partnerships. Washington, DC: Walker, D. (2001, January/February). Not by faith
Corporation for National and Community Service. alone. Shelterforce.
 CHAPTER 16

Toward Greater Effectiveness in Community Change

Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy 1

Prudence Brown, Robert Chaskin, Ralph Hamilton, and Harold Richman

INTRODUCTION • the clarity and realism in foundations’

goals, expectations, ideas, and strat-
Foundations of all types seek to improve egies;
low-Â�income communities and the circum- • the alignment between the goals and
stances and opportunities of the people who strategies, and foundations’ means and
live in them. Their efforts have produced modes of practice;
promising results: houses have been built, • the sufficiency and effectiveness of
organizations strengthened, residents mobi- current methods to inform, assess, and
lized, collaboration enhanced, services deliv- revise foundation thinking and practice.
ered, employment increased, and so forth.
But funders acknowledge that their support Addressing these issues is a “doable” task,
has yielded less for communities in the short one in which some foundations are already
term than they and their community part- deeply engaged.
ners initially hoped and that the work is The analysis that follows has important
more complex and longer term than initially limitations. Treating thinking, doing, and
anticipated. learning sequentially, as we do below, could
This chapter aims to shape a discussion make community change efforts seem linear
about philanthropy and community change and simple, when, in fact, they are quite the
that builds on the lessons that funders have opposite: complex, highly iterative, and
learned, clarifies the challenges they have requiring constant adjustments in thinking
identified, and describes some promising and doing in response to learning about
approaches they are taking to address these conditions and opportunities on the ground.
challenges. It is the product of ongoing Although the struggle to keep the three
research on philanthropy and community activities connected and aligned in practice
change at the Chapin Hall Center for Chil- is constant, we separate them in order to
dren, including a series of 45 interviews con- clarify and highlight aspects of each.
ducted in 2001–2002 with a diverse group Further, our focus on philanthropy should
of current and former foundation executives not suggest that foundations are lone and
and staff; representatives from community-� sufficient agents working to promote com-
change organizations and intermediaries; munity change. Indeed, foundations are only
evaluators, researchers, and technical assist- one of the many players that include com-
ance providers; and close observers of foun- munity organizations, service providers,
dation efforts.2 private business, and public, political and
Our respondents suggest that foundations civic actors (see, e.g., Ferguson & Stoutland,
can become more effective by further refining 1999; Kubisch et al., 2002; Chaskin, 2003).
how they think about community change, We concentrate on the role of foundations,
how they do community-�change work, and however, in order to better understand their
how they learn from their efforts. Specifi- particular role in the ecology of community
cally, they underscore the need to address: change. Finally, the chapter’s tone and
 Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy╇╇ | 151

structure—which begins with concerns quently collude with this misjudgment

before moving on to potential solutions— because they want the foundation to become
may appear to overemphasize the impor- a champion—and significant funder—of
tance of challenges while minimizing the their work.
progress being made. Over the last 10 years A common dynamic between foundation
funders have made progress on these issues. boards and staff also contributes to a lack
We present the challenges upfront both of realism. While board members are often
because that is what we heard in interviews excited by the idea of “getting at root prob-
with the people closest to foundations’ com- lems,” they can also be impatient with
munity change work and because we believe complex, long-�term solutions; they look for
this approach can help stimulate productive clear “causal stories” and relatively simple
debate and help to articulate a potential solutions (see Stone, 1989). In these circum-
philanthropic agenda. stances, staff may ignore the field’s experi-
ence and over-�promise what can be
achieved. For example, the time frame of
FOUNDATION THINKING most grants is usually shorter than the time
actually needed to make substantial change
How foundations think about community in a community; many foundations continue
change shapes their goals, expectations, to work within 3- to 5-year time frames
strategies, and investments. Unclear or although both experience and research have
incomplete thinking can get in the way of demonstrated that measurable community-�
foundations’ effectiveness in promoting level change usually takes longer, and that
community change. there are likely fundamental limitations to
Communities are notoriously complex. what action at the neighborhood level alone
They can be conceptualized and operation- can accomplish (e.g., Halpern, 1995; Jar-
alized in many different ways, and are per- gowsky, 1997).
ceived and used differently by different Bringing greater clarity and realism to
people, in ways that are often connected to foundations’ goals, expectations, and ideas
age, race, class, length of residence, the state for community change would strengthen the
of local resources, and the nature of social intellectual underpinnings for community-�
organization within particular communities focused philanthropic investment. It would
(e.g., Wellman & Wortley, 1990; Lee, also provide a more effective basis for
Campbell, & Miller, 1991; Furstenberg, ongoing learning and improvement. Many
1993). How to define them, and what they foundations have started to use theory of
provide as a basis for social action is by no change and logic models to shape their com-
means straightforward (Chaskin, 1997; munity change efforts. Further work is
Sampson, 1999). To make this more com- needed to develop these theories, apply them
plicated, the precise goals of foundation-� systematically, and ground them in evidence
supported community-�change efforts are of prior success. Unclear goals and expecta-
sometimes unclear, indicating a confusion tions make it hard to articulate the assump-
about whether they are intended to improve tions about cause and effect that are the key
the lives of people in poverty or eliminate to a viable theory (and, consequently, to
poverty, build community capacity, reform good decision-�making). Often, even when
public systems, connect individuals to eco- assumptions are specified, the logic that
nomic opportunity, promote social capital guides them and the interim measures of
or democratic participation, address struc- progress that make them testable are not
tural racism and inequity, or all of these clear. The theory of change used in
things. This lack of clarity is often coupled one€ foundation effort, for instance, tied
with a tendency to inflate expectations—to an€ increase in civic capacity to poverty
overestimate how much difference founda- alleviation. Yet neither foundation staff nor
tions’ ideas, skills, and money are likely to the community participants were able to
make. To make matters worse, grantees fre- explain in any detail the steps by which the
152 |╇╇ P. Brown et al.

intangible asset of civic capacity would be not invalidate the value or potential of
transformed into the tangible asset of community-�level work. But an incomplete
increased income. Increased civic capacity appreciation for external dynamics, con-
and poverty alleviation can both be valid straints, and opportunities in foundation
goals, but clarity about the meaning of each strategy-�making can lead to inadequate
and about the relationship between them (if resources (if the flow of public and private
any) needs to be thought through and dollars is not addressed) or to misdirected
mapped out if the foundation’s expecta- resources (if the dollars are invested on less
tions, investment, and outcomes are to align. strategic ventures).
Certainly “coherence” can be overdone, but An additional challenge for foundations
the lack of sound and articulated theory is to become clearer internally about their
leaves little basis for shaping consistent core beliefs about community change, more
action or for interpreting the results. aware of the requirements and risks inher-
Most funders recognize the importance of ent in the choices they make, and more con-
grounding their strategies in a realistic sistent in aligning the two. Such alignment
understanding of a community’s capacity. speaks to a central paradox at the heart of
Although strategy and existing capacity philanthropic thinking and practice: founda-
need to go hand in hand, a realistic com- tions’ quest for greater impact is not usually
munity “reading” is hard to get and requires accompanied by an increased tolerance for
more time than many foundations are pre- conflict or risk. On one hand, real commun-
pared to invest. As a result, some funders ity change is inherently risky, political, and
enter community work with inadequate fractious because it affects the distribution
knowledge about neighborhood conditions, of power and resources. Although substan-
capacities, and trajectories. This lack of tial change can sometimes be achieved
understanding can slow, impede, or even without turmoil, that is not often the case.
derail their strategies, and sometimes make On the other hand, foundations are wary of
the neighborhood less receptive to other stimulating such conflict even as they seek
change initiatives. For example, misreading to achieve ambitious ends. Some may avoid
the neighborhood’s politics or anointing certain approaches that are deemed “too
local leadership without an appreciation of political” or that lead to more fundamental
these politics can create unproductive questions about the power structure. Align-
internal conflict among neighborhood ment between thinking and doing, between
groups, passive resistance to participation community-�change goals and foundation
and change, or a cynical sense of “here we capacity requires continuing attention.
go again” with all parties trying to get some-
thing from the funder for themselves but
Implications for Action
lacking commitment to a collaborative
change effort (Chaskin, 2003). More effective thinking about community
Similarly, more attention needs to be paid change may entail several kinds of actions
to the political and macrostructural influ- including:
ences that shape community circumstances
(e.g., Logan & Molotch, 1987; Wilson, • Using more rigorous, diligent processes
1987; Massey & Denton, 1993). Grounding to assess communities. This includes
strategies in a more rigorous assessment of using demographic and administrative
the external dynamics and structural con- data to select investment targets, taking
straints that affect communities would also extra time to analyze community capac-
improve the chances that foundations’ ities and dynamics (history, culture,
community-�change activities produce their needs, strengths, and leadership), and
intended results. Private market forces, situating a community in a broader
public policies and funding streams, embed- context.
ded structures of racial preference and dis- • Aligning goals with realistic expectations.
crimination, and other external factors do This requires a greater commitment to
 Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy╇╇ | 153

clarity and realism, both about what community-�change funders and grantees are
might be achieved in a community and often unclear and rarely specified at the
about a foundation’s preparedness to front end. The vagueness of terms can help
play the necessary roles; a more critical the parties establish a positive tone early on.
analysis of ideas and assumptions; and Not surprisingly, each side interprets what
a willingness to treat progress as is said (and not said) according to its own
developmental. interests and experience. But apparent agree-
• Clarifying thinking about conflict and ment can mask real differences in perspec-
risk. Change can be messy, especially tive that can have high costs in the long
when it occurs in the politically charged term.
environments of communities. Founda- Apparent agreement can also cloak a
tions need to acknowledge this, specify deep misunderstanding about the nature of
their level of tolerance for them, and the relationship. One oft-�repeated scenario
design their strategies accordingly. is that the relationship begins auspiciously
• Using a more disciplined, systematic but the community’s progress is slower than
process for strategy development. This expected. Within two or three years, the
includes better theories of change and foundation’s internal dynamics shift as its
better ways of using the theories—proÂ� board becomes impatient, new executive
cesses that make goals explicit, specify leaders and program staff with different pri-
actions and outcome expectations, orities come in, or new and different ideas
identify key change agents, recognize grab the foundation’s attention and displace
internal and external barriers, and old enthusiasms. Consequently, foundation
address issues of intervention quality, staff feel internal pressure to justify the
dosage, extent, and timing. investment by showing that the project
has€ produced measurable outcomes. The
program officer begins making non-�
FOUNDATION DOING negotiable demands on community grantees,
despite previous assurances of support and
How foundations act on their thinking and patience. This is the point where major ten-
the degree to which their actions align with sions and conflict often come into play.
their goals, expectations, and strategies for Because feedback and accountability
community change, is the second important mechanisms are not usually built into the
dimension of foundation-Â�sponsored com- funder–community relationship—such as a
munity change. As used here, doing refers to regular venue where concerns can be raised,
an array of implementation topics, such as a set of pre-�agreed operating standards that
how foundations’ relationships with com- will guide all parties, or some kind of per-
munities are constructed and executed, the formance measures for the relationship
way foundations support the development itself—the inconsistency (perceived or
of “community capacity,” and the roles actual) between initial assurances and the
foundations play in community change. demands for measurable progress and
“Foundation doing” also includes the way accountability two or three years along is
that foundations organize themselves inter- not checked and becomes a pattern. The less
nally as well as the external means they powerful partner—the community—has
employ, such as operating through interme- little recourse, community trust declines,
diary organizations, lead agencies, or col- and resentment grows. Ultimately, these
laborative bodies. unresolved issues fester and become impedi-
Many foundations’ relationships with ments to the foundation’s effectiveness in
communities are driven by a new interest in the community.
shared commitment, contribution, and Many funders are seeking a better way to
action on both sides of the grant-�making work with communities, and they acknow-
table. Nonetheless, the rules, expectations, ledge that they are still learning what these
and boundaries of relationships between “partnerships” entail. Some suggest that
154 |╇╇ P. Brown et al.

foundations’ donor guidelines, organiza- policy changes. They possess organizational

tional cultures, board and management resources—skills, relationships, access,
expectations, reporting requirements, and capacities, and financial clout—that could
legal constraints do not fit easily with the be used to promote community change.
processes and attitudes required to build Although some foundations are testing out
mutual, trust-�based partnerships. But these new roles, others point to an internal
without institutional structures and account- culture, structure, management style, and set
ability mechanisms to support and guide the of procedures that tend to be overly bureau-
new behaviors, foundations’ interest in part- cratized and compartmentalized and appear
nering with communities often gets ahead of ill suited to promoting the kind of flexible,
their ability to act on that vision consistently integrated, and hands-�on involvement that
or over the long term. seems to benefit community-�change efforts.
Foundations have increasingly invested in As a result, most foundations continue to
building community “capacity,” in recogni- tread a more familiar path and, in doing so,
tion that the most pervasive and sustainable miss an opportunity to leverage their influ-
change stems from a community’s ability to ence, credibility, networks, and institutional
envision, develop, and lead its own solutions resources on behalf of community change.
(Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal,
2001). Efforts to develop local leaders,
Implications for Action
provide technical assistance on specific
topics, build local supports for change, and More effective philanthropic practice will
connect community members to resources require greater specificity and shared under-
within and outside their neighborhoods standing about the terms for funder–
have all helped to increase community community relationships, better alignment
capacity. But these efforts are still too often of grant-�making activities with the goal of
the exception rather than the rule, and even building long-�term community capacity, and
where they exist they are often incomplete more innovative use of foundations’ institu-
and not yet well integrated into community-� tional resources to support community
change efforts. Funders are still learning the change. It will also require some founda-
exact scope, sequence, amount, and types of tions to address their own internal ambiva-
capacity development that communities lence about mutual relationships with
need and want, and the best techniques for communities or at least become clearer and
bringing this about. One result is that foun- more consistent about the kind of relation-
dation practice sometimes places too much ship they are willing to have.
emphasis on building the capacity of one or Further improvement will come from
a few organizations as a proxy for commun- acknowledging, legitimizing, and openly dis-
ity infrastructure while giving too little cussing the tensions in community–founda-
attention to building the broader infrastruc- tion relationships, including issues around
ture itself—the whole range of individuals, power, race, and class. This may include:
organizations, and associations in a com-
munity that have the ability, commitment, • Adopting an operating style aligned
and resources to address community-�level with community change goals and strat-
problems. egies. Foundation representatives need
Foundations have opportunities to influ- to consider a range of potential working
ence community change in many ways that styles, select a style that matches foun-
reach beyond the traditional role of grant-� dation goals and strategies, understand
maker (Hamilton, Parzen, & Brown, 2004; the institutional capacities needed to
Sojourner et al., 2004). They can facilitate implement the style, and secure support
relationships between the powerful and the from the board.
disenfranchised, foster excitement around • Negotiating terms for community
creative ideas, disseminate useful informa- engagement. Foundations and their
tion, and advocate for difficult but necessary community partners need to specify
 Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy╇╇ | 155

explicit roles, expectations, rules for they also need to expand efforts to collect,
engagement and decision-�making, rela- analyze, organize, apply, and share
tionship boundaries, accountability knowledge.
measures, and processes for monitoring Some foundations have made significant
and improving their partnership. investments in research and evaluation that
• Building community capacity. Founda- have borne fruit. That said, the extent and
tion representatives need to understand nature of philanthropies’ useable knowledge
what community capacity is and how it about critical ideas and issues in community
is produced. Effective support for com- change—such as synergy, social capital,
munity capacity also means assuring community capacity, empowerment, com-
long-�term core operating funds for an munity asset development, or resident
array of key community institutions, involvement—is still limited and often dis-
efforts, and networks. connected from users’ needs. Respondents
• Expanding foundation potential as a cite a lack of commitment to building sys-
non-�monetary resource for the com- tematic knowledge about community change
munity. Externally, foundations can use and insufficient attention to tacit knowledge
their credibility and leverage to help from the field. In addition, the knowledge
communities make strategic connections development about community change sup-
to influential players in the private, ported by foundations tends to be narrowly
public, and philanthropic sectors. defined in the context of program evaluation
Foundations can also further leverage (largely driven by concerns about account�
their financial power through direct ability) with an investment in evaluation
investment, loan guarantees, access to serving as a kind of proxy for a system of
favorable credit terms, and program-� learning instead of as a critical component
related investments. of that system. And, because many evalua-
tions focus primarily on tracking compliance
with foundations’ grant terms, many assess-
FOUNDATION LEARNING ments fail to address critical issues for strat-
egy development and practice.
How foundations learn about community Too much useful knowledge is still
change—that is, the way they assess, inter- unÂ�available to foundations and community
pret, revise, share, and apply their knowl- practitioners, often due to the fact that
edge—is the third and final focus of this existing knowledge is rarely extracted from
chapter. As used here, foundation learning individuals and foundation files and then
refers both to the content of their know- made available. But the lack of access to
ledge about philanthropy and community potentially useful information is also caused
change, and to the processes through which by foundations treating some reports and
such knowledge is shared and applied within evaluations as proprietary. In fact, only a
and beyond the field. In this sense, founda- few foundations currently make a commit-
tion learning is the feedback mechanism ment to sharing all their evaluation mater-
between foundation thinking and doing, or ials. Further, many of the learning materials
the field’s system for the “production, distri- that do exist do not get at the crucial opera-
bution, and application” of knowledge tional issues funders and others want to
(Hamilton et al., 2005). hear about. Sometimes these documents’
Over the years, philanthropy has recog- usefulness is limited by a funder or evalua-
nized the need for good information to tor’s level of candor. Other times, a report
inform practice and policymaking. Founda- fails to address the issues that users consider
tions’ investments in research and evalu- most significant, or the information is pre-
ation and in the distillation of practical sented in a format tailored for program
lessons have established an important base- officers but not for community practitioners
line of information and tools. As funders or others. As a consequence, many funders,
expand their efforts at community change, community practitioners and researchers
156 |╇╇ P. Brown et al.

call for a richer, more complete, and more kind of foundation accountability for learn-
useful range of knowledge products. These ing will also be needed. Two types of actions
products would include more periodic, time- are especially important:
�sensitive, and interim information, as well
as more refined and applicable long-Â�term • Fostering learning that supports com-
findings. munity change. Funders need to treat
Committing to learning about commun- learning as a core objective of philan-
ity change is only half the battle for founda- thropic work. This requires developing
tions, however. How will they systematically an intentional but loosely structured
and routinely interpret lessons and incorpo- learning “system”—a collection of prin-
rate them into practice? How will they ciples, commitments, and linkages that
create safe, productive opportunities for can be implemented by foundations and
staff reflection and debate? How can learn- others. An effective system would
ing within one foundation contribute to the emphasize a commitment to inquiry and
knowledge of foundations, practitioners, to openly sharing knowledge, a recogni-
policymakers, and social scientists in tion that knowledge has multiple
general? And how can a foundation’s learn- sources and is collected through mul-
ing methods spawn ongoing knowledge tiple means, and a dedication to collect-
development? These questions point to the ing and shaping knowledge according to
need for a more intentional system of learn- users’ needs—both within and beyond
ing about philanthropic investment in com- foundations.
munity change. Lacking an effective system, • Promoting learning within individual
lessons about community change do not foundations. Raising the profile of
serve as the basis for cumulative knowledge learning in foundations requires changes
or lead to changes in practice. People and in individual foundation’s organiza-
institutions tend to repeat known processes tional culture and behavior, new board
without making necessary innovations. practices, new reward systems for foun-
dation staff, and new administrative
practices and support structures. Grants
Implications for Action
may need to include support for learn-
Over the long term, more effective founda- ing—separate from and in addition to
tion thinking and practice will require a dif- money for evaluation. Reporting
ferent stance toward knowledge and requirements might be changed so they
learning and an array of new mechanisms to more directly contribute to learning.
help generate, collect, distribute, and inter- Foundations also could establish high-�
nalize the knowledge. More than a decade level staff positions for people who
ago a group of foundations created the manage organizational learning, know-
Aspen Institute’s Roundtable on Compre- ledge development, and knowledge dis-
hensive Community Initiatives as one such semination to communities, as some
intentional learning vehicle. More recently, have already done.
a number of foundations have been taking
steps to reorient their organizations’ internal
and external stance toward knowledge gen- CONCLUSION
eration, sharing, and application. These
range from establishing learning goals for The philanthropic sector is at an important
staff, to sharing information publicly, to crossroads with respect to community-�
expanding the use of the internet for report- change efforts. Many funders are impatient
ing, to creating new venues for foundation with the status quo and eager to achieve
peer exchange. The challenge for the field is more complete, lasting results—and they
to bring together these pieces of an evolving have an increasingly rich and useful base of
approach to foundation learning into a ideas and experience on which to build.
more complete and effective whole. A new That combination of factors may be what is
 Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy╇╇ | 157

needed to push the field forward. The chal- Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city. New
lenges that foundations face are not reasons York: Columbia University Press.
Hamilton, R., Brown, P., Chaskin, R. J., Feister, L.,
to avoid the work with communities but Richman, H., Sojourner, A., & Weber, J. (2005).
opportunities to improve it. Learning for community change: Core components
of foundations that learn. Chicago: Chapin Hall
Center for Children. Retrieved from www.chapin-
NOTES hall.org.
Hamilton, R., Parzen, J., & Brown, P. (2004). Com-
munity change makers: The leadership roles of com-
1. This chapter is adapted from Brown, Chaskin,
munity foundations. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center
Hamilton, and Richman (2003). See also, Brown
for Children. Retrieved from www.chapinhall.org.
and Fiester (2007).
Jargowsky, P. A. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos,
2. See Brown et al. (2003) for a complete list of
barrios, and the American city. New York: Russell
interviewees and their affiliations.
Sage Foundation.
Kubisch, A. C., Auspos, P., Brown, P., Chaskin, R.,
Fullbright-�Anderson, K., & Hamilton, R. (2002).
REFERENCES Voices from the field, vol. II: Reflections on compre-
hensive community change. Washington, DC: Aspen
Brown, P. & Fiester, L. (2007). Hard lessons about Institute.
philanthropy and community change from the neigh- Lee, B. A., Campbell, K. E., & Miller, O. (1991).
borhood improvement initiative. Chicago: Chapin Racial differences in urban neighboring. Sociological
Hall Center for Children. Retrieved from www. Forum, 6, 525–550.
chapinhall.org. Logan, J. R. & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes:
Brown, P., Chaskin, R. J., Hamilton, R., & Richman, The political economy of place. Berkeley: University
H. (2003). Toward greater effectiveness in commun- of California Press.
ity change: Challenges and responses for philan- Massey, D. S. & Denton, N. A.€ (1993). American
thropy. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children. apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Retrieved from www.chapinhall.org. Press.
Chaskin, R. J. (1997). Perspectives on neighborhood Sampson, R. J. (1999). What community supplies. In
and community: A review of the literature. Social R. F. Ferguson & W. T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban prob-
Service Review, 71, 521–547. lems and community development (pp. 241–292).
Chaskin, R. J. (2003). Fostering neighborhood demo- Washington, DC: Brookings.
cracy: Legitimacy and accountability within loosely Sojourner, A., Brown, P., Chaskin, R. J., Hamilton, R.,
coupled systems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Fiester, L., & Richman, H. (2004). Moving forward
Quarterly, 32, 161–189. while staying in place: Embedded funders and com-
Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. munity change. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for
(2001). Building community capacity. New York: Children. Retrieved from www.chapinhall.org.
Aldine de Gruyter. Stone, D. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of
Ferguson, R. F. & Stoutland, S. E. (1999). Reconceiv- policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104,
ing the community development system. In R. F. Fer- 281–300.
guson & W. T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and Wellman, B. & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes
community development (pp. 33–76). Washington, from different folks: Community ties and social
DC: Brookings. support. American Journal of Sociology, 96,
Furstenberg, F. (1993). How families manage risk and 558–588.
opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods. In W. J. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The
Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. inner city, the underclass, and public policy.
1–13). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 CHAPTER 17

City Government’s Role in the Community Development

System
Neil Mayer and Langley Keyes

INTRODUCTION National Community Development Initi-

ative (NCDI), launched by a consortium of
City governments play a pivotal role in funders to advance CDC production in 23
helping community developers to revitalize target cities and now in its second decade as
low-�income neighborhoods. Cities set local Living Cities, underscored local govern-
development priorities and allocate public ments’ importance to CDCs.1 “Cities that
funds to affordable housing and other com- worked most closely with CDCs showed the
munity development initiatives. They decide greatest community development gains,” the
whether or not to make community devel- report noted. By contrast, a hostile, disen-
opment corporations (CDCs) their primary gaged, or marginally competent local gov-
development partners. And they oversee the ernment had a powerful negative impact on
disbursement of land, housing, and other CDC productivity.2
city-Â�owned resources. Rare is the developer To assess city government’s role, this
that can move forward in neighborhood chapter examines three questions:
development without active city government
participation. 1. What makes city government an effect-
City governments can improve the way ive member of the community develop-
they carry out their community development ment support system? In the best cases,
responsibilities. Moreover, there are con- what contributions can cities offer?
crete ways in which national, state, and 2. How do local governments get into the
local funders and supporters of community position of effectiveness? What combi-
development can encourage city govern- nation of circumstance and action pro-
ments to take steps toward effective delivery duces favorable results?
of neighborhood revitalization programs. 3. What can cities do to emulate those
This chapter examines city government’s municipalities that demonstrate the
influence on community development activ- most effective community development
ities. This influence is not exerted in a supports?
vacuum, but in a context of other organiza-
tions and institutions. These community
development “support systems” have ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
emerged in many cities to channel money,
expertise, and political support to commun- This chapter assesses city government’s role
ity development. City governments are major in community development systems by first
players in those support networks, which examining its contribution to the types of
also include other public, private, and€ non- supports and services CDCs require to
profit institutions across multiple sectors. produce affordable housing and neighbor-
While all participants in the support hood revitalization. The five functions that
system are important, city governments hold must be delivered by the community devel-
a special place. A 1998 evaluation of the opment system include:
 City Government’s Role in the CD System╇╇ | 159

• development and implementation of development initiatives within the broader

programs and strategies to promote context of the functions of community
revitalization of low-�income neighbor- development system.
hoods; The second section examines how and
• provision of core operating support to why these cities became effective in deliver-
defray the cost of CDC staff, training, ing the functional supports necessary to
and other operational expenses; enable CDCs to produce affordable housing
• financing affordable housing and other and other community projects. The third
neighborhood development activities; and last section offers recommendations for
• creation of legal and regulatory mech- policy, strategy, and implementation by city
anisms to convey efficient access to governments and national, state, and local
property for development; and funders and supporters of community devel-
• efficient operation of supportive project opment, drawn from our findings about
funding allocation, land use, and other good city practice.
regulatory mechanisms.

Multiple organizations within the commun- HOW CITY GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT

ity development system ensure these THE FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNITY
essential functions are carried out. In addi- DEVELOPMENT
tion to local government, city-�level players
in the system include banks, corporations, To be effective, the community development
and local foundations. CDCs at the neigh- system must deliver a range of functional
borhood level translate the supports these supports to CDCs and other developers. The
city-Â�level players provide into affordable city’s role in the handling of five critical
housing and other neighborhood projects. functions can make or break the success of
Intermediary organizations link the city-� community development initiatives. These
level institutions and neighborhood-�level critical functions are (1) active response to
groups. Because the relationships in the market conditions, (2) provision of operat-
community development system largely ing support to CDCs, (3) provision of gap
determine its overall effectiveness, this financing to CDC-�sponsored projects, (4)
chapter also explores city government rela- efficient transfer of city-�controlled land and
tionships with CDCs and other support pro- structures, and (5) efficient processing of
viders in the community development project funding allocations and development
system. permits.
This chapter relies on several methods to
assess the local government role in the com-
Active Response to Market Conditions
munity development system. The primary
approach is an analysis of the practices of Effective local governments shape their
three high-Â�performing local governments— housing and community development strat-
Boston, MA, Cleveland, OH, and Portland, egies in explicit response to market con-
OR. The best practice cities were chosen out ditions. In the best cases, the city uses its
of the 23 Living Cities based on researchers’ planning and funding processes to guide
observations of city contribution to the CDCs to projects that make market sense,
development and use of local community and it offers them flexible tools to respond
development systems, including contribu- nimbly to market circumstances.
tions to both the delivery of community Residential neighborhoods in the 23 cities
revitalization projects and programs and the included in the overall research project can
strengthening of CDCs’ capacities to pursue be roughly divided into two categories: (1)
their work. strong markets, where housing affordability
The first section of the chapter analyzes and displacement of low-�income residents
how the best-�practice city governments are pressing issues; and (2) weaker markets,
support CDC housing and community where disinvestment or lack of significant
160 |╇╇ N. Mayer and L. Keyes

reinvestment is the principal housing Provision of Operating Support

challenge.
The range of potential city commitment to
Market conditions varied among the
CDC operating support and capacity build-
three best practice cities covered in this
ing is broad. At the highest end, cities can
report—Boston, Cleveland, and Portland.
supply their own general funds to CDCs, or
But the cities had in common an active local
Community Development Block Grant allot-
government that responded systematically
ments, which could be put to many other
to the changing market conditions they
uses. Cities can pay for technical assistance,
faced. In all three cases, the city government
analyzed conditions, defined a core too, or participate in the operating support
approach to address them, and helped CDCs collaboratives that many communities have
succeed in dealing with them within their established to channel funding and technical
market contexts. Creative city officials assistance to CDCs. (These collaboratives
assessed the circumstances they confronted have become increasingly prominent in
and devised a policy, program, and practice major cities as institutions that bring
to address the conditions at hand. Key city together foundations, banks, CDCs, and
players had important allies across the com- sometimes city government to provide
munity development system, but local gov- funding, develop and support new pro-
ernment took a leadership role. grams, and advocate for the community
Although it seems logical that local gov- development agenda.) At the low end of the
ernment would create a focused approach support spectrum, cities can provide no
for housing and neighborhood revitaliza- operating support, or play any role in
tion—and then react to changes in its collaboratives.
market conditions—this is not automatic. In In the most effective operating support
fact, among the 23 cities, only a few had programs, local government makes a signi-
even a clear strategy for housing and neigh- ficant contribution to CDC operating
borhoods or a focused core of activity that support. It funnels funds through collabora-
responded to local markets. Only a handful tives to gain efficiencies, and participates
of cities outside the best practice threesome with others in the collaboratives’ noncash
had established an energetic strategy for functions, such as convening task forces or
housing and neighborhood revitalization. establishing performance measures. All of
Fewer still met the condition that the strat- our three best practice cities made signific-
egy be explicitly responsive to market cir- ant contributions to CDC operating support.
cumstances, and even fewer had CDCs at Two funneled funds through their local
the center. support collaboratives and the third contrib-
Most cities had not yet built a core of uted a very high level of funds on its own.
actions to recognize market issues and All three participated in the collaboratives’
address them. Detroit, for example, faced work outside grant-�making.
many issues similar to those that confronted Evidence from other cities indicated that
Cleveland in the early 1990s, especially where local government did not contribute
vacant, tax-�foreclosed properties. Despite significantly to core support, such funds fell
recognizing its problems, however, by 2001 well short of CDC needs. Los Angeles, in
Detroit had not been able to develop a which the city withdrew from the operating
steadily flowing housing pipeline. CDCs and collaborative after an earlier significant con-
other developers still faced a debilitating tribution, shows sharply both the direct
process to clear land titles, secure properties, impact on funds available and the indirect
and contract with and reimburse developers. effects on the participation of others. The
In Denver, with a heated housing market experience of declining funding contrasts
like Portland, city government had not taken with the rapid increase in Seattle CDC capa�
the lead in expanding the resources for city development following creation of an
affordability or producing a sense of urgency Economic Development Office supportive of
to develop additional subsidy funds. CDCs (as other city agencies had not been).
 City Government’s Role in the CD System╇╇ | 161

Provision of Gap Financing Control over Land and Structures

Local governments have wide power to CDCs and other developers need vacant
make grants and deferred loans to finance land to develop or structures to renovate. It
CDC projects. The challenge is consistently makes sense that property in hot markets
to find sufficient subsidy funds to meet would be in short supply, but, in fact, devel-
project needs and maintain a pipeline for opable property is scarce in many weak
continuing action. This is hard both in revi- markets, too. In some cases many homes
talizing markets, where property costs are have been lost to abandonment and fore-
rising, and in distressed markets, where resi- closure. These properties are prime candid-
dent incomes are too low to defray a signi- ates for CDC redevelopment, provided
ficant portion of the housing costs. neighborhood conditions are not too
As with operating funds, local govern- adverse.
ments range in how much gap financing The property transfer issue is no small
they supply. At the high end of the contin- matter, however. Indeed, when asked about
uum, cities can provide general revenue the adequacy of local government supports
dollars or find other specific local fund for CDCs, CDC directors in 23 cities rated
sources for housing. The low end of com- “provides timely delivery of sites/buildings”
mitment is to spend HOME dollars, since as the lowest scoring item among nine
they have no use other than housing, as well cited.3 Of the 20 cities not profiled in this
as any housing-�dedicated dollars from state report, about one-�third took some action to
government. A middle ground is to spend ease foreclosure, clear title, and dispose of
CDBG dollars to plug financing gaps, since property. Most provided only partial solu-
these funds have some restricted alternative tions. Progress was slow; about as many
uses. Most cities maintain fairly steady cities suffered a setback in some property
amounts for housing from federal pass-� transfer effort as made noticeable progress.
through funds, supplied through HOME Additional city focus, along with collabora-
and CDBG, despite the opportunity to tion by other players, may have been
redirect CDBG resources elsewhere. required. Some changes needed enabling leg-
What about best practice cities? These islation at the state level.
local governments raise additional gap Best practice cities designed and imple-
dollars from local sources, often a special or mented systematic, multiprogram responses
one-�time source, to subsidize housing to the issues of property disposition. They
projects. The 20 study cities beyond Boston, recognized the centrality of efficiently
Cleveland, and Portland almost uniformly making property available to CDCs and
reported a shortage of gap financing. Signifi- other developers and devoted significant
cantly, half of these 20 cities did make a added resources to making improvements in
substantial contribution to the housing their systems. Each used property availabil-
finance pool from local resources, indicating ity to shape and contribute toward its
that affordable housing and neighborhood broader housing strategy.
revitalization remained important and polit-
ically visible issues.
Processing Project Fund Allocations and
Where local government has expanded
Development Permits
gap financing, the keys are using special,
sometimes one-�time local funds; political When CDC directors were polled in 1999
support from the top; an entrepreneurial about the local government’s community
leader identifying potential funding sources development policies and activities, they
and supporters; and the maintenance of a gave low ratings to cities’ ability to
stable federal pass-Â�through core. In most “approve projects/zoning/permits in a timely
years, however, even with added local funds, way.” The pattern was the same in our best
gap dollars do not match the supply of practice cities. CDC leaders in Boston,
seemingly feasible projects. Cleveland, and Portland gave positive
162 |╇╇ N. Mayer and L. Keyes

ratings to local government performance in tion of a working-�class neighborhood in the

every area except the transfer of property 1950s to make way for high-�rise luxury
and awarding of permits, which got negat- apartments.5 There was little protest inside
ive reviews.4 Cities apparently have not the West End, but residents of other Boston
effectively met developers’ needs for timeli- neighborhoods watched the demolition and
ness in these functions—even where other vowed “never again.”
support for community development is high. Community development in Cleveland
originated not with urban renewal, but
rather with organizations growing out of
INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN urban riots and civil rights activity of the
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT late 1960s. Populist Mayor Dennis Kucinich
SYSTEM and neighborhood organizers had initially
forged a strong relationship. By 1978, that
Local governments do not magically become alliance had dissipated, punctuated by fist
effective in ensuring that CDCs have the fights between community organizers
functional supports necessary to produce and€ members of the Mayor’s Community
affordable housing and other community Development Department. A number of
projects. Rather, a combination of circum- neighborhood-�based advocacy groups would
stance and intentional action are required. survive the battle and be transformed into
In the best practice cities, four factors CDCs.
appeared to be critical to a well-�functioning Portland avoided most of the city govern-
city role in the community development ment versus neighborhood conflicts of the
system: civil rights and urban renewal era—but only
because its conflicts occurred earlier, in the
• City government and residential neigh- decade after World War II. The combatants
borhoods had evolved a positive rela- were not neighborhoods and city hall, but
tionship. rather factions within the city—including
• City government forged a special rela- long-Â�time residents versus newcomers,
tionship with CDCs as a key vehicle in reformers versus traditionalists, and busi-
dealing with affordable housing issues. ness interests on one side of the Willamette
• City government responded to the River versus those on the other.
appeals of an effective affordable Phase 2: Accommodation. When Edward
housing lobby. Logue came to Boston in 1960 at the request
• City government was a learning organi- of Mayor John Collins, he brought a clear
zation—capable of assessing its own understanding that urban renewal could not
experience and improving internal prac- be undertaken without engaging local resi-
tice and external relationships as a dents. The first Boston CDCs arose as vehi-
result. cles through which to engage the community
in the reconstruction of their neighbor-
hoods. By the mid 1970s, community
City Government and Residential
groups had transitioned from protest and
Neighborhoods
organizing to housing development, using
In most cities, local governments and CDCs urban renewal land and federal subsidies.
began as antagonists and, over time, eventu- Cleveland pulled back from conflict to
ally became partners in community develop- collaboration 1979. The new city govern-
ment. This evolution came in three phases: ment, with help from foundations, secured
(1) conflict, (2) accommodation, and (3) funds to assemble a planning process—Civic
interdependence. Vision—bringing together downtown inter-
Phase 1: Conflict. The conflict in Boston ests and neighborhoods. Chris Warren, a
between city government and neighbor- key community organizer, led the committee
hoods was immortalized in Herbert Gans’ that focused on the future of the neighbor-
The Urban Villagers, describing the demoli- hoods, as conflicts receded.
 City Government’s Role in the CD System╇╇ | 163

In the late 1970s, Portland’s older resi- Forging a Special Relationship between City
dential neighborhoods, wary about urban Government and CDCs
renewal, poverty, and racial inequality,
In our best practice cities, city governments
decided to work cooperatively with city gov-
deliberately decided to use CDCs as a
ernment. Mayor Neil Goldschmidt, architect
central vehicle in tackling affordable housing
of the alliance, included neighborhood
issues in the neighborhoods.
groups in decision-�making. City government
In Cleveland, the Cleveland Housing
opted to provide financial support for vol-
Network, comprising neighborhood-�based
untary neighborhood associations as an
alternative to grassroots confrontation or CDCs, became the central, if not the sole,
top-�down controlled citizen participation. developer of housing for low income people
Phase 3: Interdependence. In “Power, in the 1980s. By 1989, with the election of
Money, and Politics in Community Devel- Mayor Mike White, CDCs also became a
opment,” Margaret Weir describes the rela- crucial component of a new strategy to
tionship between local political systems and build market rate units for middle-�income
community-�based organizations. Weir notes households.
three types of relationships:6 The close relationships have been import-
ant. Cleveland exhibits little sense of “us
• In “elite-Â�dominated” cities, there is little versus them” in city government and neigh-
history of mobilizing neighborhood borhood dealings. Many of the current
groups or connecting them to the city players, both inside and outside city govern-
government. ment, have worked together since the 1970s.
• In “patronage politics” cities, city gov- At each point in the transition from advo-
ernment has co-�opted local groups cacy to community development, they have
through a carrot and stick system of seen their roles expand and their connection
rewards. Some groups are in, others out. to power and decision-�making increase.
Participation is limited. Neighborhood Today, CDCs, bankers, and other major
power, while real in some instances, is players in Cleveland’s community develop-
manipulated and often demobilized. ment support system marvel at the degree to
• In “inclusive cities,” neighborhood which the city and the outside players have
organizations exercise independent become part of one system. Obviously there
power or win influence because city are exceptions to the sense of well-�being.
government finds them useful allies. But the fact that so many neighborhood
Power is relatively stable, enabling com- players are now in city government, and the
munity groups both to be strong part- tradition of working together and not wor-
ners and to develop their skills and rying about turf, has become part of the
capacities. common language in Cleveland.
Elected Mayor of Boston in 1983, Ray
All three best practice cities exhibit the Flynn quickly emerged as an aggressive
characteristics of “inclusive cities.” City CDC supporter. Throughout the 1980s,
government and neighborhoods have CDCs increasingly became the city’s vehicle
developed working relationships that have of choice for addressing neighborhood
passed through turbulent times to equilib- housing needs—although not to the exclu-
rium. The neighborhoods rely on city gov- sion of private developers. Flynn became a
ernment for resources, and local officials national spokesman for CDCs and their role
look to neighborhoods for political support. in affordable housing. When Tom Menino
These relationships, based on mutual gain, took over Flynn’s job in 1993, one CDC-Â�
are not always without conflict. But it is supporting mayor replaced another. Menino
generally a lover’s quarrel arising from a shifted somewhat from affordable housing
foundation of strong relationships. during the real estate crash of the early
1990s, but he remained attuned to CDCs
and refocused on housing when the market
164 |╇╇ N. Mayer and L. Keyes

turned. By the mid 1990s, housing afford� In all three cities, participants in the com-
ability had become Menino’s top priority. munity development system beyond city
In both Cleveland and Boston, CDCs government exert major influence. Afford�
emerged as strong vehicles for affordable able housing is a salient local issue, and
housing only after a long evolutionary many institutions promote an affordable
process. Does this mean the emergence of housing agenda. Importantly, those institu-
CDCs linked to city government is inevit� tions have strong ties to city government,
ably a slow progression that cannot be jump and therefore can exert constant pressure on
started? Experience in Portland would agencies as they adopt policies, reframe pro-
suggest no. In this city, CDCs quickly grams, or reconsider regulations.
became a vehicle for affordable housing as a
result of deliberate and strategic intervention
City Government and Organizational
by the city and other key actors.
Learning
In 1993, researchers for this project rated
Portland’s CDC industry as “nascent”—a Each of our three best practice cities exhib-
diplomatic way of saying “nonexistent.” its a capacity for organizational learning: to
Neighborhoods were described as demo- examine their policies, strategies, and per-
graphically stable and well organized “due asformance and change their internal practice
much or more to public-�sector initiatives as
and external relationships to reflect lessons
to community organizations.” The city’s five learned.
emerging CDCs had little production capa� City government is not a monolithic insti-
city, and several public figures expressed tution. It includes both the people who
doubt about the capability of local CDCs to work for the city and the bureaucracies they
produce housing. By 1989, when Oregon inhabit. From an outsider’s perspective,
began encouraging CDCs through a state neither is viewed in a particularly flattering
program, only one Portland CDC, REACH, light, and the challenges confronted by large
had significant production capacity. The situ-
institutions when faced with the need to
ation had not changed much by 1991. adapt and change internally are typically
Today, 15 Portland CDCs produce substantial.
housing, and six are becoming highly pro- The prevailing assumption about city
ductive organizations. City support from a employees is that they are long-�time civil
key city council member and the Bureau of service and union-�protected bureaucrats,
Housing and Community Development con- risk-�adverse, with little imagination, energy,
tributed to the CDCs’ rise, along with and interest in advancing the community
growing public recognition of affordable development agenda. A progressive mayor
housing shortages. The Portland Develop- may bring in some good people to head
ment Commission, historically not a sup- agencies, and the first lieutenants in those
porter of nonprofits, also made substantial departments may be public entrepreneurs.
adjustment to collaborate. Today Portland But boring down within the individual
has a clear strategy to strengthen CDCs in bureaucracies, energy flags, competence
providing affordable housing. wanes, and progress dies. Contracts and
permission forms sit on desks. Rules are
narrowly interpreted. The competence level
City Government and the Affordable
in the depths of the bureaucracy raises the
Housing Lobby
perennial complaints about how “slow” the
In a textbook version of public policymak- process is in city hall even in our best prac-
ing, city government sets policy and strat- tice cities.
egy—and others follow. But the picture in The organizational view of city govÂ�ernÂ�ment
our three best practice cities is more sees problems in terms of the insti�tu�tional
complex. Policy and program development relationships among the organizational
looks more like two-Â�way arrows than top-Â� elements—the organizational ecology. Urban
down mandates. governments are institutionally complex.
 City Government’s Role in the CD System╇╇ | 165

The€ intricacies of the formal structure—the community development strategy with a

departments, bureaus, offices, authorities, clear logical relationship to market cir-
city council—are rivaled only by the infor- cumstances. Training, technical assist-
mal relationships among these various ance, and information sharing in this
elements. area could be helpful. Funders and other
Our best practice cities intentionally community development supporters
worked to improve the coordination of the could communicate their interest in stra-
organizational ecology of city government tegic plan development in target cities
and overcome the many institutional obsta- and commit resources in a few test situ-
cles to internal change. These cities tried, for ations where intermediaries and CDCs
example, to deal with the differences in the are active in the process.
goals and mandates of individual depart- 2. National funders can use their financial
ments, some working at cross-Â�purposes, clout and public platforms to elicit cities’
even when the objective—affordable hous- more active support of community-Â�based
ing—is clear. The tax collection agency, for capacity-Â�building efforts.
example, wants to maximize collected rev� City government plays a key role in
enues, while the community development the community development system by
department wants to minimize taxes to providing operating support to CDCs,
lower renovation costs. by joining capacity-�building collabora-
Such internal conflicts are common across tives, and by participating in
the institutional ecology of city government. coordinating activities. Some pressure
In each of the best practice cities, the mayor for cities to assume this role must come
or a highly placed commissioner has worked from other local actors. But national
hard to mitigate these conflicts by arguing funders of community development
for the importance of neighborhoods, by could help disseminate information
championing the participation of CDCs, by about the value of the city’s operating
shaping the allocation of resources to oper- support role and how best practice cities
ating support and project gap financing, and handle this function. They could offer
by guiding the appointment of sympathetic funds specifically as a match for local
and entrepreneurial lead staff. government resources and active
participation.
3. National funders can use this same
RECOMMENDATIONS financial strength to encourage cities to
provide more affordable housing
The best lessons about city government’s dollars.
role in community development can be Shortage of dollars to help finance
shared and learned by others. National and affordable housing is a critical commun-
local supporters of community-�based devel- ity development barrier. New local
opment could play a highly useful role in money may be the best source to sup-
bringing about positive change by investing plement federal dollars. National
strategically, comparing and disseminating funders and other community develop-
information from many cities, and using ment supporters can help by supporting
their influence with the community develop- advocacy research on housing afford�
ment community to press for adoption of ability challenges and solutions, offering
best practices. to match new local funds, or substitute
their own predevelopment dollars for
1. Funders and other community develop- city funding, which could then be used
ment supporters must encourage cities for new permanent finance.
to adopt focused, market-�responsive 4. Land banking is an important but
community development strategies. underutilized strategy that could be
Unlike the best practice cities, most more widely adopted with the right kind
do not have a focused housing and of national support.
166 |╇╇ N. Mayer and L. Keyes

Effective capture and reuse of prop- officials are important to nurture new
erty is very important to community champions for community development.
development in both hot and weak In best practice communities, the
markets. A land banking approach that mayor or another powerful elected offi-
gets property into the hands of the city cial champions CDCs, affordable
and ready for disposition to CDCs, even housing, and neighborhood revitaliza-
as financing and other aspects of oppor- tion. CDCs could become more active
tunity arise, appears especially useful. in educating candidates and elected offi-
National funders could help develop cials about the importance of affordable
and disseminate information about the housing and the quality of CDC work.
land bank approach among its cities. 8. Highlighting CDC accomplishments is a
There would also be value in education good way to encourage a more respon-
about other aspects of property transfer, sive city government.
at the local and state levels. Funders and other supporters can
5. By working more closely with other expand their support for communica-
players in the community development tion strategies to highlight CDC local
system, cities can improve speed and accomplishments and pressing CDC
smoothness in administrative and regu- associations and others to find the time
latory tasks, probably at limited cost. and energy to undertake communica-
While processing remains a challenge tion tasks.
across cities, there are good ways to get 9. Special task forces devoted to particular
funds allocated to housing projects and community development issues have
permits approved. National funders and proven to be an effective way to fix
other community development sup- chronic or acute system breakdowns.
porters could help convene, pay for a
consultant, and/or bring information on
practices in other cities. Some appetite NOTES
for institutional learning is necessary.
But since these processes are often well-� 1. For a comprehensive report on the first 10 years
of the Living Cities initiative, see Walker, C., Gus-
recognized frustrations, there may be an tafson, J., and Snow, C. (2002). National support
opportunity to expand institutional for local system change: The effect of the national
learning. community development initiative on community
6. While the relationships between city development systems. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
government and others in the commun-
2. Walker, C. and Weinheimer, M. (1998). Com-
ity development system that contribute munity development in the 1990s. Washington,
to best practice usually take a long time DC: Urban Institute, p.€10.
to build, the process can be sped up 3. See a description of the survey and a summary of
intentionally. results in Walker, C. and Weinheimer, M. (1998).
Community development in the 1990s. Washing-
The city can and should help forge
ton, DC: Urban Institute.
the community development network 4. With one exception in Cleveland.
by identifying the kinds of institutions 5. Gans, H. J. (1962). The urban villagers: Group
and connections needed, by helping and class in the life of Italian Americans. New
relationships grow with capacity-� York: Free Press.
building resources, by providing its 6. Weir, M. (1999). Power, money, and politics in
community development. In R. F. Ferguson and
stamp of approval on well-�run organi- W. T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and com-
zations, and by convening key players. munity development (pp.€ 139–192). Washington,
7. Efforts to educate candidates and elected DC: Brookings Institution Press.
 CHAPTER 18

Diverse Food Economies, Multivariant Capitalism, and the

Community Dynamic Shaping Contemporary Food Systems
Jane Dixon

INTRODUCTION to be openness to considering the entire

panoply of remedies: from colonizing other
A set of extraordinary historical circum- planets to retreat into self-�sufficient and
stances is catapulting community renewal and reliant Earth-�based enclaves; and from
community practices to the forefront of public global to local movements calling for ecolo-
agendas (encompassing those of the state and gical and just solutions immediately and
civil society). Critical events include: planned into the future.
In short, community-Â�oriented actors—
• climate change related weather events extending from global networks of organi-
raising the spectre of food insecurity zations which privilege communitarian
beyond “The Third World” (IPCC, processes to locality-Â�based services—are
2007); being offered another chance to prove their
• the 2008–2009 global financial crisis, social problem-Â�solving capacities if not their
with flow-�on effects for livelihoods and social transformation capacities.
social equity (World Economic Forum, Within a context of one of the great
2009); emerging challenges of the time—to feed the
• peak oil scenarios, and associated current and projected global population
demands for “alternative” bio-Â�fuels healthily, equitably, and sustainably—this
using agricultural lands and crops, chapter has three aims, namely to:
leading to food riots and exacerbating
political instability globally as nations 1. describe the centrality of “community”
go in search of new energy supplies to the practical and discursive function-
(McMichael, 2009). ing of food supply chains and culinary
cultures;
Their potency lies in their synchronicity as 2. highlight the transformative possibilities
well as their capacity to generate a welter of of food systems which offer space (what
highly public, contradictory commentary 30 years ago was called “room to
and, thereby, undermining well-Â�established manoeuvre”) for community renewal
authorities in the state, the scientific profes- more broadly;
sions, and the more modern charismatic 3. argue the case for the utility of con-
authority of the market (Dixon, 2003). The temporary economic geography to com-
food riots in Central and South America munity practices theorizing.
during 2007 and 2008 were a highly visible
reminder that even the most basic issues lie In addressing the first point, I anticipate
unresolved, and are possibly unresolvable. covering the fragments to the story of com-
The ontological security that follows from munity’s presence in food systems. The
assumptions that problems can be resolved contradictory tensions surfaced by the
at “higher” levels is evaporating. “Business-Â� corporate appropriation of community
as-usual” is off the menu; and there appears motifs and practices are amplified in the
168 |╇╇ J. Dixon

second section. The final section amounts to community concerns regarding the environ-
a “beyond the fragments” argument, ment and social justice. Freidberg (2004)
another community practice preoccupation has identified the emergence of an “ethical
(and in hindsight one that was prescient) complex” driving supermarkets to demon-
from 30 years ago (Rowbotham, Segal, & strate socially responsible supply chain gov-
Wainwright, 1981). ernance. In a most ambitious example,
Marks and Spencer announced in 2007
what it called Plan A, “because we’ve got
HOW “COMMUNITY” ASSERTS ITSELF only one world and time is running out.”
IN FOOD SYSTEMS The publically available strategy is to posi-
tion the corporation as the most sustainable
I begin by asking how the idyll, concept, in the world by 2020, utilizing numerous
and language of “community” resonates interventions ranging from editing out prod-
through, and shapes, food systems. ucts that are relatively harmful to the envir-
onment to supporting the company’s
suppliers to lower their ecological footprints
Corporate Engagement with Community
in the production and manufacturing
There are many instances of how food cor- process. In what public health might call a
porations appropriate “community” for social inclusion strategy, the company also
profit, in terms of both the feel-�good factor wants
(community idyll) and popular instrumental
concerns, such as health and well-�being. to involve all of our employees in Plan A and
Starting in the 1960s, giant food chains help them share the word with family, friends
exploited civil society’s genuine interest in and M&S customers, so that’s why we’re
going to offer all eligible employees free home
counter-�culture and ethnic cuisines by selling
insulation and a home energy monitor, and
Mexican tortillas and heat-�and-serve pizzas, give all employees a day leave every year to
and in the process fostered a mass market do volunteer work in the communities where
for a convenient ethnic experience (Belasco, they and customers live.
1993). Responding to negative concerns (Marks and Spencer, 2010, p.€7)
about deficits in the food supply or ideas of
risk among food consumers, “community” The company documentation regarding Plan
was incorporated into numerous strategies: A shows pictorially and in the text a keen
in what has been called the diets-�making awareness that the health and well-�being of
complex (Dixon & Banwell, 2004), the suppliers, consumers, community, and the
corporate-�environmental food regime (Fried- environment are interconnected.
mann, 2005), and the corporate-�social
justice food system involving ethical trading
State Sponsored Protection of Food Security
initiatives like Fair Trade (Hughes, 2005).
and the Culinary Commons
For example, the Nestlé corporation mobi-
lizes positive community attributes of While there has been debate about whether
caring, sharing, and support for local capac- states have been retreating from civil society,
ity and leadership as part of its Corporate there are signs that governments are becom-
Social Responsibility Charter, the Nestlé ing more interventionist in relation to
Creating Shared Value Report: Nutritional national and local food systems. Justified in
needs and quality diets. The report is replete terms of addressing food supply security,
with depictions of village life, descriptions diet-�related disease, and farmer livelihoods,
of micro-�finance loans to developing country several Asian states are acting to protect tra-
farmers, and vignettes on the company’s ditional culinary practices in the face of the
health and wellness activities in select South corporate food regime (Dixon, 2009). Japan
American countries. and South Korea appear to be at the fore-
Equally, supermarket chains are showing front of advocating that their populations
marked enthusiasm for engaging with continue to respect culinary practices and
 Contemporary Food Systems╇╇ | 169

foods that are deeply rooted in the commun- which celebrate the communitarian and eco-
ity psyche. logical nature of food. It is an exemplar of a
However, these governments are not sophisticated grassroots octopus, despite
simply keen to ensure food security at the being highly rule-�and-principle based and
nutrition level but to secure an ontological centrally run out of Italian headquarters. It
security through protecting valued dietary has a publishing arm, global networking
practices. Enacted by the Japanese Govern- capacity, vast international face-�to-face
ment in 2005, the Basic Law on Shokuiku, gatherings, a product/food service sector
for example, is intended to tackle numerous audit arm checking the “credentials” of all
concerns: diet-�related disease, poor eating who attempt to trade on its reputation, an
behaviors (e.g., irregular meals), body educational wing which runs a university,
image, food safety, over-�dependence on and a set of discursive practices which ener-
imported foods, and loss of traditional food gize social elites and peasants alike. In addi-
culture through globalization. Food produc- tion, Slow Food has established the Slow
ers and consumers are both covered by the Food Foundation for Biodiversity, commit-
Law which provides nutritional guidelines ted to defend agricultural bio-�diversity and
and culinary culture guidelines with advice gastronomic conditions (see www.slowfood.
like: “take advantage of your dietary culture com). The Foundation does “not reject
and local food products, while incorporat- markets but rather seek[s] to ‘multiply
ing new and different dishes,” and “promote niches’ as an alternative strategy to expan-
people’s understanding of agriculture, for- sion of one set of products and procedures
estry, fishery and food industry” (see www. at the expense of all others” (Friedmann,
maff.go.jp/). 2005, p.€261).
For decades Cuba has had little option More in tune with a labor organizing
but to pursue a state sponsored food self-� model, Via Campesina, aims to secure liveli-
reliance strategy over four decades due to hoods from the land based on a philosophy
the U.S. blockade on food imports. Its urban that “biodiversity is not only flora, fauna,
agriculture and a vibrant organics industry earth, water and ecosystems; it is also cul-
are becoming a showcase for those eager to tures, systems of production, human and
promote healthy cities, sustainable environ- economic relations, forms of government; in
ments, and food secure populations (Dixon, essence, it is freedom” (cited in McMichael,
Donati, Pike, & Hattersley, 2009). 2004, p.€ 277). It consists of several million
landless peasants, family farmers, agricul-
tural workers, rural women, and indigenous
Civil Society
communities across 56 countries.
Food Sovereignty Movements Via Campesina is responsible for cata-
Two well-Â�known social movement responses pulting the idea of “food sovereignty” as
to corporate food provisioning systems distinct from “food security” into global
include the global Slow Food Movement consciousness. This latter term arose from
and Via Campesina. The Slow Food Inter- multi-�state institutions, like the Food and
national Manifesto was endorsed by dele- Agriculture Organisation, in the middle of
gates from 20 countries in 1989. Slow Food the last century. Food security refers to uni-
has evolved into an elaborately structured versal access to affordable and appropriate
social movement, based on alliances between nutrition, but the way in which the “good
producers and consumers (“co-Â�producers”), nutrition” is produced and distributed is not
who are committed to making explicit the questioned. Food sovereignty, in contrast, is
links between bio-�physical, food sover- concerned with the democratization of the
eignty, and cultural issues. Today there are producer–consumer relationship. Desmarais
85,000 individual members worldwide. claims that Via Campesina’s “strategies defy
Based on recognition that food, place, traditional patterns of organizing in the
and people are inextricably tied, the Move- rural sector, and the sheer magnitude of its
ment’s structure is built upon local chapters, international presence—its dynamic nature,
170 |╇╇ J. Dixon

cultural diversity, and wide geographical age of the King’s Product line of regionally
distribution—speak to its transformatory branded specialty foods.
potential” (2007, p.€9).
Gleaning
Civic Agriculture Providing the training ground for a new
Organic agriculture—in the double meaning wave of, often young, community activists is
of free from industrial agro-�chemicals and the ancient ritual of gleaning: collecting
as arising spontaneously to meet human “left-Â�overs” or edible waste. An illustrative
nutrition needs—has been the mainstay of Australian case study details the reclaiming
food provisioning for millennia. With 20th of foods from dumpsters to redistribute it
century urbanization and industrialization either by direct consumption by the dump-
demanding women’s labor, civic agriculture ster divers themselves or for preparing meals
traditions have been maintained through from the ingredients for non-�commercial
household gardens and community allot- exchange at street stalls and soup kitchens.
ments. It has been central to community According to Edwards and Mercer (2007),
organizing and development over the 20th the resulting “gleaning culture” is character-
century. In the US, the 20 million Victory ized by a commitment to the informal
Gardens planted throughout American cities economy, free food, and an anarchic organ-
supplied 40% of the nation’s food toward izational format that challenges the domi-
the end of World War II. They provided nant materialist and capitalist ethos of
functions beyond supplying the population Australian society.
with cheaper fresh produce, supplying
another plank for nationalist sentiment and
cohesion as well as improving the nutri- THE TRANSFORMATIVE
tional status of the population (Hynes, POSSIBILITIES OF COMMUNITY
1996). REFERENCED AND INITIATED FOOD
Civic agriculture was provided a new SYSTEMS
impetus from the environmental and food
counterculture movements of the 1960s and Some highly contradictory processes are in
1970s. Proponents shifted the focus away play as Johnston, Biro, and MacKendrick
from simply increasing economic and nutri- (2009) note in their discussion of the pursuit
tional efficiencies in food production, and of what they term “food democracy” in a
instead adopted a broader perspective which market-�dominated world. These are particu-
used localized food production as a way of larly marked with the corporate initiatives
developing and strengthening communities which respond to consumer concerns
(Lyson, 2004; Dixon et al., 2009). They regarding the provenance of their food and
have broadened the civic-�oriented distribu- support for local growers. At the same time,
tion chains through farmers’ markets, com- they further entrench the commodification
munity supported agriculture or box of the food system.
schemes, and harvest trails (Knowd, Mason, Both Nestlé and Marks and Spencer tout
& Docking, 2005). the hundreds of thousands of farmers who
The current occupants of the White supply them and the good that income does
House have revived a civic agriculture for children and communities. Yet we know
leadership role, through turning over part of also that vast inequities arise when only a
the gardens surrounding the presidential few producer communities are permitted
home to food production, just as it had been into corporate supply chains and others are
used by Eleanor Roosevelt for her own locked out because they cannot establish the
Victory Garden. These thoroughly modern capacity to meet the rigours of the supply
“monarchs” are emulating the traditional chain requirements (Hughes, 2005; Lyons,
royal figureheads of Prince Charles in the 2007). When the market can provide liveli-
UK and his championing of organic food hood opportunities for some communities
systems, and the King of Thailand’s patron- only, this situation creates an unintended
 Contemporary Food Systems╇╇ | 171

exclusionary dynamic. Furthermore, the “interdependence is recognised and acted

corporate tendency to continuously move upon or whether it is obscured and perhaps
production platforms to the lowest wage denied” (p. 84); as is the case in orthodox
and cost regions is the antithesis of guaran- economic analyses which valorize surplus
teeing sustained livelihood opportunities value and ignore the social and environ-
(Fishman, 2006). Even in the locations mental consequences of economic
where they operate over the long term, cor- transactions.
porations can force out smaller competitors With the exception of gleaning and some
thereby accruing significant influence over not-�for-profit cases of civic agriculture, the
producer communities which lose bargain- examples provided above embed themselves
ing power. Further, dominance by any one within the capitalist market. At first glance
actor in supply chains has consequences for they fall within the Gibson-�Graham purview
system resilience (Larsen, Ryan, & Abra- of a diverse economies approach. However,
hams, 2008). they do not all pass the critical ethical test
Thus far, examples illuminate how com- posed by the authors, who suggest that the
munity arises in two senses in food systems: following key questions need to be worked
the first is the corporate, government, and through collectively:
non-�government insertion of references to
“community” as a desirable social unit; and, What is necessary to personal and social
the second is as community initiated econo- survival?
mies based on food production. For many in How is social surplus to be appropriated and
distributed?
this category, the ability to deliver on a
Whether and how social surplus is to be pro-
range of ethical concerns is predicated on duced and consumed?
being able to access corporate supply chains. And, how is a commons produced and
Thus, it is timely to pursue an understand- sustained?
ing of the transformative potential of this (Gibson-�Graham, 2006, p. 88)
diversity of initiatives.
They argue that economic development is
“a (by)product of ethical debates and
A NEW THEORETICAL INSIGHT: THE decisions, rather than of the working out of
DIVERSE ECONOMIES APPROACH structural imperatives” (p.€ 167). Not sur-
prisingly, the corporate examples described
Whether transformative potential is neces- earlier are the most troubling in terms of
sarily anti-�capitalist has provided a central their ethical potential because they have a
platform of debate within community prac- hierarchy of needs which is topped not by
tice circles for decades. For Gibson-�Graham protecting the commons, but growing prof-
(2006) however, this is a sterile and gen- itability. Within the corporate context,
dered debate, and in its place they have environmental externalities are discounted
established a “postcapitalist politics” frame- in often dubious self-Â�regulatory audit
work. Rather than pose industrial, exploita- schemes (Campbell, 2009). Clearly, both
tive economies with a singular “alternative Nestlé and Marks and Spencer promote
economy” like “the community economy” social value, such as providing employees
there is a need in their opinion “to liberate one day a year to undertake volunteer activ-
economic difference” (p. 85). With its foun- ities or encouraging customers into commit-
dational construct of “diverse economies,” ting to a physical fitness campaign. Whether
Gibson-�Graham argue that transformative all employees or producer communities
potential can entail market mechanisms as benefit from the distribution of economic
long as they privilege “care of the local com- surplus is not known, but it would be
munity and its environment” (p. 80). They expected that the vast proportion of surplus
argue that what is important is not some value goes to shareholders. It is debatable as
essentialist notion of a particular model of to whether the communities in which the
development or enterprise but whether firms operate as sites “of decision, of ethical
172 |╇╇ J. Dixon

praxis,” which is critical element of a post- and the different; or, in their words, “how
capitalist politics. Rather than communities do we multiply, amplify, and connect these
becoming co-Â�producers with the corpora- different activities?” (p. 80). Based on some
tions, they are repositories of natural key reference works of the 1990s, the
resources, labor power, and consumer authors argue that the “ideal of commun-
markets, whose survival depends on the ity” is just that, and the idyllic becomes only
corporation. remotely possible if one departs from the
fiction that there is a “human immanence”
and a belief in a “common being.” Instead,
RESONANCES WITH EARLIER a more accurate and empowering ontologi-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT cal position is of “being in common.”
THEORIZING In€ practical terms this involves liberating
community endeavors from conformity to
The community economy is a critical part of the local, face-�to-face, and small-�scale
the mix for Gibson-Â�Graham’s idea of diverse interaction.
economic institutions, and indeed many of Along with other economic geographers,
their examples derive from, or at least reso- Gibson-�Graham (2006) argue for the recog-
nate with, local economic development initi- nition of the contingent and fluid nature of
atives of a quarter a century ago. In its most environmental–social relations which arise
progressive formulation, the community from networks of large and small actors and
economics field of the 1960s onwards was non-Â�human “actants,” such as landscapes
oriented to re-�socializing economic rela- and bio-�organisms. Reference to ecological
tions. Based in Gramscian politics, partici- relationships is a relatively novel develop-
patory democracy through worker ment within community discourse. For
ownership was discussed as the most pro- human ecologists though the idea of human–
gressive form of politics and one which nature interactions is not new; and it is
forged links between labor and community interesting to note in agri-�food studies the
movements. Community practice scholars rediscovery of Marx’s notion of the “meta-
drew inspiration from Mondgragon in bolic rift” to describe the current rupture
Spain, the rural electricity cooperatives, and between production, consumption, and the
the Community Development Cooperative environment (Campbell, 2009; McMichael,
movement in the US (Blakely, 1994), from 2009).
red Bologna and other communist local gov- Social networks are central to the Gibson-
ernments (Mowbray, 1986), from state Â�Graham distinction between “common
sponsored UK initiatives (Craig, Mayo, & being” (the dominant understanding of
Sharman, 1979). community) and “being-Â�in-common,” or
Gibson-Â�Graham argue for “the resignifi- working together to achieve both shared
cation and enactment of alternatives” (p. and individual ends. Actor networks exem-
81). Eschewing the anticapitalist rhetoric, plify the community development field’s
they propose the need for “a counter hege- observations from the 1980s and 1990s that
monic discourse .â•›.â•›. that can establish [some power is expressed in multiple forms and
of the] contours of a shared political prac- sites. Diverse networks can potentiate par-
tice” (p. 81). This line of reasoning very ticipation by more people and possibly
closely resembles the feminist notion of spread reward for involvement to more
“prefiguration,” or the practice in the here-Â� people also; but it remains debatable
and-now of politically desired ways of whether enrollment in corporate supply
living. Harris (2009) calls this a “politics of chain networks signals a diminution in
the possible.” opportunities by some actors to assert their
Gibson-Â�Graham’s work resonates with authority and needs. As Edwards and
another long-�standing debate within com- Mercer (2007) describes it though, with
munity development: how to proceed grassroots initiatives, groups can simultan-
beyond the fragments of the local, the small, eously derive intrinsic rewards and have
 Contemporary Food Systems╇╇ | 173

their efforts absorbed or emulated by main- environmental change.” Yet I would agree
stream actors, and in this way they influence with Boltanski and Chiapello that we should
the mainstream albeit often briefly. not lose sight of flexible capitalism’s propen-
sity to proliferate relations of exploitation.

MULTIVARIANT CAPITALISM
CONCLUSION
Gibson-Â�Graham’s diverse economies
approach prompts the question of whether Community discourses are reappearing
diverse economies are the logical outcome throughout industrial and alternative food
of this particular phase of capitalism. Albert systems. What is becoming clear is that
(1993) argues that by the 1990s capitalism many “alternatives” are not necessarily anti-
had pushed aside the state on the basis that capitalist and could not exist outside a capi-
it was constraint on economic growth. Few talist framework. This chapter argues that
who subscribe to neoliberal dominance there is a rich new vein of economic geo-
would disagree with this diagnosis. Drawing graphy theorizing to help structure an
on very different materials, Boltanksi and understanding of the multiplicity of food
Chiapello (2005) agree that the current provisioning systems. A “postcapitalist”
phase of capitalism is based on “the perma- framework, based on notions of diverse eco-
nence of change” and a plurality of enter- nomic forms, helps to us to better under-
prise formats ranging from the giant stand the potential and multiple functions of
transnational corporation to the globally disparate food system initiatives as they are
networked individual working in his or her driven by a wide spectrum of political ends
own business from home. and means, are geographically dispersed,
These descriptions about the dynamic and are socially and culturally specific. The
nature of capitalism, coupled with readings framework contains elements of progressive
on the changing nature of state–market– feminist and socialist community develop-
individual relations—which posit the current ment theorizing of 40 years ago. It reminds
dominant form of capitalism as being flexÂ� us that food’s very fundamental human and
ible in organizational structure and owner- ecological character introduces a lifeworld
ship—begs the question as to whether authority that constantly undermines the
Gibson-Â�Graham’s conception of diverse market authority of corporations and the
community economies can be understood as bureaucratic authority of states. Whether a
another variant within the current capitalist plethora of postcapitalist activities, many of
era. If so, it is then possible to argue that we them dependent on capitalist relations, can
live in an era that some call flexible capital- have transformative potential awaits the
ism or better still “multivariant capitalism.”1 experience that lies ahead.
This is an era characterized as Gibson-�
Graham argue by the privileging of no par-
ticular organizational form or commitment NOTE
to profit-�making: community economic
enterprises, sectors, and regions can be eco- 1. David Adamson raised this point with me at the
nomic profit seeking or not; although the International Community Development Journal
Symposium, 2008.
postcapitalist profit-�seeking ones are differ-
ent from other profit-�seeking entities in their
ethical intent and their multi-�functional
nature. They ask difficult questions about REFERENCES
social need, surplus, and distribution.
Albert, M. (1993). Capitalism against capitalism,
According to Harris (2009), the diverse
London: Whurr Publishers.
economies approach is excited by difference Belasco, W. (1993). Appetite for change: How the
instead of feeling defeated by domination; counterculture took on the food industry. Ithaca,
and is more likely to advance “socio-Â� NY: Cornell University Press.
174 |╇╇ J. Dixon

Blakely, E. (1994). Planning local economic develop- Hynes, H. (1996). A patch of Eden: America’s inner-Â�
ment: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: city gardeners. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea
Pine Forge Press. Green Publishing.
Boltaksi, L. & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007—synthesis report—
capitalism (trans. G. Elliott). London: Verso. fourth assessment report of the International Panel
Campbell, H. (2009). Breaking new ground in food on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
regime theory: Corporate environmentalism, ecolo- University Press.
gical feedbacks and the “food from somewhere” Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisher-
regime? Agriculture and Human Values, 26(4), DOI: ies. What is “Shokuiku (Food Education)?”
10.1007/S10460-009-9217-6. Retrieved from www.maff.go.jp/.
Craig, G., Mayo, M., & Sharman, N. (1979). Jobs and Johnston, J., Biro, A., & MacKendrick, N. (2009). Lost
community action. London: Routledge & Kegan in the supermarket: The corporate-�organic foodscape
Paul. and the struggle for democracy. Antipode, 41,
Desmarais, A. (2007). La Via Campesina: Globaliza- 509–532.
tion and the power of peasants. London: Pluto Press. Knowd, I., Mason, D., & Docking, A. (2005). Urban
Dixon, J. (2003). Authority, power and value in con- agriculture: The new frontier. State of Australian
temporary industrial food systems. International Cities Conference, city Structures 23-1, Urban
Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food, research Program, Griffith University. Retrieved
11(1), 31–39. from http: www.wsroc.com.au/downloads/Urban
Dixon, J. (2009). From the imperial to the empty Agriculture.pdf.
calorie: How nutrition relations underpin food Larsen, K., Ryan, C., & Abrahams, N. (2008). Sustain-
regime transitions. Agriculture and Human Values, able and secure food systems for Victoria: What do
DOI: 10.1007/S10460-009-9217-6. we know? What do we need to know? Victorian
Dixon, J. & Banwell, C. (2004). Reembedding trust: Eco-�Innovation Lab (VEIL), Australian Centre for
Unravelling the construction of modern diets. Crit- Science, Innovation and Society, University of Mel-
ical Public Health, 14(2), 117–131. bourne, Melbourne.
Dixon, J., Donati, K., Pike, L., & Hattersley, L. (2009). Lyons, K. (2007). Supermarkets as organic retailers:
Functional foods and urban agriculture: Two Impacts for the Australian organic sector. In D.
responses to climate change related food insecurity. Burch & G. Lawrence (Eds.), Supermarkets and agri-
NSW Public Health Bulletin, 20(1–2), 14–18. Â�food supply chains: Transformations in the produc-
Edwards, F. & Mercer, D. (2007). Gleaning from glut- tion and consumption of foods (pp. 154–172).
tony: An Australian youth subculture confronts the Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
ethics of waste. Australian Geographer, 38(3), Lyson, T. (2004). Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm,
279–296. food and community. Medford, MA: Tufts Univer-
Fishman, C. (2006). The Wal-�mart effect. New York: sity Press.
Penguin Press. McMichael, P. (2004). Development and social change,
Freidberg, S. (2004). The ethical complex of corporate Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
food power. Environment and Planning D, 22, McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy.
513–531. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36, 139–169.
Friedmann, H. (2005). From colonialism to green capit- Marks and Spencer Group plc (2010). Our plan A
alism: Social movements and emergence of food commitments 2010–2015. London: Marks and
regimes. In F. Buttel & P. McMichael (Eds.), New Spencer.
directions in the sociology of global development Mowbray, M. (1986). The red shire of Kearsley,
(pp. 227–264). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 1944–1947: Communists in local government.
Gibson-Â�Graham, J. K. (2006). A post-Â�capitalist politics. Labour History, 51, 83–94.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rowbotham, S., Segal, L., & Wainwright, H. (1981).
Harris, E. (2009). Neoliberal subjectivities or a politics Beyond the fragments. London: Alyson Publications.
of the possible? Reading for difference in alternative World Economic Forum (2009). Global risks: A global
food networks. Area, 41, 55–63. risk network report. Geneva: World Economic
Hughes, A. (2005). Corporate strategy and the man- Forum.
agement of ethical trade: The case of the UK food
and clothing retailers. Environment and Planning A,
37(7), 1145–1163.
 CHAPTER 19

Sustainability in Community Development

Stephen M. Wheeler

The reasons that sustainability has become a drew global attention to the need for sus-
leading theme worldwide are well known. tainable development.
Concerns such as climate change, resource Several perspectives on sustainable devel-
depletion, pollution, loss of species and eco- opment emerged. One of these viewpoints is
systems, poverty, inequality, traffic conges- that of global environmentalism, which has
tion, inadequate housing, and loss of focused on resource depletion, pollution,
community and social capital are ubiqui- and species and habitat loss (e.g., Blowers,
tous. These problems interrelate; for 1993).
example, global warming emissions are Counter to these environmental perspec-
caused in part by inefficient transportation tives has been the approach known as
systems and land-Â�use patterns, poorly “technological optimism,” which holds that
designed and energy-�intensive housing, and human ingenuity and technology will be
economic systems that do not internalize the able to conquer environmental problems.
costs of resource depletion and pollution. Economists set out to better incorporate
Several factors converged in the 1970s to environmental factors into economic models
raise awareness. An MIT report, The Limits (e.g., Costanza, 1991). Some began to ques-
to Growth (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, tion on a much more fundamental level the
& Behrens, 1972) reported a computer gen- desirability of endless economic growth on a
erated “systems dynamics” model predicting planet with finite resources (e.g., Barnes,
future levels of global resources, consump- 2006; Daly, 1996).
tion, pollution, and population. Every sce- A third main set of perspectives is that of
nario fed into the model showed the global social justice advocates, many of them in
human system crashing midway through the developing countries. These critics point out
21st century, so the researchers concluded global inequities that have led the United
that human civilization was approaching the States, for example, with about 4% of the
limits to growth on a small planet. This pre- world’s population, to consume some 25%
diction was highly controversial, but revisit- of its resources (e.g., Shiva, 2005). Such
ing the model in 2002, with three additional critics have argued that sustainable develop-
decades of actual data, the team concluded ment first needs to address global disparities
that its initial projections had been relatively and that rich countries need to substantially
accurate and that humanity has entered into reduce their consumption.
a period of “overshoot” in which it is well Finally, spiritually and ethically oriented
beyond the planet’s ability to sustain human observers have argued that the global crises
society (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, facing humanity are due to misplaced
2004). The energy crises of 1973 and 1979 values, a cognitive perspective that does not
raised global concerns about resource deple- adequately recognize interdependency and/
tion and brought these concerns home at the or the lack of an ethical perspective that
gas pump to millions of Americans. Two takes the needs of other societies and the
international conferences in 1973 and 1992 planet into account (e.g., Goldsmith, 1993).
176 |╇╇ S. M. Wheeler

These different perspectives on sustaina- tection, and social equity are all interrelated.
ble development have led to diverse argu- Likewise, developing an understanding of
ments, analyses, and proposals ever since. how actions at different scales interrelate is
For example, economists tend to assume essential as well. Building, site, neighbor-
that market mechanisms such as emissions-� hood, city, region, state, national, and
trading systems or setting the proper prices global scales fit together; actions at each
on natural resources and pollution are ade- scale must take into consideration and rein-
quate for addressing sustainability prob- force actions at other scales.
lems. Many environmentalists, on the other Another theme within sustainable com-
hand, argue for strong regulation by the munity development is attention to place.
public sector and public investment in areas Local history, culture, climate, resources,
such as alternative energy and land conser- architecture, building materials, businesses,
vation. Equity activists call for radical and ecosystems provide a rich and valuable
rethinking of global capitalism and tend to context for local sustainability efforts.
be highly critical of institutions such as the Working with these resources is also a way
World Bank and the World Trade Organ- to build community pride and identity.
ization. Meanwhile, ethically or spiritually Tied to an emphasis on place is an
oriented thinkers seek leadership in and edu- acknowledgment of limits. Any place can
cation about a different set of societal only handle so much change before it
values, and in some cases seek guidance becomes something different (an outcome
within organized religious traditions. Ele- that is, of course, sometimes desirable).
ments of all these approaches seem useful at There are limits to the number of people or
different times, and an awareness of them the amount of traffic that can be accommo-
all is vital in forming an understanding of dated easily in a community before the kinds
the pragmatic application of sustainability of place-�based attributes valued by com-
ideas within communities. munity members become undermined. Like-
Sustainable development can be defined wise, there are limits to the quantities of
as development that improves the long-�term resources that our society as a whole can use
welfare of human and ecological communit- without damaging either local or global eco-
ies; it tends to require certain approaches on systems. “Growth” itself must be reconsid-
the part of community development leaders ered within a sustainable-�development
and professionals. One obvious starting paradigm, probably moving, from quantita-
point is to emphasize the long-�term future. tive expansion of goods consumed to quali-
Rather than thinking about the next tative improvement in community welfare.
economic quarter, the next election cycle, An organization named Redefining Progress
or € even the next 10 or 20 years, as is has, in fact, developed an Genuine Progress
common in local planning documents, we Indicator that it believes can measure such a
must start to think about what current shift at the national level, instead of the
development trends would mean if contin- Gross Domestic Product, which, as is often
ued for 50, 100, or 200 years. Often, when pointed out, rises significantly during envir-
a longer view is taken, short-�term trends onmental disasters such as the Exxon Valdez
that seem acceptable often appear disas- oil spill, since large sums are spent on clean-
trous. Getting the public and the decision-� �up and public relations (Talberth, Cobb, &
makers to understand the long-�term Slattery, 2006). At the local level, efforts to
implications of current trends, in addition to rethink growth should not take the form of
their near-�term impacts, is an essential start- exclusionary growth controls, designed to
ing place. keep out lower-�income residents by restrict-
Another main approach within sustain� ing the amount of multifamily housing, but
ability planning is to emphasize interconnec- should instead involve a more comprehen-
tions between community development sive rethinking of how the community will
issues. Land use, transportation, housing, coexist with local, regional, and global
economic development, environmental pro- resource limits in the long run.
 Sustainability in Community Development╇╇ | 177

A final theme implicit within sustainable construction materials and green roofs, pro-
development is the need for active leader- viding incentives for solar hot water or elec-
ship by planners, politicians, and other com- tricity, and encouraging shade trees to
munity development professionals. In the provide summer cooling can also be incor-
past these players have too often facilitated porated into these codes. Communities can
unsustainable development or have acted as require that a certain percentage of electric-
handmaidens of power in the service of ity they purchase be generated from renewa-
large landowners, developers, corporations, ble sources. Some cities and towns have
or economic elites. historically owned their own electric utili-
ties, which give them even greater ability to
lower GHG emissions and promote green
ENVIRONMENT practices.
To reduce the 20% of GHG emissions
Sustainability is often thought of as prima- stemming from industry, local governments
rily an environmental concern, and certainly can seek to identify such sources within
environmental initiatives are important their jurisdictions and work with them to
within any sustainable community develop- reduce emissions, for example, by providing
ment agenda. These can be of many sorts, technical assistance, grants, or favorable tax
but one of the most timely and challenging treatment for eco-�friendly practices. Giving
types of initiative aims to reduce greenhouse priority to reducing emissions may also
gas (GHG) emissions. In the United States, affect economic development policy choices.
some 27% of GHG emissions stems from Of the three Rs—reduce, reuse, recycle—
transportation uses, another 27% is related recycling has got the most attention in terms
to building heating, cooling, and electrical of municipal programs, but in the long run
use, and about 20% results from industry much greater energy and materials savings
(World Resources Initiative, 2007). Local are likely to result from the first two.
governments can affect all these areas. Reusing wooden shipping pallets or replac-
Communities can best reduce private ing them with more durable shipping mater-
motor vehicle use through three types of ini- ials offers many advantages over recycling
tiatives: better land-�use planning, better them as chipped wood for mulch or throw-
alternative travel mode choices for local res- ing them away. A system of washing and
idents, and revised economic incentives for reusing glass bottles, for example, as exists
travel. Local governments can also set an in many European countries offers far
example by converting their own vehicle greater energy savings than collecting, crush-
fleets, including buses, to cleaner technolo- ing, and recycling them. Communities may
gies such as hybrid engines and use of com- want to eliminate some materials altogether.
pressed natural gas or biodiesel. Cities such as San Francisco have banned
Communities can modify building codes use of non-�biodegradable plastic bags. Port-
to require passive solar design of structures, land, Oakland, and about 100 other cities
higher degrees of energy efficiency, use of have banned the use of Styrofoam.
energy- and water-�efficient appliances, and Ecosystem protection and restoration
recycling of construction waste and debris. offers another main area for environmental
Subdivision ordinances can be modified to initiatives. Efforts to restore creeks, shore-
require solar orientation of lots in new sub- lines, and wetlands; to replant native vegeta-
divisions, and zoning codes can be amended tion; to recreate wildlife corridors; and to
to ensure solar access to each lot (by restrict- preserve existing habitat can form center-
ing the height of structures on adjoining lots pieces of local environmental initiatives.
near the southern property line). Other eco-� Traditional forms of local government regu-
friendly strategies such as handling rain� lation, such as zoning codes and subdivision
water run-�off onsite, using gray water for ordinances, can be amended to ensure that
irrigation or toilets, minimizing asphalt such features are protected within new
paving, promoting the use of alternative development. For example, a community
178 |╇╇ S. M. Wheeler

can require a substantial buffer (30 to 100 powers, develop design guidelines or a spe-
feet or more) along waterways, thus both cific plan for the area in question, and
preserving ecologically valuable riparian provide infrastructure and amenities to com-
corridors and opening up the possibility for plement new development.
a recreational trail system. Cities and towns A good mix of land uses is a further goal
can also require developers to preserve her- frequently cited within the sustainable com-
itage trees and important areas of wildlife munities literature, as well as by advocates
habitat on project sites. of the New Urbanism and smart growth.
Since the 1910s Euclidean zoning has gener-
ally sought to separate land uses within
LAND USE American communities, leading to the crea-
tion of vast housing tracts in one location,
Local governments in the United States have large commercial strips and malls in
primary control over the development of another, and office or industrial develop-
land within their boundaries, and land use ment in yet others. One result is that Ameri-
in turn affects everything from how much cans need to drive enormous distances to get
people drive to how much farmland and to basic destinations. Separation of land
open space remains near cities. Managing uses also makes it very difficult for anyone
the outward expansion of communities is to walk anywhere, or for motorists to “trip-Â�
one main sustainability priority. “Smart chain,” that is, carry out a number of differ-
growth” has been a rallying cry among U.S. ent tasks in one relatively short trip.
local governments since the 1990s, espe- Improving land-�use mix requires funda-
cially since suburban sprawl often increases mentally rethinking local zoning codes and
local costs for infrastructure and services economic development. Many more neigh-
(Ewing, Pendall, & Chen, 2002). borhood centers can be included within new
Smart growth is generally defined as development on the urban fringe, while new
development that is compact, contiguous to infill housing can be added to downtowns
existing urban areas, well connected by a and office parks. Zoning can be changed in
grid-�like network of through-�streets, charac- existing neighborhoods to allow a greater
terized by a diverse mix of land uses, and variety of local uses, including home offices,
relatively dense. The two ways that cities second units within or behind existing
and towns can do this is through area plans homes, and apartments or mixed-�use build-
that contain precise design requirements for ings along commercial streets.
new development and through subdivision The scale of new development should be
regulations that require connecting street reconsidered as well. Bigness has been a
patterns, neighborhood centers, greenways, defining feature of recent American land
and other community design elements. development, whether residential, commer-
Infill development, which includes reuse cial, or industrial, but from a sustainability
of existing built land as well as construction viewpoint large scale is not always desirable.
on vacant or leftover parcels, is one main Such development often provides little diver-
smart-�growth strategy. The tens of thou- sity, interest, or sense of place and generates
sands of old shopping malls, business parks, large amounts of traffic. Local sustainability
and industrial sites in American communit- planning is likely to emphasize smaller local
ies offer prime opportunities for infill and businesses, more incremental growth of new
for creating new, walkable, mixed-�use neighborhoods, and a finer grain of use and
centers for existing neighborhoods. But infill form within development. Such modest-�
is often more difficult for developers than scale land development can potentially
greenfield projects, and substantial munici- create more diverse, interesting, and vibrant
pal assistance may be required. Community communities in the long run, with fewer
development staff can facilitate dialogue long-�distance commuting needs.
between developers and local constituencies, Park and greenspaces planning is a final
assemble land through redevelopment area of land use that is essential in the
 Sustainability in Community Development╇╇ | 179

creation of more sustainable communities. to one of promoting slow-�and-steady motor

Many communities today emphasize net- vehicle movement. Street design nationally
works of parks and greenways with a is also moving toward “context-Â�sensitive
variety of environments for different user design” that respects existing historical, cul-
groups. Increasingly, native vegetation and tural, and ecological environments and pro-
restored wildlife habitats are part of the motes walking, bicycling, public transit, and
concept instead of the English-�style trees-� neighborhood use of streetscapes (Federal
and-lawn planting scheme. The idea is to Highway Administration, 2007).
reconnect residents to the landscape on a In the past few decades an increasing
daily basis, both through small-�scale parks number of communities has developed
and landscape design near homes and bicycle plans and pedestrian plans to coordi-
through larger networks of greenways and nate investment and policies for these two
wildlife preserves throughout urban areas. modes of transportation. Ever since the
passage of the Intermodal Surface Transpor-
tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),
TRANSPORTATION federal transportation funding has been
more flexible, allowing resources to be used
A community’s transportation systems for these purposes. An increasingly creative
determine a lot about its resource consump- mix of public transportation modes is also
tion, GHG emissions, civic environment, appearing in cities and towns (Cervero,
and quality of life. For the past 80 years 1998). Large-�scale metro and light-�rail
both infrastructure priorities and patterns of systems have been built in cities ranging
land development in the United States have from Dallas to Denver, Portland to Phoenix.
meant that it is virtually impossible to get But “bus rapid transit” systems, in which
many places without a motor vehicle, and high-�tech buses provide light-�rail-style
that the per capita amount we drive annu- service, provide a less expensive alternative
ally has risen about 2% a year. Retrofitting to rail systems in places such as Los Angeles
our communities to make other modes of and Albuquerque. Some communities are
transportation more possible—and to reduce experimenting with “ride-Â�on-demand”
the amount that we need to travel daily— service using small vehicles such as vans,
will be a long process. Improving the pedes- while others have built old-�fashioned street-
trian environment is one important step. cars with very frequent stops in urban areas.
This means coming up with a whole new The ideal is to provide residents with a web
package of street and urban design improve- of interwoven transit options. “Transit-Â�
ments to enhance the walking environment. oriented development” land-Â�use strategies
Such a package may include street landscap- then can seek to cluster new development
ing, pedestrian-�scale lighting, narrower lanes around transit routes, increasing ridership
and roadways, lower traffic speeds, and providing a range of destinations and
improved medians, sharper curb radii at residences close to transit.
intersections, and better-�connected street Pricing is a final piece of the transporta-
patterns within new development. tion planning puzzle. The aim is both to
Pedestrian-�friendly boulevard designs can be make transit and ride-�sharing attractive and
employed in place of today’s unsightly and to discourage long-Â�distance drive-Â�alone
dangerous arterials. Traffic-Â�calming strat- commuting. Carpools (“high-Â�occupancy
egies, including a range of design strategies vehicles”) are often given their own toll-Â�free
such as speed humps, traffic circles, stag- lanes on urban freeways, while a few places
gered parking, and extensive landscaping, have made transit use cheap or free. Cities
can be employed in residential neighbor- and towns can provide economic incentives
hoods to slow traffic. for residents to drive less; the most effective
In general the street design philosophy in policies include raising the cost of parking
many communities is shifting from one of and developing employer-�based trip reduc-
increasing the capacity and speed of streets tion programs. Internationally, a number of
180 |╇╇ S. M. Wheeler

large cities, including London, have estab- subsidizing nonprofit affordable housing
lished toll zones requiring motorists to pay a providers to build affordable housing.
substantial sum to enter city centers. Most
European cities also maintain at least some
parts of their downtowns as pedestrian-�only ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
zones.
Economic development strategies are among
the most challenging to revise from a sus-
HOUSING tainable communities perspective. Many
cities and towns have traditionally sought
A community’s housing stock affects its sus- any available form of economic growth,
tainability in several ways. For one thing, particularly through large, polluting employ-
large amounts of energy and materials are ers, rapid land development, malls, big-�box
required to construct and maintain housing. development, and even casinos. Although
Communities can revise local building codes substantial municipal subsidies are often
to require more energy-�efficient structures offered to such businesses, gaining them
and appliances, as well as water-�efficient does not necessarily guarantee the commun-
plumbing fixtures. But on a larger scale ity a stable and sustainable future. Multina-
imbalances of housing with jobs and shop- tional firms may move their jobs elsewhere,
ping generate high levels of motor vehicle leaving behind toxic legacies. Big-�box retail-
use, traffic, pollution, and GHG emissions. ers such as Wal-�Mart often do not pay a
Ideally, communities will provide slightly living wage and drive smaller local busi-
more than one job per household (since nesses out of business. Rapid suburban
many households have more than one expansion brings traffic, overburdened local
worker). The price and size of the available services, and loss of local culture and iden-
housing must also balance with the needs of tity. Few of these businesses have any com-
workers employed in the community. One mitment to the ecological or social health of
typical problem is lack of affordable housing the community, and many promote
for service workers, teachers, firefighters, increased and unsustainable levels of mater-
nurses, and other essential professions. ial consumption.
These personnel must either pay a large per- Sustainable economic development is
centage of their salary for housing or must instead likely to emphasize the nurturing of
commute from more affordable communit- green and socially responsible employers
ies farther away. within a community. These businesses will
There is no easy solution to a commun- use local resources, have clean production
ity’s housing affordability problems, but practices, pay decent wages, and contribute
several strategies together can potentially back to the community through civic
make a difference. One basic step is to involvement. They will be of a range of
ensure that sufficient land is zoned for apart- sizes, including many relatively small, locally
ments, condominiums, townhouses, owned enterprises with deeper community
duplexes, and other forms of housing that roots than current employers. Rather than
tend to be less expensive. Another common seeking rapid overnight expansion, such
strategy is “inclusionary zoning,” in which firms will add employment at a slower but
developers are required to include a certain more sustainable rate.
percentage (often 10–20%) of units affordÂ� One strategy is to support existing local
able to households making a certain percent- businesses and encouraging them to under-
age (typically 80%) of the county median take both innovation and greener produc-
income. Other strategies include legalizing tion practices. Another strategy is to grow
and encouraging creation of secondary units new, desirable businesses, frequently
on existing single-�family home lots, encour- through the creation of business incubators
aging creation of land trusts that will lease that provide affordable office space and
housing units at below-�market rates, and shared services for start-�ups and the
 Sustainability in Community Development╇╇ | 181

preferential issuance of public contracts to most at risk, improve siting of hazardous

green businesses. Investing in public educa- land uses, bring about fairer and more
tion and training is a further municipal com- transparent decision-�making, and include
mitment to its economic future. Finally, in at-�risk populations in local government
recent years many jurisdictions have passed processes.
“living wage” laws requiring that workers Additional services important for social
be paid significantly more than the federal equity include adult education and literacy
minimum wage. This policy both improves programs, preschool and after-�school activ-
social equity and potentially increases ities, drug and alcohol abuse treatment pro-
workers’ spending power within the grams, and assistance for those with
community. disabilities, mental health issues, or a history
of homelessness. Good public education in
general, of course, is also crucial. Such initi-
SOCIAL EQUITY atives can help build the human capital vital
for healthy communities in the long run.
As a symbol of the integrating approach The problem of funding always exists, but
common within sustainable development, grant opportunities are available for certain
advocates have often spoken of the “three types of program, and creative, sustained
Es”—environment, economy, and equity. attention by community development offi-
Of these, equity is by far the least well cials and political leaders can help build
developed and perhaps the most difficult to better support in the long run.
bring about in practice. We live in a society,
both in the United States and globally, that
has become more and more inequitable. PROCESS AND PARTICIPATION
Such rising inequality brings about many
sustainability problems, from the degrada- A healthy democracy is an important
tion of ecosystems by impoverished people element of sustainable communities in that
struggling to survive to the loss of social it can enable informed decision-�making,
capital and mutual understanding essential meet the needs of diverse constituencies, and
in healthy democracies. fulfill ideals of fairness and equity. For this
Ensuring social equity is in substantial reason, community-�sustainability groups
part the responsibility of federal and state have emphasized a variety of process indi�
levels of government, which can promote it cators that reflect the health of our political
through tax policy, funding of social serv- system and society. Sustainable Seattle, for
ices, establishment of decent minimum example, included “voter participation,”
wages, and guarantees of fair treatment and “adult literacy,” and “neighborliness” in its
civil rights. But local communities can set of sustainability indicators (Sustainable
promote equity goals as well. Providing ade- Seattle, 1998). The Jacksonville Community
quate amounts of affordable housing, livable Council (JCCI) included not just voter regis-
minimum wages, and a supportive environ- tration but “percentage of people surveyed
ment for small local businesses are among who are able to name two current City
the ways to do this. Ensuring that under- Council members” in its quality-Â�of-life
privileged neighborhoods receive excellent indicators, which have been updated for
services, schools, parks, and other forms nearly 25 years now (JCCI, 2006).
of€ municipal investment is also essential. Conflicts of interest, often around land
Environmental justice is another key development, are rife within U.S. local gov-
equity€theme; too often lower-Â�income neigh- ernment. Historically, “growth coalitions”
borhoods and communities of color have of developers, landowners, real estate inter-
borne the brunt of pollution, toxic contami- ests, construction companies, and politicians
nation problems, and unwanted facilities. have dominated local politics in many
Cities and towns can address environmental communities (Logan & Molotch, 1987).
justice through active steps to protect those These interests have often funded electoral
182 |╇╇ S. M. Wheeler

candidates, and their members have fre- require careful organizing both within gov-
quently held elected or appointed office. ernment and within the community to pull
Ending such conflicts of interest and improv- different constituencies together and develop
ing the transparency and visibility of local institutional and political backing. It may
government processes is vital, as is making require specific intervention in debates to
public office attractive to a wider variety of call attention to the long-�term implications
candidates, including those without wealthy of decisions. It may require constant efforts
backers. Ensuring high participation rates in to weave together all aspects of community
elections and citizen knowledge of develop- development, including physical planning,
ment issues is a related challenge. urban design, economic development, social
From a sustainability perspective it is welfare policy, and environmental planning,
vitally important to establish a creative and so that the public understands the intercon-
collaborative local government decision-� nections. And at times it may require stand-
making environment in which participants ing up against special interests that resist
can agree on positive, proactive strategies, thinking of the long-�term future of places.
“think outside the box,” and learn to But such is the challenge of working within
respect each other’s points of view. To local government and communities. Good
enable a constructive, collaborative planning communication, networking, facilitation,
environment instead, a number of proced- presentation, and political skills can help in
ural reforms can help. Transparent and this regard. Passion and a sense of humor
well-�publicized government processes can can help as well.
ensure that residents understand the process
and do not feel excluded by backroom deals.
Strong conflict-�of-interest regulation can REFERENCES
alleviate citizens’ sense that officials are just
out for themselves. Workshops and char- Barnes, P. (2006). Capitalism 3.0: A guide to reclaim-
rettes (design workshops) can be conducted ing the commons. San Francisco: Berrett-�Koehler.
in a collaborative and collegial spirit rather Blowers, A. (Ed.). (1993). Planning for a sustainable
environment: A report by the Town and County
than in the top-�down and patronizing one
Planning Association. London: Earthscan.
that is sadly all too common. And local resi- Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis: A global
dents’ ideas can be very consciously incor- inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press.
porated into planning alternatives and Costanza, R. (Ed.). (1991). Ecological economics: The
reflected back to them, so that it is clear science and management of sustainability. New
York: Columbia University Press.
what their input has been.
Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of
That being said, local residents also need sustainable development. Boston: Beacon Press.
to understand that they are not the only Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2002). Measuring
stakeholders involved in public decisions. sprawl and its impact. Washington, DC: Smart
Any given decision affects multiple overlap- Growth America.
Federal Highway Administration (2007). FHWA and
ping communities at different scales, includ-
context sensitive solutions (CSS). Retrieved from
ing regional, national, and global. From a www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/index.cfm.
sustainability perspective, the practitioner’s Goldsmith, E. (1993). The way: An ecological world
role is to take into account the needs and view. Boston: Shambhala.
concerns of all these different communities, Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. (JCCI) (2006).
The 2006 quality of life progress report. Jackson-
including the needs of the planet itself, and
ville, FL.
to help local residents understand this Logan, J. & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban rortunes: The
complex picture. political economy of place. Berkeley and Los
Operating as a professional with a Angeles: University of California Press.
concern for sustainable community develop- Meadows, D., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens
III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York:
ment may require a great many skills. It may
Universe Books.
require active efforts to frame debates, Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D (2004).
develop background information, and Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River
outline alternative courses of action. It may Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
 Sustainability in Community Development╇╇ | 183

Shiva, V. (2005). Earth democracy: Justice, sustainabil- World Commission on Environment and Development
ity, and peace. Cambridge MA: South End Press. (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford
Sustainable Seattle (1998). Indicators of sustainable University Press.
community. Seattle, WA. World Resources Institute (2007). U.S. GHG emissions
Talberth, J., Cobb, C., & Slattery, N. (2006). The flow chart. Retrieved from http://cait.wri.org/figures.
genuine progress indicator 2006: A tool for sustaina- php?page=/US-�FlowChart.
ble development. Oakland, CA: Redefining Progress.
 PART III

Building and Organizing

Community
 CHAPTER 20

Introduction to Part III

James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

The idea of community as emergent ani- actions and satisfying relationships. As the
mates most theories of community organ- chapters in this part illustrate, the line
izing and community building. Neither between these two perspectives increasingly
community building nor organizing would blurs. However, the starting point for efforts
be necessary if communities were solid, well in the two traditions almost always differs.
functioning, and satisfactory for all their Community organizers begin with oppo-
members. However, the two schools of sitional strategies and tactics that heighten
thought differ in what communities entail conflict between the “haves” and “have
and how they come into being. Within the nots.” For those who accept this division as
community organizing tradition, communit- a given, strategies for community building
ies are divided between the “haves” and the are seen not as genuine efforts to build com-
“have nots.” This vision sees communities munities that do not exist but as efforts by
as in dialectal tension between the struggles the “haves” to reduce unrest among the
of the “have nots” to realize their goals and “have nots” or at best to provide a slightly
the “haves” who are positioned to achieve higher level of access to resources without
their collective and individual interests by challenging the underlying division. The first
virtue of their greater power. Community chapter by Fisher, DeFilippis, and Shragge
organizing seeks to mobilize the interests of traces the history of these two traditions in
the “have nots” and organize them into the United States. They argue that larger
effective units of collective action so as to political trends either enable or constrain
change the balance of power in the com- efforts to challenge existing arrangements of
munity. In contrast, community builders power. They locate the origins of both tradi-
approach locales as potential communities tions in the Settlement House movement in
that lack the social ties and identification of the Progressive era. This movement rested
shared interests required for these locales to on four beliefs: (1) that social and economic
function as communities. Community build- causes rather than individual motivation or
ers start by building relationships among ability accounted for social inequality; (2) a
local residents and organizations and devel- focus on cross-�class solidarity that provides
oping settings within which mutual interests integrated social services and an inclusive
and opportunities for cooperation in achiev- community identity; (3) a communitarian
ing them can emerge. Community builders perspective that strives to build inclusive
assume that functioning communities do not social networks; and (4) the willingness to
have one single fault line of privilege versus advocate for social, political, and economic
disadvantage that divides them. Rather justice. Only a few Settlement House leaders
people and organizations are presumed to privileged the fourth of these goals. Thus
have multiple and shifting interests and much of social work practice that grew out
capacities. The task of community building of this movement falls into either individu-
is to provide opportunities to build relation- ally oriented service delivery or community
ships that can lead to effective collective building. The Great Depression sharpened
188 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

the conflicts between the “haves” and “have and Stoecker label the first approach the
nots” and led to more confrontational power-Â�oriented model of organizing or the
approaches to organizing, some of which Alinsky model. They contrast that with
included strong challenges to the dominant what they call the woman-�centered model
political economy of capitalism. The rest of which takes building and sustaining rela-
the chapter lays out the dialectic between tionships as central and which calls for the
changing political and economic climates cultivation of a wide range of human capa�
and the type of community organizing and cities beyond the exercise of power. They
building that emerges in each. In each era, then compare the models in terms of their
oppositional forms of organizing provoked assumptions about human nature, power
criticism on grounds that they were undem- and politics, leadership development, and
ocratic and practiced what is now referred the organizing process. Different under-
to as reverse exclusion of more privileged standings of the relationship of public and
groups. Community building and organizing private spheres underlie many of the diver-
efforts that focused more on developing gent positions of the two models. They con-
human capacities and cooperation among clude that both models have strengths and
all groups met with the critique that they weaknesses. Therefore combined models are
put the burden of change on individuals likely to prove more effective. Specifically,
harmed by unequal power distributions and they commend including the building of
inadvertently supported the replication of primary relational bonds around social
existing patterns of inequality. By examin- reproduction as a good way to broaden the
ing community organizing during periods of social change agenda. At the same time, they
political conservatism, these authors bring conclude that the public sphere remains an
us up to the oppositional organizing of arena in which conflict is necessary. There-
groups like the Tea Party. The chapter con- fore, power-�oriented public sphere organ-
cludes by arguing that political economic izing remains a prerequisite for success.
trends are the main drivers of the type of Bill Traynor begins by placing opposi-
community organizing that occurs. tional community organizing in a period in
The remaining chapters in this part which local, state, and national instutions
acknowledge the strength of the political encountered more rooted forms of capital
economy in creating an unlevel playing field and a politics in which it was more feasible
to begin with. However, they posit or at to hold the private and public sector
least strive for ways to introduce collective accountable. He understands the commun-
agency among the “have nots” as a force as ity building approach as very much a
well. Community organizers posit opposing product of the era of rapid global movement
and already existing and identifiable inter- of capital and devolution of government
ests for both the “haves” and “have nots.” functions to the nonprofit and private
The initial work of organizing must be done sectors. He first defines community building
to support local “have nots” in recognizing and traces it to foundation-Â�led efforts to
their interests. Problems of building rela- expand and improve the workings of com-
tionships are acknowledged and addressed. munity development corporations. In con-
However, identifying collective goals and trast to the class analysis that underlies the
identity among the “have nots” is presented practice of community organizing, commun-
as largely a matter of process. Alliances with ity development derives from a pluralist
“haves” are strategically cultivated and notion of democracy and seeks to rebuild a
usually issue based and temporary. The best functioning public sphere. Traynor offers a
known national exponents of community sober analysis of the internal contradictions
organizing choose to work with already and difficulties CDCs faced in attempting to
existing identifiable collectives, thus side integrate community building into their
stepping in theory, if not always in practice, development-�oriented organizations. He
the need for building social relationships also critiques community organizing prac-
and local organizations from scratch. Stall tices as relying on “levels of commitment,
 Introduction to Part III╇╇ | 189

loyalty, time, and belligerence that have tional context. Thus the position of a group
never been for everyone and increasingly on issues of conflict and race are crucial. But
stand out as in-�organic to the experiences of the choice made will be likely to succeed not
most people” (p. 215). In contrast, he pro- because of some inherent property of the
poses that community building is best position, but because it is congruent or
understood as having roots in a market-� incongruent with the political opportunities
based model, rather than a model of polit- that emerge in specific contexts. He argues
ical conflict. Levels of commitment and that organizing efforts that are very congru-
goals can vary across individuals and across ent with the inter-�organizational context
time. His focus is on establishing peer-�to- stand greater chances of achieving goals, but
peer relationships rather than on binding are less likely to restructure basic power
individuals to an existing group. The crux dynamics of a locale.
of his argument is that community building Briggs drills down one more level to look
can better be understood as a popular eco- at the enactment of civic processes meant to
nomic mobilization rather than as a van- engage citizens in the public sphere. This
guard political movement. He then lays out close-�up look at how individuals actually
a framework for this form of organizing interact reveals the class, race, gender, and
which he calls network organizing. role divisions within communities that make
The next two chapters question whether the development of inclusive, productive
the distinction between cooperation and civic engagement very difficult. Thus his
conflict as strategies is the most useful way chapter brings us back to an acceptance of
to understand how “have nots” achieve the structural differences in interest and
their goals through collective action. Saegert group identification that characterize
critiques the community building school of society. However, rather than treating these
thought’s emphasis on social capital. divisions as givens, he views them as variÂ�
Encouraged by foundations, many commun- able codes and scripts potentially subject to
ity building intiatives take their cues from cross-�group understanding and transforma-
Robert Putman’s (1993, 2000) identification tion. He concludes (p. 242) that
of social capital as conducive to both well-�
functioning democracy and economic pros- we should collect and share principles for
reading communication codes and power rela-
perity. She points out that Coleman’s (1988)
tions, especially in multicultural settings, and
functionalist view of social capital views it
for responding in ways that promote mutual
as network resource. He does not imply spe- learning. Such competence is critical for doing
cific outcomes will be obtained either at a democracy “up close” in a world of diverse
societal or community scale. Bourdieu publics and complex public problems.
(1985) situates the reproduction of “haves”
and “have nots” in their networks of social DeRienzo’s chapter reminds us that com-
capital. In direct contrast to Putnam, social munity development efforts depend on the
capital then is seen both as a tool for the idea that communities exist. However, as
reproduction of inequality and as a pro- discussed in the introduction to this book,
moter of conflict. Her chapter offers an sociologists have long proposed the disap-
analysis of the essential roles both of the pearance of community. In contrast, the
cultivation of social capital within and second perspective, attributed to John
across groups and of the use of conflict in Dewey, portrays community as not given
organizing that aims to redistribute power but as emergent. Neither position allows a
and resources. theorist or practitioner of community devel-
Greenberg looks at how different ideo- opment to take the entity that they seek to
logical bases and group identities prove develop as a given. DeRienzo views com-
crucial to the success or failure of organizing munity as distinct from the physical neigh-
efforts, not because they are ideologically borhood, and as having a contingent reality.
correct but because of the way they work in For him community can be emergent, but it
the particular local historical and organiza- is not a given. DeRienzo describes current
190 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

economic, social, and political forces in the REFERENCES

United States that tend to undermine the
existence of community. He then addresses Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research
forms of community organizing and evalu-
for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). West-
ates their potential for creating community port, CT: Greenwood Press.
in the current context. His chapter provides Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of
a transition to Part IV on globalization and human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
community development in two ways: (1) he S95–121.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic
clearly identifies how the mobility and geo-
traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
graphic dispersion of capital creates the University Press.
crises community development must Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and
address; and (2) he complicates the geo- revival of American community. New York: Simon
graphy of community by questioning the & Schuster.
assumption that propinquity is automati-
cally a basis for effective organizing.
 CHAPTER 21

History Matters
Canons, Anti-�Canons, and Critical Lessons from the Past

Robert Fisher, James DeFilippis, and Eric Shragge

The history of community initiatives reveals Conservative political economies and

a complex past, with varied goals, politics, social contexts produce and support con-
and shapes. This history and diversity result servative initiatives. The relationship is com-
from a number of factors, chief among them monly accepted throughout our society.
the historical context that shapes and helps Reactionary regimes since 1980 have had a
produce a dominant form of community-� profound effect, shifting policy and dis-
based effort in each era. This dominant type course to the Right on issues ranging as
not only mirrors broader contemporary phe- widely as the environment, poverty, income
nomena but responds to and affects them as inequality, crime, and war. Most commun-
well. Eras characterized by more liberal ity efforts of a progressive nature have been
reform foster and allow opportunities for heavily curtailed and constrained in the past
the proliferation of more Left-�oriented com- three decades. Many of them have been
munity initiatives. More conservative or incorporated by public and private funding,
reactionary eras produce not so much a transforming the field to emphasize com-
decline of community efforts, but rather a munity building and consensus models
decline of Left-�oriented community efforts rather than community organizing or con-
and a rise of not only highly moderated flict models. And, at the same time, Right-�
but€ especially reactionary forms of local wing and conservative efforts have
organizing. proliferated.
For a generation now we have found our- Even in eras hostile to oppositional
selves in a conservative/reactionary context, efforts or Left activism, there is always a
one characterized by a proliferation of com- dialectical process in which community ini-
munity efforts, and an equally widespread tiatives develop and respond to the tensions
rise of reactionary and conservative uses of and contradictions of the time. For example,
community. At the same time, there has civil rights dissent developed at the com-
been little understanding of the transforma- munity level in the South in the 1950s to
tion that occurs in community practice in address apartheid racism (Morris, 1986).
reactionary and conservative contexts. On Accordingly, even in our current context
the one hand, these reactionary and con- there are critical community initiatives doing
servative pressures on the field of commun- essential work to challenge the neoliberal
ity organizing are being relatively ignored. hegemony that dominates the era. These
Or they seem to be ignored but actually efforts, as with civil rights efforts in the
reflect organizational decisions that perceive 1950s, win victories, raise consciousness,
the context as so constraining that the engage people in struggle, plant seeds for
organizers have little choice but to pursue social change, and provide models for future
accommodating strategies. On the other radical practice. They do so usually as oppo-
hand, we find a growing popularity, even sitional efforts. The flip side is true for more
romanticization, of the concept of commun- progressive eras such as the 1960s, which,
ity and community-�based work. while often seen as glory days for Left
192 |╇╇ R. Fisher et al.

initiatives, were also the seedbed of con- three major heydays in the history of com-
servative and reactionary efforts that arose munity work in the United States: approxi-
10 to 20 years later as a powerful Right-Â� mately 1900–1920, 1930–1946, and
wing movement. 1960–1975. This canon of noted commun-
While we argue here that the political-� ity efforts is rich with lessons from the past
economic context of every era heavily influ- for community action efforts in the present
ences the dominant tendencies of community and future.
organizing in that era, we emphasize that As with most canons, there is disagree-
there is a dialectical relationship, between ment on which examples to include. Social
the broader political economic context and work scholarship has possibly the richest
grassroots efforts. Context is always rele- and deepest canon, emphasizing its own
vant and critical to understanding local roots in the settlement house movement and
efforts, but it is never determinative. tracing its interest and role in local-�based
organizing through leading roles in New
Deal programs in the 1930s, War on
LESSONS FROM THE PAST Poverty programs in the 1960s, and the
women’s movement. Those associated
We start with selected key points from this closely with the Alinsky tradition of com-
history of community-�based efforts in the munity organizing might begin with Alin-
United States. We emphasize that commun- sky’s efforts in the 1930s, implicitly
ity organizing has a long history and that anointing him as the father of community
historical context is critical in understanding organizing in the United States, and empha-
community efforts. Then in the selected sizing his work, that of the Industrial Areas
history that follows we embed essential Foundation in the 1960s, and similar efforts
lessons, especially the importance of conflict associated with the “backyard revolution”
organizing and social movement building. of the 1970s. Similarly, activists of color
We conclude by illustrating how community will include Alinsky but not exalt his contri-
organizing cuts across the political spectrum bution. They focus their attention instead
and includes efforts ranging all the way on the deep resistance of African-�Americans
from Left to Right. before the 20th century, and include not
only efforts of luminaries such as W. E. B.
Du Bois but also community building and
Community Organizing has a Long, Rich
service delivery work in the early 20th
History
century; the efforts of Marcus Garvey and
The history of community action dates back Father Divine in the 1920s and 1930s; and
at least to the late 19th century and extends especially black community, labor, and
throughout the 20th century. Intentional electoral efforts tied to civil rights and Black
community organizing started with the decen- Power movements of the 1960s and 1970s.
tralized, communitarian responses of the late The dominant examples and texts noted
19th and early 20th centuries, most notably above compose our general understanding
the social settlement house movement. To be of the origins, history, and models of
sure, there were earlier efforts, but it is in the community-�based social change. While the
20th century that community-�based activity examples in this multiple-�stranded canon of
takes on a more significant role. With indus- community organizing vary there is also
trialization and increasing density in large almost complete agreement on the types of
cities, urban residents formed community historical contexts that help produce such
associations and voluntary activities for a efforts. The progressive canon emphasizes
wide variety of goals that they could not meet that community efforts have a long history,
on their own and could not rely on the private but largely in specific eras and historical
or public sector to address. contexts—which they helped create—which
The more or less accepted canon of the provided more opportunities and supports
field of community organizing emphasizes for progressive social change.
 Critical Lessons from the Past╇╇ | 193

The Importance of Historical Context lectively to the oppressive conditions of

slum areas and the dire needs of people
Each historical era has a dominant form of
living in these deplorable conditions, and,
community initiative, one produced by the
given their concern for order, aimed to do
interaction between the broader political
so before social unrest between the classes
economy and the social struggles and oppo-
tore the society apart.
sitional efforts that respond to it. This is not
Settlers in the most progressive houses
a one-�way street where national political
developed a community practice that
economy dictates the nature, form, and
included four essential elements: (1) a rejec-
success of community initiatives. The
tion of the individual causes of poverty and
process is always much more dialectical.
an emphasis on social and economic con-
Certainly issues of human agency—defining
ditions; (2) an integrated approach that pro-
the very nature of a community organiza-
vided services, engaged residents, and
tion, its goals, methods, daily choices—play
focused on developing cross-�class solidarity
a critical role in the life of any community
between neighborhood residents and settle-
effort. But the larger historical context
ment workers; (3) a communitarian perspec-
heavily influences what conceptualizations
tive on the essential importance of building
and choices are available or encouraged,
community and community connection as a
what goals are salient, and what strategies
means of increasing the participation and
seem appropriate and likely to succeed.
networks of primarily poor recent immi-
grants; and (4) a willingness to organize and
advocate for social, political, and economic
Progressive Era Organizing
justice at the local, state, and national level
The dominant example of community-�based (Fisher, 2005).
initiative in the first decades of the 20th Only a few settlement houses and leaders
century was the social settlement house. It such as Jane Addams, Lillian Wald, and
was both a strong reflection of the political Florence Kelley challenged capitalism and
economy of the Progressive era as well as supported efforts to change the system. For
catalyst for the critical progressive changes most settlement leaders, the goal was
of that time. Settlement leader Vida Scudder reform-�oriented collective responses to the
saw the turn-Â�of-the-Â�century city as a “cleav- challenges of the emerging urban-Â�industrial
age of classes, cleavage of races, cleavage of order and mass migration. As communitari-
faiths: an inextricable confusion” (cited in ans who understood the value of commun-
Shapiro, 1978, p. 215). Society seemed to be ity building and community organizing, they
coming apart at its class and ethnic seams. used the local level not only as a site for
In response, reformers developed a social democratic participation and service deliv-
movement which argued that society, not ery, but also as a staging ground for broader
simply the individual, was responsible for initiatives. They aimed to affect the overall
social conditions, and that the environment, political economy and public policies
not simply one’s personal characteristics, around such specific issues, such as housing
heavily shaped life experience (Quandt, reform and child welfare. Aware of the
1970). limits of individual settlements, they formed
Flourishing in the early 20th century, set- the National Federation of Settlements in
tlements attracted social reformers to engage 1911 to coordinate the hundreds of settle-
with the problems of the new urban-� ments nationwide and advocate for broader
industrial order at the local level by living in initiatives that could not be addressed at the
settlement houses in slum, especially immi- local level.
grant, neighborhoods. The settlements The settlements achieved a great deal,
reflected the social gospel missionary even continuing into the 21st century to
impulse as well as the Progressive era rejec- serve as a model for an integrated commun-
tion of the individualism, greed, and faith in ity practice. And yet the middle- and upper-�
laissez-�faire capitalism. They responded col- class nature of most early 20th century
194 |╇╇ R. Fisher et al.

reform efforts heavily influenced settlement Councils, which formed to address com-
initiatives, providing a pragmatic and opti- munity problems such as housing evictions,
mistic reform fervor and faith in public life unemployment, hunger, and racism. In addi-
and public service, while limiting efforts to tion to the radical militancy of the Unem-
nonradical and nonstatist initiatives and ployed Councils, community efforts
solutions. But the lessons of the settlement operated on multiple levels of practice. On
houses are clear: the political economy of one level were the basic principles—such as
the Progressive era and the social struggles a critique of capitalism, the nature of class
its contradictions produced heavily shaped conflict, and the need for working-�class
the opportunities, choices, and support for a democracy—that undergirded all efforts and
dominant form of communitarian, reform-� tied local efforts intellectually to the world
oriented community organizing the social beyond the community. The next level
settlements. included the national campaigns that tied
community efforts to broader struggles and
campaigns, such as campaigns for national
Depression Era Organizing
social insurance and anti-�lynching legisla-
The Depression era of the 1930s presented a tion. The third level—the community level—
different context for organizers, occasioning was the site of the day-�to-day activism of
a very different type of dominant form. The members to address local issues, whether an
collapse of world capitalism created an eviction of a neighbor, a local family’s need
urgency both for leaders and for ordinary for help from the relief bureau, or a protest
people and demanded more radical politics. at City Hall. At all three levels of organ-
In response, communities organized to izing, theory and practice were deeply inter-
harness the energy and anger that spilled over connected, designed to get people involved
on a daily basis. The interaction of in local public life and use community
Depression-�era conditions, radical local organizing as a staging ground to address
organizing, a vibrant and radical union deeper systemic problems (Naison, 2004).
movement, and New Deal federal policies all The crippling flaws in communist organizing
combined to create a dynamic and critical era in the 1930s rested in the antidemocratic
in the history of community organizing. manipulation of local efforts in order to
While community efforts of the Commu- support campaigns developed by or with the
nist Party, the Catholic Workers Movement, consent of operatives in the USSR. That
or Saul Alinsky, to name but a few, differed said, these efforts provide a vivid and pro-
widely, these dominant models of the era vocative historical example which valued
were all characterized by militant strategies community as an organizing site, recognized
and tactics, a radical analysis of community its limits, and offered an organizational
problems, and expanded frameworks theory and practice to go beyond the limits
designed to mobilize more people and com- of local efforts.
munities in support of democratic and just The efforts of Saul Alinsky began in
solutions. They organized at the local level Chicago in the 1930s. Since his work in the
because that was where people experienced Back of the Yards neighborhood are gener-
problems on a day-�to-day basis and where ally well known, we will briefly discuss his
they could engage people to participate in efforts and model in terms of how they con-
social change efforts. But given the national tributed to the critical lessons of organizing
and worldwide nature of problems in the in this period: (1) the emphasis on militant,
1930s the dominant forms of this era sought conflict tactics, and (2) the development of
to take local residents beyond their own ideological and organizational frameworks
communities to see problems in a broader that expanded the impact of community
light and focus on developing organizational organizing. The former underscores how a
frameworks at the national level. context such as the Great Depression pro-
The local efforts of the Communist Party duced and legitimized conflict tactics. The
were best expressed in the Unemployed times seemed to demand it.
 Critical Lessons from the Past╇╇ | 195

The Alinsky method of community to resolve the tension inherent in building a

organizing learned its tactics and approach national organizational structure while
from the Communist Party and the Con- focusing on the specific needs and people
gress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The involved in each local community.
Alinsky method encouraged organizers to
get community people in touch with their 1960s Organizing
anger, to “rub raw people’s resentments,”
to use any and all nonviolent tactics in order Perhaps the high point in the progressive
to publicize issues and win victories, and canon of the history of community organ-
thereby see the power of collective direct izing is the 1960s. Extending approximately
action. Alinsky believed that almost any and from 1960 through 1975, it is full of exam-
all tactics were justifiable to protect demo- ples of Progressive and Left community-�
cracy and advance the interests of working based efforts, all of them either produced or
people. He understood that power concedes renewed by the social movements of the
nothing without struggle, and the more cre- day.
ative and unpredictable a community’s strat- The radical ferment of the 1960s grew
egies and tactics the more effective their out of the civil rights movement. All efforts
efforts. Of course, Alinsky’s theory and stood on the shoulders and used the models
practice did not only use conflict. His efforts of the black struggle for equality after
used a wide variety of tactics to achieve World War II. Civil rights efforts such as the
their goals. But it was Alinsky’s use of mili- Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 and other
tant tactics for which he is best known. In anti-�segregationist community-�based strug-
the late 1930s, with so much at stake due to gles before and after it lay the groundwork
both economic depression and the rise of for Mobilization for Youth in 1958, the
fascists, militant protest fit well with the founding of SNCC (Student Non-�violent
turmoil in society. Coordinating Committee) in 1960, and SDS
Alinsky explicitly rejected ideological (Students for a Democratic Society) and its
organizing, and later on he emphasized in community-�based ERAP (Economic
response to the New Left that organizing Research and Action Project) projects
must be “nonideological.” He saw ideo- shortly thereafter. The Ford Foundation,
logical organizing as fundamentally undem- NIMH (National Institute of Mental
ocratic, as contrary to community Health), and Kennedy administration fol-
organizing. Alinsky thought that the com- lowed in the early 1960s with well-�funded
munity should be an end in and of itself; experiments in community organizing, com-
that community was the perfect site for mitted to local control and citizen participa-
democratic process. He sought to counteract tion in service delivery and advocacy efforts.
the limits of community by developing The federal Community Action Program
loosely connected “people’s organizations.” began its support of Community Action
To that end he founded the Industrial Areas Agencies in 1965. The Association of Com-
Foundation (IAFâ•›) and through the IAF he munity Organizations for Reform Now
spread his approach. “Alinsky efforts” since (ACORN) was founded in 1970, as were
then have proliferated. But while his organ- many other community efforts. The period
izing theory recognized the importance of was a heyday for the experiments and initia-
building a structure beyond the local com- tives in community action and local demo-
munity, his militant, confrontational mode cratic participation. As Frost puts it,
of organizing always emphasized the
During the 1960s a wide range of political,
primacy of local work, the commitment to social welfare, church, labor, and government
local people and the local community. entities shifted their focus to the local and
Undoubtedly he did so in part because there communal level .â•›.â•›. The massive shift of organ-
were so many other social movement efforts izing sites to the community contributed to
at the time working on a national scale. But what came to be called the “backyard revolu-
he also did so because he was uncertain how tion” of the mid-Â�1960s and 1970s.
196 |╇╇ R. Fisher et al.

It also influenced gendered conceptions of movement’s use of the vision of “beloved

the sites and agents of resistance and social community” onward, community was both
change. “This understanding of the com- a strategic structural site as well as a critical
munity as an important site for organizing oppositional concept and vision.
more fully incorporated women’s activism, But there was also concern about the
challenged male-Â�defined notions of ‘work- limited scale of communities, the structural
place,’ and revealed the community as a limits of community organizations, and the
place of work for women” (Frost, 2001, pp. relation of community organizing to social
23–24). movement building. And most community
Community-Â�based efforts such as those organizing efforts had an “anti-Â�
of the Unemployed Councils and Alinsky organizational impulse, stressing the move-
were in the minority in the 1930s because ment before the organization” (Breines,
the primary locus of change was the factory, 1982, p. 50). Community leaders saw their
not the community. By the 1960s, however, overall work as more tied to movement
due in part to a growing conservatism building, such as the civil rights, student,
among labor as well as the fact that the antiwar, or women’s movement, than to
primary agents of social change in the community per se. Organizing in the 1960s
1960s—African Americans and college stu- was almost always about blending commun-
dents—were less heavily involved in the ity organizing with movement building, with
industrial factory system, community efforts an emphasis on the latter but with a deeply
began to replace factories as the primary internalized conviction that community
sites of social change. work was central to and inseparable from
But what was distinctive for this period movement building.
was the extensive role played by social Social movements have always been
movements in framing the type of organ- central to effective community efforts. Social
izing that occurred. There was certainly movements provide opportunities, direction,
broad interest in the local community, in and support for local efforts. Even more
and of itself, as the site of radical change than community organization, they have the
and opportunities for democratic participa- power to force claims, politics, strategies,
tion; but there was also a theoretical frame- and tactics on to the state and national
work of community as inherently alternative political stage, thereby legitimizing and cat-
and oppositional to mainstream society. apulting them beyond traditional barriers.
Tom Hayden, SDS leader, called for “a pol- Community initiatives are usually the
itics of responsible insurgence rooted in product of or tied to broader social
community after community,” reflecting movements.
“the felt needs of their locales” (Fisher, Critically, history also demonstrates that
1994, p. 104). More like Alinsky-�style local organizing gives birth to, galvanizes,
organizing than the strategies of the Old and sustains social movements. Just as com-
Left, the emphasis was on “letting the munity efforts need movements, movements
people decide” and “immediate action” do not develop out of or exist in a vacuum.
rather than developing “a full-Â�scale The populist, labor, or civil rights move-
program” (Payne, 1966, p. 87). But 1960s ment, or the feminist movements of the past
organizing was not about narrow concep- century, all developed out of local organ-
tions of community. Community was izing and became, as social movements, far
defined broadly to expand activism beyond greater than the sum of their local organiza-
the local and to offer a critique of main- tional parts (Fisher & Shragge, 2007).
stream society’s anti-Â�community features. The progressive canon of efforts in the
Community was used both as a site and as three historical periods discussed under-
an alternative. Efforts were focused on scores that some of the most noted com-
building actual community institutions as munity efforts in the last 100 years have
well as an overall sense of community. From been ones that understood and practiced key
Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights lessons. They understood that community
 Critical Lessons from the Past╇╇ | 197

efforts were political. They remained con- reactionary ones. But these eras are not
nected to and sought to build on their move- simply backlashes. They also represent deep
ment roots, benefited from a critique of the currents and ongoing elements in American
limits of the dominant political economy political life, ones that are all too important
and culture, and understood that local prob- and prominent to be considered anything
lems were almost always caused by forces less than central to understanding commun-
and decisions that rested outside the com- ity efforts.
munity. They therefore sought to organize
at both the local and national level, and
1920s
used a broad range of strategies and tactics,
including conflict tactics, which both The history of community organizations in
reflected their times and sought to change the 1920s offers a stark contrast to the
them. efforts in periods that came just before and
just after it. The 1920s are an archetypal
conservative political economy. Society
UNDERSTANDING THE ANTI-�CANON receded from concern with social issues into
more individualist and materialist pursuits.
Research in the past and present of com- Right-�wing community efforts and social
munity organizing reveals an “anti-Â�canon” movements resurfaced, as well, such as reli-
which must be included in the broader gious fundamentalism, the Ku Klux Klan,
history. The past, present, and future of and other nativist organizations. And the
community efforts cannot be effectively conservative context not only supported
understood without the place and persist- Right-�wing efforts but it also moderated and
ence of reactionary forms of community and reconfigured progressive ones.
community intervention, and without under- Prior to the 1920s social settlement
standing the role that reactionary contexts workers and other nascent social work
play in producing comparable forms of forms of community organization were
community action. committed to aiding individuals, building
community, and changing society. After
World War I, most community organization
Community Efforts are Not Inherently
and social work leaders rejected having any-
Progressive
thing to do with social causes (Berry, 1999).
Community organizing takes varied political Settlements and other community efforts did
forms; and there are as many conservative not decline in numbers as much as they
and reactionary uses of community in U.S. faded in significance and, for most at least,
history as there are democratic and opposi- shifted their programming (Chambers,
tional ones. The politics of a community 1963). In place of the core settlement ele-
effort depend on a wide variety of factors, ments of collaborative practice, community
including the reason(s) for organizing the building, and social action, the 1920s insti-
group, the ideology and politics of the tutionalized a much more restrictive and
leaders as well as the members, the domi- confined practice. Jane Addams said that
nant social movements at the time, and, social work reflected the “symptoms of this
especially, the political economy of the era. panic and with a kind of protective instinct,
What is clear in studying community carefully avoided any identification with the
efforts in eras such as the 1920s, 1950s, and phraseology of social reform” (quoted in
since 1975 is how they are yoked in a his- Lundblad, 1995, p. 667).
torical continuum of conflict and change. Not everyone dropped the idea of com-
Periods of conservatism and reaction are munity. Many who were previously inter-
often just that, reactions against—back- ested in community activism, now under
lashes that seek to undermine prior progres- pressure to change their ways, redefined
sive gains, to moderate former progressive community organization to be more profes-
efforts, and to support conservative and sional and less activist. The focus was now
198 |╇╇ R. Fisher et al.

on efficiency and effectiveness. This new These enclaves and their associations also
emphasis in community organization, which speak to the conservative uses of community
resulted in the formation of precursors to in a mobile, often rootless society. Inherent in
the current United Way, fit closely with the these communities is the constant search for
business-�minded temper of the time (Fabri- and re-�creation of community so common to
cant & Fisher, 2002). the American experience. And given that
The funding of community organizations most were fleeing diverse and messy cities,
changed as well. Aggregate funding in the communities they created emphasized order,
1920s improved but became more circum- stability, and homogeneity.
scribed, with allocations for services but not These neighborhood improvement associ-
for advocacy. The broader political eco- ations demonstrate how “constructions of
nomic context thus had a powerful con- race and manifestations of racism” are tied
servative impact on community-�based to community formation (Gotham, 2000, p.
efforts in the 1920s, fostering reactionary 629). And in racially tense urban environ-
efforts and incorporating and moderating ments, especially northern cities in the 1920s
liberal and Left organizations. and 1950s after the great migrations of
African Americans, homeowners’ associ-
ations were focused mostly on racial exclu-
1950s sion rather than community formation
(Plotkin, 2001). Massive conflicts therefore
The most prominent form of community
erupted in the 1950s between largely white
organizing in the 1950s was the neighbor-
working-�class, Roman Catholic, single-�
hood homeowners’ associations which
family homeowners on the one side, and
sought an exclusive, homogeneous concep-
African Americans on the other. In Sugrue’s
tion of community designed primarily to
study of Detroit in these years, most white
maintain community and protect the value
residents in outer-�city neighborhoods
of house investments. To that end, they did
thought their economic interests and com-
more than keep out “undesirables.” They
munal identities were threatened by racial
pressured elected officials or community
integration. They turned to homeowner
leaders for service provision in the form of
associations to defend their interests and
street cleaning and garbage removal. They
their world (Sugrue, 1996). When legal
helped enforce deed restrictions that regu-
means failed, anti-�communist rhetoric and
lated a wide variety of community planning
violence ensued.
and housing issues, including minimum sales
prices, uses of the house, even who could White Detroiters instigated over two hundred
own or reside there (Plotkin, 2005). In these incidents against blacks moving into formerly
organizations, community protection always all-�white neighborhoods, including harass-
went hand in hand with community main� ment, mass demonstrations, picketing, effigy
tenance. And homeowners’ associations burning, window breaking, arson, vandalism,
sought protection against their chief threat: and physical attacks. Most incidents followed
racial integration. improvement association meetings.
Restrictive covenants speak to the core (p. 233)
values and objectives of suburban commun-
Similar conditions of competition for space,
ity formation. As Fogelson (2005, p. 123)
housing, and community as well as similar
argues for affluent suburbs,
uses of homeowners’ and neighborhood
associations were evident in many other
What was it about them that required the
imposition of “protective restrictions”? To cities.
answer these questions, it is necessary to look Community efforts such as homeowners’
beyond the restrictions to the deep-�seated and property associations have a long
fears that were embodied in them—fear of history. But conservative eras such as the
others .â•›.â•›. fear of change, and fear of the 1950s tied these associations to a reaction-
market. ary politics. Segregationist goals were
 Critical Lessons from the Past╇╇ | 199

intertwined with community betterment, against their enemy targets—the forces of

interconnecting the protection of property radicalism and liberalism. They understood
values with a politics of neighborhood the value of community-�based organizing,
exclusion and racism. This continued in the but they understood even better the impor-
next reactionary political economy, the tance of national organizations, in concert
years since the late 1970s. Writing about with local efforts, fighting for state power.
Los Angeles, Davis found affluent home- They always saw themselves as part of a
owner organizing to be not only the source broader social movement. And they always
of the anti-�property tax initiatives in the late
focused on blending local work with elect-
1970s, but also a critical force behind the oral politics, a blend avoided by most pro-
“deliberate shaping” of “fragmented and gressive forms of community organizations
insular local sovereignties” that modeled since Saul Alinsky’s efforts in the late 1930s
suburban development throughout the (Fisher & Tamarkin, 2009).
United States (1990, p. 164). Of course, since 1975 a wide variety of
efforts continued to promote democratic
resistance and Left politics. Nevertheless,
Post 1975
the neoconservative political economy that
In the decades after 1975, the impact of largely determined the direction of most
conservative global and national contexts community organizing since 1980 has mod-
on local organizing continued to be enorm- erated most of them, pushed them away
ous with organizing often focusing on social from oppositional strategies, and even
rather than political economic issues. Promi- adopted Left-�populist practices in Right-�
nent examples could include groups such as populist grassroots efforts. The load shed-
Restore our Alienated Rights (ROAR) in ding of public responsibility by the national
Boston, opposing busing, anti-�abortion government foisted new burdens on local
organizing and picketing, and Christian fun- groups. The dramatic increase of nonprofit
damentalists organizing at both the national organizations in the past three decades,
and local level to advance their fundamen- including community-�based efforts, is a
talist vision and issues. It is easy to argue manifestation of this national policy. And
that the New Right movement has been the the proliferation of community work must
most successful social change initiative since be understood as a byproduct of neocon-
1980. The fusion of disciples and propo- servative politics and policies, the result of
nents of free-�market economics and anti-� the interaction of community concepts and
communist/Cold War politics, on the one practices, on the one hand, with the broader
hand, with leaders and congregation national political economy, on the other.
members of Christian fundamentalist
churches on the other, resulted in the most
powerful political grouping of our era.
Many of their efforts were at the national REFERENCES
level, and most of it was top-�down rather Berry, M. (1999). Service and cause: Both sides of the
than bottom-�up. But a great deal of the New coin. In J. Rothman (Ed.), Reflections on community
Right was also focused on mobilizing people organization: Enduring themes and critical issues
at the grassroots, in their local communities. (pp. 106–122). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
In the 1970s, in fact, many campaigns, such Breines, W. (1982). Community and organization in
the new left, 1962–1968: The great refusal. New
as opposition to the Equal Rights Amend- Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
ment, came out of grassroots, community Chambers, C. A. (1963). Seedtime of reform: American
efforts. New Right efforts were successful social service and social action, 1918–1933. Minne-
primarily because they straddled critical apolis: University of Minnesota Press.
divides evident in the Left/progressive canon Davis, M. (1990). City of quartz: Excavating the future
in Los Angeles. New York: Vintage Books.
of community organizing. They blended Fabricant, M. B. & Fisher, R. (2002). Settlement
issues of both political economy and culture. houses under siege. New York: Columbia University
They used conflict strategies and tactics Press.
200 |╇╇ R. Fisher et al.

Fisher, R. (1994). Let the people decide: Neighborhood A role model for the 1990s. Social Work, 40(5),
organizing in America (2nd ed.). New York: 661–669.
Twayne. Morris, A. (1986). The origins of the civil rights move-
Fisher, R. (2005). History, context, and emerging issues ments. New York: Free Press.
for community practice. In M. Weil (Ed.), The hand- Naison, M. (2004). Communists in Harlem during the
book of community practice (pp. 34–58). Thousand depression. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Oaks, CA: Sage. Payne, B. (1966). SNCC: An overview two years later.
Fisher, R. & Shragge, E. (2007). Contextualizing com- In M. Cohen & D. Hale (Eds.), The new student left:
munity organizing: Lessons from the past, tensions An anthology. Boston: Beacon.
in the present, opportunities for the future. In M. Plotkin, W. (2001). Hemmed in: The struggle against
Orr (Ed.), Transforming the city: Community organ- racial restrictive covenants and deed restrictions in
izing and the challenge of political change (pp. post-�WWII Chicago. Journal of the Illinois State
193–217). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Historical Society, 94(1), 39–69.
Fisher, R. & Tamarkin, S. (2009). What ACORN and Plotkin, W. (2005). Restrictive covenants. In R. S. Levy
the new right can teach us about current trends in (Ed.), Antisemitism: A historical encyclopedia of
community organizing. Social Policy, 39(1), 48–50. prejudice and persecution (pp. 577–599). Santa
Fogelson, R. M. (2005). Bourgeois nightmares: Subur- Barbara, CA: ABC-�Clio.
bia, 1870–1930. New Haven, CT: Yale University Quandt, J. B. (1970). From the small town to the great
Press. community: The social thought of progressive intel-
Frost, J. (2001). An interracial movement of the poor: lectuals. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Community organizing and the new left in the Press.
1960s. New York: New York University Press. Shapiro, E. S. (1978). Robert A. Woods and the settle-
Gotham, K. F. (2000). Urban space, restrictive cove- ment house impulse. Social Service Review, 52,
nants and the origins of racial residential segregation 215–226.
in a U.S. city, 1900–50. International Journal of Sugrue, T. (1996). The origins of the urban crisis: Race
Urban and Regional Research, 24(3), 616–633. and inequality in postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ:
Lundblad, K. (1995). Jane Addams and social reform: Princeton University Press.
 CHAPTER 22

Community Organizing or Organizing Community?

Gender and the Crafts of Empowerment

Susan Stall and Randy Stoecker

Women’s work and community organizing have been organized around different logics.
are both, to an extent, invisible labor The separation of spheres also led to two
(Daniels, 1987). What people see is the different community organizing styles. Com-
flashy demonstration, not knowing the munity organizing typically begins in the
many hours of preparation entailed in build- expanded private sphere of the neighbor-
ing relationships and providing for particip- hood. But because the neighborhood is not
ants’ basic needs. Our analysis begins with as isolated as the family, and its networks
the historical division of American culture include secondary as well as primary rela-
into public and private spheres that split the tionships, it can also be a public sphere
“public” work done mostly by men in the space. This may particularly be the case for
formal economy and government from the the men in those neighborhoods, who are
“private” work done mostly by women in pressured by the separation of spheres to
the community and home (Tilly & Scott, think of themselves as public sphere actors.
1978). The cult of domesticity in the mid-� Consequently, there is a public sphere
19th century attempted to idealize and approach and a private sphere approach to
confine women’s activities to the domestic community organizing that parallels differ-
private sphere (Cott, 1977). But African ences between the community experiences
American, Latina, and Asian American of men and women. The community organ-
women, treated as units of labor, were his- izing model we believe most exemplifies the
torically excluded from the dominant ideal public sphere approach has been most asso-
of the family as a protected private haven ciated with Saul Alinsky. The community
(Glenn, Chang, & Forcey, 1994). Instead, organizing model we believe best exempli-
women of color and low-�income women fies the private sphere approach has been
expanded the boundaries of mothering and developed by a wide variety of women.
the private sphere beyond the private house-
hold as they raised and nurtured children in
extended family networks within communit- THE ALINSKY MODEL
ies struggling for survival (Stack, 1974).
Central to the institution of black mother- The very term community organizing is
hood, for example, are women-�centered net- inextricably linked with the late Saul
works of blood mothers and “other Alinsky, whose community organizing
mothers”—“women who assist blood-Â� career began in the late 1930s. While a
mothers by sharing mothering responsibil- graduate student at the University of
ities” (Collins, 1991, p. 119). Chicago, he took a job to develop a juvenile
The public and private spheres have influ- delinquency program in Chicago’s “Back of
enced each other through routes such as the the Yards” neighborhood—a slum of poor
economic impact of women’s unpaid Poles, Lithuanians, and Slovaks downwind
domestic labor or the impact of economic of the Chicago Stockyards. When he arrived,
policy changes on family quality of life but the Congress of Industrial Organizations
202 |╇╇ S. Stall and R. Stoecker

(CIO) was organizing the male stockyard sources. First, bell hooks (1990) notes the
workers living there. Expanding the CIO historic importance for African Americans
model beyond workplace issues, Alinsky of “homeplace” as a site to recognize and
organized the BYNC from local predomi- resist domination. Historically, African
nantly male neighborhood groups, ethnic American people believed that the construc-
clubs, union locals, bowling leagues, and an
tion of a homeplace, however fragile and
American Legion Post. The success of tenuous (the slave hut, the wooden shack),
BYNC in getting expanded city services and had a radical political dimension: it was
political power started Alinsky off on a long
about the construction of a safe place where
career of organizing poor urban communit- black people could affirm one another and
ies around the country (Finks, 1984; Reitzes
by so doing heal many of the wounds
& Reitzes, 1987). Alinsky had little patience
inflicted by racist domination. Later, in the
for the version of community organizing late 19th and early 20th centuries, African
practiced by predominantly women social American women involved in the Black
workers, saying, “They organize to get rid Women’s Clubs organized day care centers,
of four-�legged rats and stop there; we organ-
orphanages, and nursing homes. Others,
ize to get rid of four-�legged rats so we can
such as Ida B. Wells, organized campaigns
get on to removing two-Â�legged rats” around such issues as lynching and rape
(Alinsky, 1971, p. 68). Alinsky also argued(Giddings, 1984). While engaging in indi-
that a career as a community organizer had vidual and group actions to create “Black
to come before all else, including family, female spheres of influence within existing
and to enforce this he would keep his train-
structures of oppression,” Black women
ees up all hours of the night at meetings and
often find that they must simultaneously
discussions. Heather Booth, who went on to work for institutional transformation
help found the Midwest Academy and (Collins, 1991, p. 141; Gilkes, 1980).
Citizen Action, quit the Community Action Anglo women’s “municipal housekeep-
Program of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foun-ing” activities of the 19th and early 20th
dation (IAFâ•›), believing that the IAF was not
centuries are the second source of current
sensitive to women’s issues and provided women-Â�centered organizing efforts. Then
them with inadequate training (Reitzes & public spirited women, in attempting to
Reitzes, 1987). overcome disapproval of their public role,
Alinsky’s approach has influenced an explained that they were only protecting
entire generation of organizers, producing their homes and families by extending their
powerful organizations and visible victories
activities from the home into the public
across the country: Back of the Yards and arena. Women claimed the right to be
TWO in Chicago, SECO in Baltimore, guardians of the neighborhood, just as they
FIGHT in Rochester, MACO in Detroit, were acknowledged to be guardians of the
ACORN in Little Rock, ETCO in Toledo, family (Haywoode, 1991).
and COPS in San Antonio, among others. Since then, women have created numer-
These organizations have in some cases ous voluntary and benevolent associations
saved entire communities from destruction to campaign for concrete reforms in local
and produced influential leaders who have neighborhoods and broader reforms in
gone on to change the face of the public municipal services, education, labor,
sphere. housing, health care, and children’s rights
(Berg, 1978; Tax, 1980). The most famous
of these were the settlement houses, founded
THE WOMEN-�CENTERED MODEL primarily by college-�educated white middle-�
class women who believed they should live
Unlike the Alinsky model, the women-� in the neighborhood where they worked
centered model of community organizing (Bryan & Davis, 1990, p. 5). The most well-�
cannot be attributed to a single person or known settlement house organizer was Jane
movement. We trace the model to two main Addams, who with Ellen Gates Starr
 Gender and the Crafts of Empowerment╇╇ | 203

founded Hull-Â�House on Chicago’s west side Among all the tenets of the Alinsky
in 1889. They developed parks, play- model, the assumption of self-�interest has
grounds, community services, and neighbor- the strongest continuing sway and is greatly
hood plans. They also participated in reform influenced by the centrality of the public
movements promoting labor legislation for sphere in the Alinsky model. Since Alinsky
women and children, care of delinquents, saw society as a compromise between com-
and women’s suffrage. But community peting self-Â�interested individuals in the
organizers often viewed them as engaging in public sphere, conflict was inevitable, and a
charity work rather than adversarial social pluralist polity was the means by which
action (Brandwein, 1987; Finks, 1984), and compromise was reached. Because poor
clinical social workers saw them as violating people are at an initial disadvantage in that
the detached casework method that emphas- polity, the organizer’s job is to prepare cit-
ized individual treatment over social reform izens to engage in the level of public conflict
and community development (Specht & necessary for them to be included in the
Courtney, 1994). compromise process. Reflecting the conflict
The women-�centered model also carries a orientation that is necessary for working in
history of success different from the Alinsky the masculine competitive public sphere,
model. The activism of women in the early Alinsky contended that the only way to
settlement movement, the civil rights move- overcome the inertia that exists in most
ment, and the consciousness-Â�raising groups communities was to “rub raw the resent-
of the radical branch of the 1970s’ women’s ments of the people in the community”
movement allowed women to challenge (1971, p. 116), relying on symbols and
private and public arrangements in ways images that reinforced a “successful forceful
that would forever affect their relationships, masculinity.”
housework, parenting practices, and career The women-�centered model begins with
paths. The consequent changes in women’s women’s traditional roles in mothering, not
health care and women’s knowledge of their inherently linked to biological sex but
own bodies, in cultural practices around derived from a “socially constructed set of
dating and relationships, and the relation- activities and relationships involved in nur-
ship between work and family are still rever- turing and caring for people” (Glenn et al.,
berating through society. Today, women of 1994). These activities and relationships
color and low-Â�income/working-Â�class women become transformed by “community other
create and sustain numerous protest efforts mothers” in the black community who build
and organizations to alter living conditions community institutions and fight for the
or policies that threaten their families and welfare of their neighbors (Collins, 1991).
communities (Bookman & Morgen, 1988; Building on Collins’ work, Naples describes
Garland, 1988; Gutierrez & Lewis, 1992; “activist mothering” as a broadened under-
Haywoode, 1991; McCourt, 1977; Naples, standing of mothering practices “to com-
1997; Rabrenovic, 1995). These include, but prise all actions, including social activism,
are not limited to, tenant (Leavitt & Saegert, that addressed the needs of their children
1990), low-Â�income housing (Feldman & and the community” (1992).
Stall, 1994), welfare rights (Naples, 1992), Rather than a morality of individual
and environmental issues (Krauss, 1997). rights, women develop a collectivist orienta-
tion (Robnett, 1996) and learn a morality of
responsibility connected to relationships
(Gilligan, 1977). Their activism is often a
COMPARING THE MODELS
response to the needs of their own children
and of other children in the community
Human Nature and Conflict
(Gilkes, 1980).
The Alinsky model and the women-�centered Women-�centered organizers view justice
model have very different views of human not as a compromise between self-�interested
nature and conflict. individuals but as a practical reciprocity in
204 |╇╇ S. Stall and R. Stoecker

the network of relationships that make up did not see a need for dramatic structural
the community (Ackelsberg, 1988; Hay- adjustments in the political system.
woode, 1991; Stall, 1991). The women-�centered model approaches
politics from a consciousness of the exclu-
sionary qualities of the public–private sphere
Power and Politics
split. As a consequence, women have politi-
For the Alinsky model, power and politics cized the expanded private sphere as a
both occur in the public sphere. When means to combat exclusion (Kaplan, 1982).
power is zero-�sum, the only way to get more Cynthia Hamilton (1991), a community
is to take it from someone else—a necessity organizer in South Central Los Angeles,
in a masculinized public sphere structured described a primarily women-�directed
around competition and exploitation. organizing campaign to stop the solid waste
Alinsky was adamant that real power could incinerator planned for their community in
not be given but only taken. Thus, poor the late 1980s. These low-�income women,
communities could gain power through primarily African American and with no
public sphere action—picking a single elite prior political experience, were motivated
target, isolating it from other elites, person- by the health threat to their homes and chil-
alizing it, and polarizing it (Alinsky, 1971). dren. They built a loose, but effective,
In women-�centered organizing, power organization, the Concerned Citizens of
begins in the private sphere of relationships South Central Los Angeles, and were gradu-
and is conceptualized as limitless and collect- ally joined by white, middle-�class, and pro-
ive. “Co-Â�active power” is based on human fessional women from across the city. The
interdependence and the development of all activists began to recognize their shared
within the group or the community through gender oppression as they confronted the
collaboration (Follett, 1940; Hartsock, sarcasm and contempt of male political offi-
1974). The goal of a women-Â�centered organ- cials and industry representatives—who dis-
izing process is “empowerment”—a develop- missed their human concerns as “irrational,
mental process that includes building skills uninformed, and disruptive” (Hamilton,
through repetitive cycles of action and reflec- 1991, p. 44)—and restrictions on their
tion that evoke new skills and understand- organizing created by their family’s needs.
ings, and in turn provoke new and more Eventually, they forced incinerator industry
effective actions (Education Center for Com- representatives to compromise and helped
munity Organizing [ECCO], 1989; Kieffer, their families accept a new division of labor
1984). Empowerment includes developing a in the home to accommodate activists’
more positive self-�concept and self-� increased public political participation.
confidence, a more critical worldview, and
the cultivation of individual and collective
Leadership Development
skills and resources for social and political
action (Weil, 1986). Leadership is another characteristic of these
The Alinsky model sees community models that shows the influence of the pub-
organizations as already in the public sphere lic–private split. The Alinsky model main-
and, consequently, already part of the polit- tains an explicit distinction between public
ical system. Alinsky believed that poor sphere leaders, called “organizers,” and
people could form their own interest group private sphere community leaders. One goal
and access the polity just like any other of the Alinsky model is to develop those
interest group. They may have to act up to private sphere community leaders to occupy
be recognized initially, but once recognized, positions in formal organizations that can
their interests would be represented just like extend their leadership beyond the commun-
anyone else’s. Because Alinsky did not ques- ity into the public sphere. For Alinsky, the
tion the masculine competitive structure of organizer is a paid professional consultant
the public sphere and the self-�interested from outside the community whose job is to
personalities required of its participants, he get people to adopt a delegitimizing frame
 Gender and the Crafts of Empowerment╇╇ | 205

(Gamson, Fireman, & Rytina, 1982) that organizing process centers on identifying
breaks the power structure’s hold over them. and confronting public issues to be
The Alinsky model maintains a strict role addressed in the public sphere. Con-
separation between outside organizers and sequently, the organization needs to be
the indigenous leaders. Organizers have public and traditionally masculine—big,
influence, but only through their relation- tough, and confrontational. Door knocking
ships with indigenous leaders. Both the loca- is the initial strategy for identifying issues.
tion of the organizer as outside of the local Those issues then become the means of
community and the elevation of rational, recruitment to the organizing effort. The
dispassionate role-�playing contribute to the organization bills itself as the best, if not
gendering of this role. only, means of resolving those issues. The
There is less separation between organiz- public activities of the mass march, public
ers and leaders in the women-�centered rally, explicit confrontation, and celebrated
model because women-�centered organizers, win are all part of building a strong organ-
rather than being outsiders, are more often ization that can publicly represent the com-
rooted in local networks. They are closely munity’s interests.
linked to those with whom they work, and In the Alinsky model, the organizer is not
they act as facilitators of the empowerment there just to win a few issues but to build an
process, premised on the belief that all have enduring formal organization that can con-
the capacity to be leaders/organizers. This is tinue to claim power and resources for the
a conception of leadership as teaching community—to represent the community in
(Payne, 1989). They find they need to deal a competitive public sphere pluralist polity.
with women’s sense of powerlessness and These organizations typically have tradi-
low self-�esteem (Miller, 1986) before involv- tional decision-�making structures that
ing them in sustained organizing efforts. mirror the male-�dominated public sphere
Women-Â�centered organizers develop “group structures they confront. The organizer is
centered” leadership (Payne, 1989) that supposed to build the organization from the
“embraces the participation of many as community’s preexisting formalized organ-
opposed to creating competition over the izational base of churches, service organiza-
elevation of only a few” (ECCO, 1989, p. tions, clubs, and so forth. This emphasis on
16). Analyses of women-�centered organizing building formal organization reflects the
and leadership development efforts also public sphere emphasis and the gendered
underline the importance of “centerwo- assumptions of the Alinsky model.
men,” or “bridge leaders.” These leaders use The women-Â�centered organizing model
existing local networks to develop social emphasizes creating an ideal private sphere-�
groups and activities that create a sense of like setting rather than a large public sphere
familial/community consciousness, connect- organization. The process begins by creating
ing people with similar concerns and height- a safe and nurturing space where women
ening awareness of shared issues (Robnett, can identify and discuss issues affecting the
1996). These leaders transform social net- private sphere (Gutierrez, 1990). This model
works into a political force and translate uses the small group to establish trust and
skills that women learn in their families and build “informality, respect, [and] tolerance
communities (e.g., interpersonal skills, plan- of spontaneity” (Hamilton, 1991, p. 44).
ning and coordination, conflict mediation) The civil rights organizer, Ella Baker, was
into effective public sphere leadership. dubious about the long-�term value of mass
meetings, lobbying, and demonstrations.
Instead, she advocated organizing people in
The Organizing Process
small groups so that they could understand
Finally, these two models adopt organizing their potential power and how best to use it,
processes that reflect the influence of, and which had a powerful influence on the
different conceptualizations of, the public– Student Nonviolent Coordinating Commit-
private split. Within the Alinsky model, the tee (Payne, 1989). Gutierrez and Lewis
206 |╇╇ S. Stall and R. Stoecker

affirm that “the small group provides the through women-Â�centered organizing, been
ideal environment for exploring the social moved from the realm of private troubles to
and political aspects of ‘personal’ problems public issues, in many cases transforming
and for developing strategies for work the agendas, the constituents, and the strat-
toward social change” (1992, p. 126). egies of traditional organizing. Community
Moreover, smaller group settings create and organizing is committed to democratic goals
sustain the relationship building and sense and is supportive of humane ends. With the
of significance and solidarity so integral to greater influx of women into the Alinsky
community. model of community organizing and the
Because the women-�centered model popularization of feminist goals among men
focuses less on immediate public sphere and women, there is evidence that the inclu-
action, a continuing organization is not as sion of sexuality, emotionality, and procrea-
central in initial organizing. In place of the tion in community organizing is slowly
focus on organization building are “modest transforming its gendered logic and practice,
struggles”—“small, fragmented, and some- the sexual division of labor among com-
times contradictory efforts by people to munity organizers, and the issues that com-
change their lives” (Krauss, 1983, p. 54). munity organizations are willing to address
Engagement in modest resistance focused on (Stall, 1986).
the expanded private sphere allows women Still, the corporate and government
to immediately alter their community and sectors show no signs of becoming less com-
gain a sense of control over their lives. petitive, and there are continuous conservat-
ive cries to preserve a private sphere
protected from the brutalities of public life.
CONCLUSION: SEPARATE MODELS, In this context, the weaknesses of one model
LINKED ISSUES are the strengths of the other.
The strengths of the women-�centered
This chapter represents an attempt to get model are in building the relationships that
behind the scenes of social movements—to can sustain a struggle over the long haul.
look at the community organizing that pro- The social role of motherhood is still
vides the foundation for effective social important for women’s activism. And while
movement work. We have elaborated two we have argued that the women-�centered
models of community organizing that have model can span the boundaries between the
developed both from the gendered positions public and private spheres—making per-
of their founders and their consequent sonal issues into public issues—we are con-
experientially derived conceptualizations of cerned that the model cannot, by itself,
the public and private spheres. Although we transform the public sphere. Women-�
do not see the qualities or values of the centered organizing can move private sphere
Alinsky model or the women-�centered issues such as health, housing, and
model as inherently linked to biological sex, sanitation into the public sphere. But their
community organizing is shaped through the resolution is subject to the competitive
specificity of men’s and women’s action processes of that sphere. Thus, the
within particular historical circumstances women-�centered model, and community
and periods. organizing in general, faces a “paradox of
What are the implications of these two empowerment”—the need to organize
models for the future of community organ- simultaneously at the personal and struc-
izing? Within the field, women-�centered tural levels (Rappaport, 1981).
organizing has transformed the traditional But how do we combine the models?
organizing agenda so that issues formerly First, we need to understand whether there
considered “private”—violence against are times when one model is more viable
women (Park, 1997; Wittner, 1997), toxic than the other. Second, we need to learn
waste disposal (Krauss, 1997), and postpar- whether certain circumstances might call for
tum depression (Taylor, 1996)—have, certain organizing models. Third, we need
 Gender and the Crafts of Empowerment╇╇ | 207

to investigate the existing examples and the Follett, M. P. (1940). Dynamic administration. New
future implications of women engaging in York: Harper & Row.
Gamson, W. A., Fireman, B., & Rytina, S. (1982).
the Alinsky model of organizing and men Encounters with unjust authority. Homewood, IL:
engaging in women-�centered organizing. Dorsey.
The gendered biases of social movement Garland, A. W. (1988). Women activists: Challenging
theory have led to neglect of not just the abuse of power. New York: The Feminist Press.
women’s work in social movements but of Giddings, P. (1984). Where and when I enter: The
impact of black women on race and sex in America.
an entire substructure of action, based in
New York: William Morrow.
informal groupings, predominantly of Gilkes, C. T. (1980). Holding back the ocean with a
women, engaged in building the relation- broom: Black women and their community work. In
ships necessary to sustain long-Â�term strug- L. R. Rose (Ed.), The black woman (pp. 217–232).
gles. We need to correct these biases to Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s con-
recognize social action that may not imme-
ceptions of self and morality. Harvard Educational
diately appear as such, because it provides a Review, 47(4), 481–517.
foundation for the social movement action Glenn, E. N., Chang, G., & Forcey, L. R. (1994).
more typically studied. Mothering: Ideology, experience, and agency. New
York: Routledge.
Gutierrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of
color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work,
REFERENCES 35, 149–154.
Gutierrez, L. M. & Lewis, E. A. (1992). A feminist per-
Ackelsberg, M. (1988). Communities, resistance, and spective on organizing with women of color. In F. G.
women’s activism: Some implications for a demo- Rivera & J. I. Erlich (Eds.), Community organizing
cratic policy. In A. Bookman & S. Morgen (Eds.), in a diverse society (pp. 97–116). Boston: Allyn &
Women and the politics of empowerment (pp. Bacon.
279–313). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hamilton, C. (1991). Women, home, and community.
Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Women of Power, 20, Spring, 42–45.
Vintage. Hartsock, N. (1974). Political change: Two perspec-
Berg, B. J. (1978). The remembered gate: Origins of tives on power. Quest: A Feminist Quarterly, 1(1),
American feminism: The women and the city 10–25.
1800–1860. New York: Oxford University Press. Haywoode, T. L. (1991). Working class feminism: Cre-
Bookman, A. & Morgen, S. (1988). Women and the ating a politics of community, connection, and
politics of empowerment. Philadelphia, PA: Temple concern. PhD dissertation, City University of New
University Press. York, New York.
Brandwein, R. A. (1987). Women and community hooks, b. (1990. Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural
organization. In D. S. Burden & N. Gottlieb (Eds.), politics. Boston: South End.
The woman client. New York: Tavistock. Kaplan, T. (1982). Female consciousness and collective
Bryan, M. L. M. & Davis, A. E. (1990). 100 years at action: The case of Barcelona 1910–1913. Signs:
Hull-�House. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7(3),
Collins, P. H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Know- 545–566.
ledge, consciousness, and the politics of empower- Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A devel-
ment. New York: Routledge. opmental perspective. In J. Rappaport, C. Swift, &
Cott, N. E. (1977). The bonds of womanhood: R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps
“Woman’s sphere” in New England. 1780–1835. toward understanding action (pp. 9–36). New York:
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Haworth.
Daniels, A. K. (1987). Invisible work. Social Problems, Krauss, C. (1983). The elusive process of citizen activ-
34, 403–415. ism. Social Policy, 14(2), 50–55.
Education Center for Community Organizing (ECCO). Krauss, C. (1997). Challenging power: Toxic waste
(1989). Women on the advance: Highlights of a protests and the politicization of white, working-�
national conference on women and organizing. Stony class women. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), Community
Point, NY: ECCO. activism and feminist politics (pp. 129–150). New
Feldman, R. M. & Stall, S. (1994). The politics of space York: Routledge.
appropriation: A case study of women’s struggles for Leavitt, J. & Saegert, S. (1990). From abandonment to
homeplace in Chicago public housing, edited by hope: Community-�households in Harlem. New
Irwin Altman and Arza Churchman. Human Behav- York: Columbia University Press.
ior and Environment Series, Women and the Envir- McCourt, K. (1977). Working class women and grass-
onment 13, 167–99. New York: Plenum. roots politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Finks, P. D. (1984). The radical vision of Saul Alinsky. Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of
New York: Paulist Press. women. Boston: Beacon.
208 |╇╇ S. Stall and R. Stoecker

Naples, N. A. (1992). Activist mothering: Cross-� angels: How social work has abandoned its mission.
generational continuity in the community work of New York: Free Press.
women from low-�income urban neighborhoods. Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in
Gender and Society, 6, 441–463. a Black community. New York: Harper & Row.
Naples, N. A. (1997). Community activism and femin- Stall, S. (1986). Women organizing to create safe
ist politics. New York: Routledge. shelter. Neighborhood Works, 9(8), 10–13; 9(9):
Park, L. S.-H. (1997). Navigating the anti-Â�immigrant 10–11, 12.
wave: The Korean women’s hotlline and the politics Stall, S. (1991). “The women are just back of every-
of community. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), Community thingâ•›.â•›.â•›.”: Power and politics revisited in small town
activism and feminist politics (pp. 175–198). New America. PhD dissertation, Iowa State University,
York: Routledge. Ames, Iowa.
Payne, C. (1989). Ella Baker and models of social Tax, M. (1980). The rising of the women: Feminist
change. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and solidarity and class conflicts, 1880–1917. New York:
Society, 14(4), 885–899. Monthly Review Press.
Rabrenovic, G. (1995). Woman and collective action in Taylor, V. (1996). Rock-�a-by baby: Feminism, self-�
urban neighborhoods. In J. A. Garber & R. S. help, and postpartum depression. New York:
Turner (Eds.), Gender in urban research (pp. 77–97). Routledge.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Tilly, L. A. & Scott, J. W. (1978). Women, work, and
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of a paradox: A social family. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.
policy of empowerment over prevention. American Weil, M. (1986). Women, community, and organizing.
Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1–26. In N. Van Den Bergh & L. B. Cooper (Eds.), Femin-
Reitzes, D. C. & Reitzes, D. C. (1987). The Alinsky ist visions for social work (pp. 187–210). Silver
legacy: Alive and kicking. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Springs, MD: National Association of Social
Robnett, B. (1996). African-�American women in the Workers.
civil rights movement, 1954–1965: Gender, leader- Wittner, J. (1997). Reconceptualizing agency in
ship, and micromobilization. American Journal of domestic violence court. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), Com-
Sociology, 101, 1661–1693. munity activism and feminist politics (pp. 81–104).
Specht, H. & Courtney, M. E. (1994). Unfaithful New York: Routledge.
 CHAPTER 23

Community Building
Limitations and Promise

Bill Traynor

Among the important shifts in the commun- “community organizing-Â�lite,” a largely

ity development movement over the last undisciplined and underresourced foray into
decade has been the incorporation of “com- community building that raised more chal-
munity building,” resulting in a more com- lenges than it was able to address.
prehensive approach to community renewal Nonetheless, the lessons we have learned
than has been practiced in the past and chal- as a field during this time have been import-
lenging community-Â�based organizations ant ones, so while “community building”
such as community development corpora- remains elusive as a movement per se, its
tions (CDCs) to broaden their efforts and potential as a field of practice continues to
reconnect with residents. In the process grow. This is critical as the conditions for
these same organizations have been retool- community building, particularly in urban
ing and reexamining their relationship with, neighborhoods, continue to erode. A
and role within, the communities they serve. renewed commitment, coupled with new
Practitioners, funders, and policy experts in thinking and practice focused more on
our field are exploring a broader approach building a new demand environment in
to community redevelopment which includes community is needed if this work is to have
an aggressive effort to redevelop the civic an impact.
and social infrastructure alongside the phys-
ical infrastructure.
But this work has not proven easy to WHAT EXACTLY IS COMMUNITY
grasp or to practice well, and today it BUILDING?
remains only sporadically resourced by
foundations, in part because its impact is Efforts to define the term “community
hard to measure. Moreover, most of the building” have been a ritual part of nearly
work that has been supported has been every conference on community building in
limited to encouraging CDCs and others to the last decade. This ritual has illuminated
engage residents in their work—a supply-Â� different facets of our collective understand-
side strategy—popularized through the ing, but has been unable to reveal a univer-
Comprehensive Community Initiative (CCI) sally useful definition. Some of these
era of the 1990s. Rather than investing in definitions, posted on the National Com-
building new community infrastructure so munity Building Network (NCBN) website,
that residents can better connect with each are representative of the range of ideas
other (an essential component of social embraced by “community building”:
capital development) the CCI era invested in
large, well-Â�established community-Â�based • “An ongoing process where members
organizations. Rather than investing in new of € a community share skills, talents,
thinking and practice, this era saw efforts to knowledge and experiences that
adapt traditional community organizing strengthen or develop themselves and
practice to a new setting. The result was the community.”
210 |╇╇ B. Traynor

• “Continuous, self-Â�renewing efforts by • A heavier emphasis on community

residents, community leaders and pro- organizing as a strategy for identifying
fessionals engaged in collective action and developing community leaders and
aimed at problem solving and enrich- shaping the kinds of local issues that
ment that results in improved lives and affect the progress of the community
greater equity and produces new or renewal effort.
strengthened institutions, organizations, • A renewed emphasis on community
relationships, and new standards and planning, and the development of a
expectations for life in community.” community building plan, as a prerequi-
• “Community building has come to refer site to development activities.
to a variety of intentional efforts to (a) • A more intensive effort to include and
organize and strengthen social connec- involve neighborhood residents in the
tions or (b) build common values that organization, planning, and implemen-
promote collective goals (or both).” tation of community renewal efforts.
This stems from a recognition that when
For the purposes of the community develop- residents have a stake in making posit-
ment field, it has been possible (and some ive change, the change is likely to be
may feel enough) to define community more long-�lasting.
building in reference to a number of import- • More emphasis on making sure there
ant shifts in the practice of community are clear lines of accountability between
development, mostly in response to chang- the CBO and the community that it
ing conditions that practitioners and sup- represents.
porters of community development were • More interest in developing collabora-
experiencing. Some of these conditions were tive relationships among CBOs and
external; wholesale demographic shifts achieving a continuum of support at the
driven by new waves of newcomer popula- neighborhood level.
tions, the need to create more complex com-
munity development strategies for both hot Community building seen in this way—as a
market environments and chronically soft set of activities complementing or enhancing
markets, and the shrinking of federal and an affordable housing or economic develop-
state commitments to urban redevelopment ment agenda—has now been widely prac-
to name a few. Other conditions were attrib- ticed by many CBOs over the past decade
utable to the development of the community and with mixed success.
development industry itself which had More recently, community building is
drifted for two decades toward a concentra- emerging in a different light—being seen as
tion on affordable housing production as an important (some would say essential)
the principal strategy for community activity which stands on its own as a field of
renewal at the expense, some thought, of practice. Today, there is a growing recogni-
more comprehensive approaches. The “com- tion by practitioners that there is a funda-
munity building” response was varied but mental condition that consistently undercuts
included: all our efforts to rebuild struggling commu-
nities—chronic disengagement. In many
• A shift toward more comprehensive communities, civic life—from the city
approaches to community development council chambers to the block club meeting
that involve a wide range of non-Â�bricks- room—can be a hostile environment for the
and-�mortar activities. Also, a perspec- average person, ruled by cynicism and divi-
tive that recognizes the multiple linkages sion, and dominated by entrenched habits of
between housing and economic develop- isolation and detachment. Exploring the
ment and the wide range of efforts that sources of this disengagement could be a
the Local Initiatives Support Corpora- whole separate chapter. It is enough to say
tion (LISC) has referred to as “social that a community needs a functional civic
development.” infrastructure in order to shape and sustain
 Limitations and Promise╇╇ | 211

physical and economic development of any forward is to find ways to shape a new
kind, whether implemented by nonprofits, environment that holds myriad opportun-
private developers, or the public sector. This ities for people to step back into public life
is particularly true of urban areas that have in a way that feels safe, fun, and productive.
now experienced four or five decades of This will require new thinking and new
decline, combined with historic demo- practice and a willingness to work both on
graphic shifts from “old timer” to new- the supply side of the problem as well as on
comer populations. The degradation of the the demand side.
civic habits and institutions that supported
public life in these places has been dramatic
if not complete. Those habits and institu- SUPPLY SIDE COMMUNITY BUILDING:
tions have not been rebuilt to either accom- REFORMING THE DELIVERY SYSTEM
modate these new populations or to address
the mobility and diversity of city life in the For the most part, community building
21st century. emerged in the early 1990s as a supply side
The unique hallmark of community strategy, fostered first by foundations and
development is that—in the information age others frustrated with the pace of change
and the global economy—it remains stead- represented by the “bricks and mortar”
fastly place based. Place—we would main- CDC approach. Their goal? To use the same
tain—is still important, especially for those delivery system that was created to deliver
who cannot afford to purchase another bricks and mortar to deliver “community
place when this one gets too run down. But building”—essentially to reform the supply
while our field is engineered to build the side institutions to be more engaged and
physical things place-�based communities responsive to residents.
need—the new homes, community centers, Many of the earliest CDCs, born from
small businesses—and increasingly to engage community organizing and driven by a local
residents in those efforts, we have been not constituency, routinely packaged efforts like
engineered—or resourced—to build the youth development, community organizing,
infrastructure of relationships and con- and adult education with their real estate
ditions needed to re-�weave a strong com- development work. For many years,
munity fabric in place; that is, connecting however, biases among funders of commun-
people to each other and removing the bar- ity efforts, and among community develop-
riers to engagement in public life. The fact is ment practitioners themselves, toward a
that as powerful and effective as community housing production agenda made sustaining
building and community organizing efforts these broad, activist approaches extremely
have been over past decades, we have never difficult. Eventually, by the early 1980s, the
really embraced the possibility that our prin- CDC movement became synonymous with
cipal challenge now may be nothing short of affordable housing development. At best,
creating newly functional civic environments the major funders of CDCs viewed com-
and finding a way to repopulate public life munity building work as ancillary to the
in our cities. principal real estate development work of
In this context, “community building,” in the CDC. Alternatively, the few dollars
its most ambitious form, is increasingly available for community organizing flowed
being seen as the process of creating a newly toward so-Â�called “pure” organizing groups.
functioning public sphere that attracts and Despite the paucity of interest and funding,
engages more than the miniscule fraction of a small minority of CDCs continued to
residents whose voices are typically heard. mount broad efforts.
Simply reforming the practice of CDCs and Attitudes shifted in the 1990s and com-
others to expand programming or engage munity building practices emerged into the
residents in their work will not meet the real mainstream of the CDC movement. Most
challenges of community building. Rather, major national foundations, and many
the challenge of community building moving regional and community foundations,
212 |╇╇ B. Traynor

sponsored their own versions of CCIs, years of accumulating a real estate develop-
experiments in the fusion of community ment portfolio, and at a time when organi-
building practice and community develop- zations were embattled by budget cuts and
ment. Technical assistance organizations, worsening local conditions. Moreover, for
consultants, and intermediary groups also the previous decade, CBO Executive Dir-
got involved in this work in large numbers. ectors and Board Leaders had built their
In addition, a number of national alliances organizational capacity around a funding
formed to support this work. Most notable environment that really only valued a
of these was the NCBN, an alliance of narrow real estate production-�oriented
funders of “locally driven urban initiatives” agenda. The rules were changing and there
formed in 1993 to influence public policy were few organizations with the energy and
and provide forums to discuss community capacity to take on the kind of organiza-
building initiatives, and the Aspen Institute’s tional challenges which this work posed.
Roundtable on Comprehensive Community But with some early successes, an encour-
Revitalization. aging funder environment and a growing
The “CCI era,” driven by funding from awareness of the need to change, many
powerful foundations such as Annie E. CBOs took on the challenge of significantly
Casey, Ford, Rockefeller, Edna McConnell broadening the scope of their work. They
Clark, and others, touched most of the participated in these efforts for a wide
major metropolitan areas of the country at variety of reasons. Many saw it as a source
one time or another in the decade of the of core operating support or “soft” program
1990s. Though these initiatives differed in money that they could use as flexible
many ways, the essential premise was the revenue to fill gaps in staffing. Some CDCs,
same: provide multi-�year funding and tech- recognizing that the future would hold fewer
nical support to existing CBOs to take on housing resources, were searching for
the challenge of comprehensive community another important role to play in the com-
change. And these initiatives saw some munity. Others, recognizing the limitations
success in reforming CBOs to take on new of real estate based strategies, were trying to
work. A 25-year-Â�old CDC in Boston retools address the “human development” needs of
to conduct a resident-�driven planning their residents. Still others, who have got
process for the first time in two decades. A away from or never developed the ability to
Denver organization expands its work to organize and mobilize their constituency,
major efforts in community organizing and felt the need to develop more political clout
cultural development. A Washington, DC, in an age of dwindling resources.
development corporation fields a team of
four community organizers to build resident
leaders and shape a community agenda. A RETOOLING THE CBO: LIMITS AND
St. Paul economic development group begins CHALLENGES
a major youth leadership effort.
It may be fair to say that in the mid to Through the CCI era, practitioners and
late 1990s funders and policy people were funders alike learned a great deal about the
far more exuberant and clear about the challenges of transforming CBOs to take on
potential for community building than the a robust community building approach. It
practitioners—the staff and leaders of the turns out that building and integrating the
CBOs who were called on to carry out this core capacities required by successful com-
work. The CCI era was decidedly “funder munity building efforts is not as simple as
driven” and in fact many of the foundations adding another program or product. Rather,
which sponsored CCIs were shifting their these changes often demand a fundamental
practice as well, as Foundation staff were redefinition of the organization and its rela-
getting intensively involved in the operations tionship to the community it serves.
of the initiative. For CBOs, this shift by Because many of the groups participating
funders to the CCI approach came after in community building initiatives principally
 Limitations and Promise╇╇ | 213

work in real estate development, they some- the high quality performers from the rest of
times have a difficult time adapting to com- the field, has thus far been elusive. CBOs
munity building approaches. Their real and funders alike continue to grasp ways to
estate work tends to be structured, disci- define excellence in practice and success.
plined, and outcome oriented. Yet, curi-
ously, this same level of discipline and
structure often does not extend to the newer THE EMERGENCE OF “COMMUNITY
work. First, community-Â�based groups ORGANIZING-Â�LITE”
remain preoccupied with a real estate devel-
opment agenda, which is still viewed as the Ultimately, the principal community build-
bread and butter of the organization. ing tool of the CCI era has been a weak
Second, a strong bias remains, reflected in derivative of the traditional Alinsky style of
the labeling of real estate related work as community organizing, sometimes referred
“hard” and non-Â�real estate related work as to as “community organizing-Â�lite.” Bona
“soft.” Soft work is viewed as work that is fide Alinsky-Â�legacy organizers don’t recog-
hard to define, can be accomplished in the nize this practice as “organizing” and are
margins, and that just about anyone can do. loathe to consider the “community build-
These efforts are often taken on with a ers” of the CCI era as “organizers” at all.
lower level of expectations, a measure of And it is true that, depending on the circum-
ambivalence, and/or a lack of clarity by the stances, organizing-�lite can veer wildly and
organization’s leadership. easily into advocacy, social services, and
More troubling for some CBOs, the CCI civic engagement work or even more hard
sponsored community building program to-Â�define forms of “soft” community work.
could be like a Trojan Horse, arriving as a Suffice to say that because the practice was
promising source of flexible operating built as a “supply side” intervention—to
support but causing some unintended and connect existing groups to the community—
unanticipated consequences for the organ- the quality and the approaches that have
ization, its board, and its executive director. been used are as different as the intentions
Community building strategies focused on of the host organizations.
“building resident engagement” or “devel- In the CCI era, “community organizers”
oping the residents’ voice in decision-Â� embedded in CDCs and other non-
making,” if they had any success, put “organizing-Â�only” CBOs often complained
pressure on the CBO to listen, be respon- of a lack of support and direction from their
sive, and open up its decision-�making appar- boards or staff supervisors. When new
atus to new voices. At a fundamental level, organizers were brought into the organiza-
new habits of sharing power and influence tion, they rarely had the support and guid-
are called for and unless the CBO is pre- ance they needed to succeed. In many cases
pared to change in this way, tensions inevi- there was no culture of organizing in the
tably result. CBO, and the executive director was not
Unfortunately, many of these community oriented enough to the work to provide ade-
building projects were ill defined at the quate support to the organizer. Sometimes,
point of funding. Early efforts tended to be because of past history, key staff or board
loosely organized with little quality control. members were skeptical or fearful of com-
Because the quality and outcomes of this munity organizing. By and large the com-
work can be more difficult to measure than, munity organizing strategy was not
for instance, housing production, it can be sufficiently clear or well understood. Under
difficult to distinguish between excellence these conditions, the organizer’s work inevi-
and mediocrity, between a group that is tably becomes more and more disjointed.
going through the motions and a group with The organizer becomes seen as a kind of
real ambition. Developing strong enough utility outreach/event specialist whose job is
body of best practice or industry standards to service the other “line staff↜” in the organ-
for this work, from which to easily separate ization. This situation can be extremely
214 |╇╇ B. Traynor

frustrating for the organizer. It was not the depth and breadth of the problem. Most
unusual, in many of the CCIs to see two to community building efforts, even those that
three “organizers” come and go in a year or have recognized the importance of rebuild-
two. Minimally, the new organizer is under- ing civic infrastructure, have launched strat-
utilized and the community building effort egies that assume a level of civic
suffers. functioning—however basic—that simply
If the organizer is dynamic and success- does not exist. Even community organizing
ful, despite a lack of organizational support approaches, whose goal is to effect forms of
and direction, the situation can become even “collective action” and representative demo-
more hazardous. In some cases, organizers cracy, depend on some functional level of
successfully built new constituencies (task community infrastructure that is hard to
forces, committees, etc.) among residents, come by. That is not to say that there aren’t
only to then meet resistance as they highly motivated and functional community
attempted to integrate these new people into members at work, or that there aren’t func-
the organization. The new constituents inev- tional institutions at work at the community
itably challenge the existing leadership level. But a disconnected array of individuals
seeking a role in redefining the organization and institutions—even if you can manage to
or shifting its programmatic emphasis. The periodically, and with great effort, marshal
friction that this dynamic causes between episodes of collective action and get “repre-
the CBO and emerging groups of resident sentative” voices on your board or task
leaders can ultimately be productive, but, if force—does not necessarily constitute a
handled haphazardly, it could also be very functional community.
damaging to the CBO and the community
renewal effort.
The limitations of grafting community COMMUNITY ORGANIZING IS NOT
building on to a complex and fast moving COMMUNITY BUILDING
community development agenda, and the
ineffectuality of “community organizing-Â� A major lesson of the CCI era is that com-
lite” thinking and practice both proved munity organizing, “lite” or not, is probably
daunting and both have led to questions not the right tool for the job of rebuilding
about whether the impact has been worth community. Community organizing—at
the investment. In the CCI era, even the best least the Alinsky-�legacy form that is the
organizer supported by the best CBO had most widely practiced and upon which
trouble breaking through the levels of disin- organizing-�lite practice has been loosely
terest, distrust, and disenfranchisement that based—is a specific, tactical and highly
they found in many urban neighborhoods. structured approach to power building and
Ultimately, these community builders were to confronting entrenched interests. It is
practicing a set of approaches developed at fundamentally a political form which trades
another time, for another reason, on behalf on ideological and didactic notions of con-
of community institutions that, for the most nectivity, affiliation, and belonging designed
part, were at least ambivalent about the role to recruit and mobilize a small subset of the
and purpose of community building. population. It is a form that was shaped by
the ideological warfare of political parties
and the labor movement in the beginning of
BUILDING COMMUNITY IN PLACE: the last century and further shaped and
RETHINKING OUR VIEW AND molded by the cold war and then later on by
PRACTICE the civil rights movement. Today, the
modern version of the best of Alinsky-�legacy
An effective approach requires a clear view organizing has rooted itself in faith-�based
of the problem, and our principal failure as institutions with “faith” serving as a proxy
community builders over the last decade is for weakened political and class-�based
that we have not fully come to terms with ideology. Nonetheless, the paradigm of
 Limitations and Promise╇╇ | 215

“belonging” in these groups—whether than to vanguard membership), flexibility,

fueled by faith or political ideology—calls provisionality, and informality are the hall-
for levels of commitment, loyalty, time, and marks of the new membership organization.
belligerence that have never been for every- In these groups, the evidence is not that
one and increasingly stand out as in-�organic people are getting involved less, but that
to the experience of most people. they are getting involved in a different way.
This in-�organic quality of Alinsky-�legacy A new form of organizing is needed
organizing is not, as some claim, due solely which understands and capitalizes these
to the call to confrontation—which is admit- changes in the nature of affiliation and
tedly a difficult leap for many people and an which is explicitly designed to meet the chal-
extraordinary leap for most CDCs. More lenges of building community infrastructure
troublesome for community building pur- in place—still a critical environment for
poses, is that the processes and habits that community for those who choose, or who
we are left with, even in a barely derivative are stuck in, struggling urban areas. In the
organizing-�lite approach, are still highly community development world we are not
structured and mostly tactical. The practice building community in the ether—we are
focuses on winnowing “leaders” from the building it in specific places, presumably
pack, claiming those leaders as its own, places where the presence of “community”
engaging those leaders in fairly narrow and is lacking and could be helpful if it were
formal leadership roles, and encasing those built. In today’s urban areas, marked by
leaders in rigid and ideological structures density, diversity, persistent poverty, ambig-
which are at least partly designed to give the uous economic prospects, and public institu-
institution legitimacy. Some elements of this, tions (like schools) suffering from a
such as formal, semi-�permanent leadership paralyzing level of dysfunction, it could be
roles, rigid and hierarchical “committee” argued that effective community building
structures, and the perpetuation of leader- that leads to a robust community infrastruc-
ship styles focused on “speaking for the ture is the only pre-Â�condition that can pos-
group” or “leading the meeting” are, today, sibly impact these conditions. It also
simply habits of organization that are arti- happens that it is the only pre-�condition that
facts of a political organizing form. those who live and work in these areas can
The in-�organic quality of community take an active role in changing. In a global
organizing puts it in alignment with a range economy where places are connected only
of other community and political institu- indirectly to the sweet spots of economic
tions whose “habits of organization” fail to growth, a highly functional, efficient, and
resonate today. In fact, data show that over active civic environment may be the most
the past few decades, people of all classes important competitive economic advantage
and races are fleeing structured, high of the age for those who are most dependent
affiliation-�level organizations of all kinds in on place for opportunity. This new com-
great numbers. In their place, demonstrated munity organizing approach has to aspire—
by recent internet-�based communities-�of- not just to getting poor people represented
connection type movements, buttressed by a in the supply side, or to yielding episodic
genuine information technology revolution, moments of collective action—to building a
is a new 21st century paradigm for “belong- functional civic infrastructure that optimizes
ing”; one that has market rather than polit- the aggregate contribution of all residents
ical roots. In this new market paradigm, and stakeholders toward making that place
ideology is replaced by value, and loyalty is work. In short, to building a “demand
trumped by choice. The “member” of the environment” for economic development
new millennium wants to be connected but and a functional civic sphere.
not obliged; to be part of many, and owned
by none, and to be surgical in his commit-
ment of resources and time. Low-�level affili-
ation (more akin to “club” membership
216 |╇╇ B. Traynor

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: thinking and practice is needed, starting

BUILDING THE “DEMAND SIDE” OF with an acknowledgment that there is
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT no€ short cut to reaping the aggregate
benefits of community without an aggressive
At the cellular level, place based “commun- investment in building genuine community
ity” starts with a single relationship of trust at the cellular level. At a minimum
and mutual benefit that one resident or this€ means investing in opportunities
stakeholder shares with another. It is the and€ space for peer-�to-peer connections,
aggregate of those relationships, along with allowing for new forms of community insti-
the loose connections that bind a diversity tutions to emerge based on more organic
of them together, that forms the structural habits of connection and affiliation, and
framework for community. But, it is the resourcing the information infrastructure—
cumulative capacities for collective decision-� literally the roads and rails of opportunity
making, problem solving, mutual support, today—that even the poorest residents need
collective action, information sharing, and, to get connected to civic and economic life.
most importantly, the creation and exchange In short, this requires new efforts aimed at
of value (time, goods, services)—which this developing the “demand-Â�side” of commun-
infrastructure facilitates—that is ultimately ity, guided by a different paradigm of com-
“community.” munity and community building—one that
The fact is, at the cellular level, there are sees community as a marketplace and com-
far fewer peer-�to-peer connections now than munity building as a market making
in the past. There are far fewer organically strategy.
grown institutions that are helping these
peer-�to-peer connections form. And there are
even fewer efforts explicitly designed to build COMMUNITY BUILDING AS A
the loose connections that help to weave POPULIST ECONOMIC MOVEMENT,
those peer-�to-peer connections into a produc- NOT A POLITICAL MOVEMENT
tive community fabric. In short, the “demand
side” of community change and community Viewing community as a latent marketplace
development—the extent to which the of potential relationships and opportunities,
aggregate actions and voices of people are governed, as marketplaces will be, by the
driving change in community—has been availability of value and choice is a helpful
severely fractured and decimated over the starting place to develop new thinking and
decades. Fewer voices, fewer different voices, practice. In this way, community building
sporadic action, and the inability to generate can be attacked as a process of popular eco-
genuine representative samples of both, con- nomic mobilization rather than as a van-
stitutes a market failure in the classic sense. guard political movement. There are those,
Where there is no demand there can be no myself included, who see the formation of
reasonable gauge of value. Where there is strong communities as a political act in an
no€reasonable gauge of value, there can be no economic and political environment that
effective supply or efficiency in delivery. In would rather not hear from or respond to
this environment, attempts by foundations, poor people, people of color, and their com-
intermediaries, many CBOs, and many munities. But for those who are doing the
municipal governments to improve the hard, day-�to-day community building work
quality of life for poor and struggling famil- of meeting neighbors, getting involved in
ies are a veritable “shot in the dark.” Colored schools, building block clubs, or organizing
by decades of failed attempts at reform, it is clean-�ups, it is a more simple matter of
no wonder that cynicism and distrust among trying to maximize the value of place for
residents for these well-�meaning institutional themselves and their families. Our concern
interventions continue to be pervasive. should be helping to support residents in
To effectively attack the challenges of this process as well as helping remove the
building genuine community, radically new barriers to this pursuit.
 Limitations and Promise╇╇ | 217

But this will not be easy. In today’s urban I€would describe our network in Lawrence,
communities, this process—the process of Massachusetts, not as an organization, but
“getting involved” is, for the most part, dif- as a bundle of thinking, language, habits,
ficult, boring, non-Â�productive, and often value propositions, space and practice—all
scary, especially for newcomer populations. designed to comprise an environment that
An environment marked by these character- more effectively meets people where they are
istics is the last place any of us would want and offers myriad opportunities and levels
to spend time, so it’s not surprising that of engagement. The network form is attrac-
most people don’t and won’t. Community tive for community building precisely
building needs to focus on changing this because it relies on and fosters a robust,
experience, by reshaping the fundamental active demand environment through the
interface for thousands of people—in a pursuit of value and exercise of choice. It is
given place—to meet other people, build also desirable for community building
relationships of value, participate in civic because its fundamental characteristics—
life, and pursue individual and family eco- low-�level affiliation, value and choice driven,
nomic goals. Simply put, community build- flexibility, informality, responsiveness, etc.—
ing has to build habits of engagement to are more organic to the experiences of most
replace the deeply embedded habits of people and therefore more accessible as a
detachment that dominate place. form of belonging.
As community builders, we can’t control
all aspects of the civic environment or guar-
THE NETWORK ORGANIZING FORM: antee that we can enact a wholesale shift in
ADVANTAGES FOR COMMUNITY habits. But we can be intentional about the
BUILDING kinds of environments that we are part of
creating, and funders can do a better job of
Community as a marketplace does not resourcing creative, new approaches focused
require thousands to act in consort through on shaping the demand side. The network
carefully orchestrated episodes of collective form, adapted to the community building
action—the community organizing-Â�lite task, provides clear clues for shaping a new
approach—it only requires that the net form of organizing, and increasingly practi-
aggregate, cumulative impact of their tioners are recognizing some common
actions and decisions lead to a functional characteristics of this form.
and accountable civic sphere—which
includes opportunities to act collectively.
Fun First
But how to create an environment that actu-
ally encourages civic engagement? Some First, the environment has to be welcoming,
activists, like myself, who have been strug- friendly and fun. Community building is not
gling with how to shape a strategy designed all business, its not even mostly business. It
to shape a new place-�based environment is relationship building and the business
have turned to network theory for direction. flows from the strength and the patterns of
A network is best understood as an envir- relationships that are built. In this way, rela-
onment of connectivity rather than an tionships are the “roads and rails” for
organization in the traditional sense. At its progress and positive change at the com-
best, it is an environment that is value munity level. With this infrastructure much
driven and self-�generating, where control can happen, without it much will fail.
and decision-�making is dispersed and where Therefore community building does not
“being well connected” is the optimal state start in meetings. It starts—typically—with
for any participant. Networks are estab- eating and talking. Abundant opportunities
lished in order to create efficiency and for people to people connections have to be
optimum value for its participants—with programmed into the life of the network.
only as much infrastructure as is needed to
create effective connectivity. For instance,
218 |╇╇ B. Traynor

Low-�Level Affiliation perpetually accessible to new people. This is

accomplished with simple facilitation tech-
Unlike traditional organizing which for-
niques designed to hold on to the institu-
mally or culturally challenges you to be all
tional memory of the group while making
in or all out, the network seeks an explicitly
the work and the deliberations accessible to
“low level of affiliation” and assumes that
new voices.
this is but one of the many things you are
choosing to be a part of. It is a layer of
engagement that fully accommodates the The Connector as Leader
members’ other interests in life; family,
Leadership in the network environment is
church, work, block club, book club, etc.
focused more on being a connector than a
This is a more organic life condition for
spokesperson or even a facilitator. In a
most people and much more in sync with
network environment the connections are
the kind of transactional affiliation that is
all. The more connected you are to other
the norm of most people in the information
people, information, and opportunity the
age. Instead of loyalty, ideology, or guilt,
more value you can extract from the envir-
the network relies on value—through spe-
onment. So in this context there is no more
cific value propositions and new relation-
valuable a role than helping others to form
ships—to attract members.
and find those connections. Increasingly,
members are trained to be “weavers” and
the “weaver” is an honored and acknow-
Form Follows Function
ledged leadership role in the network
The forms of organization that dominate the environment.
network environment have to be informal,
flexible, and action oriented. A network has
Information Rich
to be vigilantly responsive and therefore has
to be a “shape shifter” in order to move Self-Â�navigation, peer support/exchange, and
capacity to the places it is needed. The semi-� viral marketing are hallmarks of an effective
permanent forms of traditional community network environment. For these things to
building—standing committees, formal happen, the environment must be “informa-
leadership positions etc.—are not helpful in tion rich.” In fact, access to good, timely
a network environment because they are not information is one of the primary value
easily dismantled. In a network organizing propositions of membership in the network.
environment, two important principles Building a network environment therefore
shape what form a certain activity should requires early and significant investments in
take—whether that is a sewing class, a city communications and information techno-
budget reform effort, or a program “com- logy, and the reinforcement of member
mittee.” The first is “form follows func- behavior focused on dissemination of
tion”; a habit in the network where the information. Effective network members are
group will always ask itself this question— not brokers of relationships or information,
“what form best suits this function?” they are transmission nodes.
The€ upshot of this habit is that, by and
large, network members are organized
Interactive Spaces
in€ very informal, provisional, and flexible
groups where positional leadership titles Building place-�based community using a
are€ de-�emphasized, leaders change often, network approach has the added character-
and the group is decidedly next-�step focused. istic of shaping new places and forums for
The other principal is “open architecture is “bumping-Â�up” time. In a network, you want
best.” Again emphasizing informality and to create as many opportunities for people
provisionality, the groups embrace the to bump up against other people as possible.
idea€that people will come and go and there- This is advantageous to information sharing
fore they work hard to keep the group and relationship building. The problem is
 Limitations and Promise╇╇ | 219

that opportunities that are too contrived or people in order to establish credibility and
controlled will diminish the sense of choice make decisions. The network allows for that
that is so critical to all of us. We can to happen as well. But it allows for another
however, try to redesign the spaces and dimension—the aggregate articulation of
interactions that already exist so that they demand. Like a market environment, the
are more conducive to peer-�to-peer connec- network looks at the decisions (choices) that
tions. Informal time can be programmed members are making in order to understand
into meetings and events. Spaces can be what is valuable and what is needed moving
redesigned to encourage intimacy and com- forward. Also, the network can act like a
fortability. Organizing activities that encour- consumer collective and use its collective
age residents to meet and interact on their demand to shape the services that are avail-
stoops or in their homes is critical toward able to struggling families. A network com-
developing the doorstep-�level connections munity building approach, invests in ways
that help people feel connected on the street to “listen” to the network—effectively to see
and block. In many ways, the stoop, the and hear what members are doing with their
sidewalk, the street, the alley, the next time and energy. An effective ability to track
corner: this is the toughest frontier for com- network activity is necessary to wielding
munity building in dense urban areas. aggregate power.
Network forms are only a part of a new
wave of thinking about engagement and
Diversity of People and Choices
connectivity. In marketing, in national and
The power of being connected in a network state politics, in national and international
environment is directly related to how movement building, the principles of
diverse are its membership and its choices. network forms are taking hold and proving
The network organizer is intentional in potent. These principles can be applied to
starting and connecting a variety of activi- place-�based community building as well. In
ties—programs, issues, projects—that would low-Â�income communities, as in the rest of
attract a variety of people to the network the world, groups that offer an affiliation
and offer a range of choices for doing differ- that is more transactional and more provi-
ent things. They are also intentional about sional will earn engagement from a busy
shaping many levels of engagement which and discriminating public. Groups that build
meet the needs of a wider range of people, an infrastructure that provides a range of
allowing for and encouraging members to value that is responsive to rapid change will
get only as involved as they want to be at be able to sustain engagement. And groups
any given time. An important part of the that demonstrate a genuine interest in, and
choice environment is also the choice to infrastructure for, listening and responding
create something that you think is import- to their members will build powerful
ant for the network to invest in. A healthy constituencies.
network environment is designed to support There is latent power and effectiveness in
the development of myriad small, short-�term urban communities which can be unleashed
activities that resonate with members. by the potency of robust networks of rela-
tionships. New thinking and practice is
needed which embraces, rather than fears or
Using Collective and Aggregate Power
ignores, the challenge of rebuilding civic life.
A network environment takes advantage of While it’s true that, at the cellular level, rela-
two kinds of accountability and mobiliza- tionships are built one by one, networks of
tion mechanisms in order to (a) decide what relationships can grow exponentially if com-
is valuable to the members, (b) establish munity builders and their allies stop worry-
values and norms, and (c) articulate demand ing about defining “it” and get a lot busier
and move to collective action. Most of our building “it.”
CBOs and community building work relies
on the deliberation of small numbers of
 CHAPTER 24

Building Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods

An Empirically Grounded Anatomy

Susan Saegert

For over half of the last century, many based initiatives that restores a component
urban neighborhoods have experienced of shared community vision and democratic
poverty and severe public and private sector participation to community development,
disinvestment, and spawned community that addresses the need for social services as
activism that attempts to redress these prob- well as bricks and mortar development, and
lems. Community capacity building emerged that promotes synergy among the varied
in the last several decades as an approach social, human, political, and economic
that emphasized relationships, coalitions, resources that different sectors of the com-
and consensus building and voluntary, often munity can leverage. In a politically con-
entrepreneurial, action (cf. McNeeley, servative era, it also promises to avoid the
1999). It differs from the two other main confrontational and polarizing tactics of
models of community based initiatives, com- more traditional approaches to community
munity organizing in the power-�oriented organizing.
mode and community development, mostly Critics contend that “community build-
through the establishment of community ing” begs the question of structural inequal-
development corporations (CDCs). ity and power differentials that put
Community building (Chaskin, 2001) communities in need of “building” in the
emphasizes development of relationships first place. Community building initiatives
within and outside the community and use often masquerade as “local initiatives”
of community assets to leverage assets from cloaking the involvement of powerful
outside to solve common problems. outside actors (DeRienzo, 2008). Not only
Common elements include relationship have most community building efforts been
building, leadership development, increasing initiated by outside actors, the capital pro-
relational and organizational skills of resi- vided by foundations, government, and
dents and organizations, sustaining stake- private sector actors are critical to their
holder engagement, developing a sense of success. Thus community building often
common purpose and an action agenda, and provides a local consensus that makes it
increased local institutional capacity. Com- easier for outside interests to achieve their
munity capacity purports to be a generally goals in a particular community by engaging
useful resource that can be applied to the residents actively in a shared agenda, but
achieve multiple goals. These goals may an agenda in which the voices of the more
involve, for example, economic revitaliza- powerful speak louder than others.
tion, improving the neighborhood for chil-
dren and families, increasing the quality and
quantity of the affordable housing stock, or SOCIAL CAPITAL
getting better public services from local
government. Social capital is often seen as a main com-
Foundations have promoted this as a new ponent of both community building and
and more effective model for community effective civic capacity. Both concepts imply
 Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods╇╇ | 221

the need for social networks that connect from the concept vary considerably, and
people over time and promote their ability often contradict each other. Community
to identify and achieve shared, as well as organizers more often draw on the sort of
individual, goals. Employing a functional class structure analysis that underlies
view of social capital, Coleman (1988) iden- Bourdieu’s definition of social capital, which
tified aspects of networks rich in social contains the same essential components as
capital that have implications for the work those provided by Coleman and Putnam:
of community building: (1) network closure “the aggregate of the actual or potential
(cf. parents, teachers, and children all resources which are linked to possession of
attended the same church and knew each a durable network of more or less institu-
other in different roles), (2) good informa- tionalized relationships of mutual acquaint-
tion flow, (3) shared values and norms, and ance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1985).
(4) the ability to reward and punish those Bourdieu linked social capital to cultural as
who keep and break norms. While commun- well as economic capital. He understood all
ity organizers mostly reject the terminology forms of capital as aspects of social repro-
of social capital, the practice of community duction that perpetuate social class and
organizing aims at forming networks with unequal access to economic capital and
these properties. power.
DeFilippis (2001) criticizes the reliance in Recognition of the exclusionary side of
community development circles on social social capital leads some to question its
capital as a “magic bullet.” DeFilippis aims potential for building civic capacity. Even
most of the critique at Putnam’s (1993, 2000) when networks cross boundaries of race and
version of the concept which ignores differ- class, Clarence Stone (2001) sees social
ences in power and interest among groups in capital as working at a micro scale that is
society. He points out the greater utility of quite different from the relationships
the idea of social capital as presented by required for civic capacity. Social capital is
Lowry (1977) and Bourdieu (1985) because in theory a broadly useful asset across a
they focus on the amount of socially organ- wide range of situations and increases with
ized assets available to groups that differ in continued association. Stone suggests that
power, and the role of social capital in repro- civic capacity must address very contentious
ducing this inequality. Most importantly, community problems and thus is more
they understand the inextricable link between fragile. Repeated interactions among people
different forms of capital: human, cultural, of different ethnic and class backgrounds
social, and economic. However, he does not around these issues can well increase suspi-
reject the significance of the formation of net- cion and distrust. Far from benefiting from
works of social capital in efforts of poor embeddedness in everyday life, Stone
communities to improve their lots. He believes civic capacity requires rising above
pointed out that communities per se are not the ordinary and developing institutional-
actors and do not possess anything. Those ized relationships that can sustain commit-
roles are left to institutions and individuals. ment to solving inherently conflict prone
And the power and interests of different insti- problems.
tutions in a community differ, leading to con- Other community activists and scholars
flict among different entities capable of acting recognize the intransigence of social injus-
and owning. DeFilippis (2001, p. 799) con- tices and the ways in which mainstream
cludes that “We need to create social net- social capital is used to reinforce them. Yet
works that allow individuals to realize they still see possibilities for social capital to
capital, while simultaneously allowing these promote the civic capacity of disadvantaged
networks to realize the power needed to communities. For example, Warren and his
attract and control that capital (for the colleagues (Warren, 2001; Saegert, Thomp-
benefit of the networks).” son, & Warren, 2001) view social capital as
While definitions of social capital share a a resource for negotiating conflicts based in
common core, the social implications drawn deep historical divisions such as race and
222 |╇╇ S. Saegert

class. This approach takes the ability to nurture a broad range of overlapping social
negotiate conflicts as a measure of the networks within which different combina-
strength of social capital. Networks rich in tions of individuals and organizations can
social capital are a means for increasing reach consensus about the achievement of
mutual respect and the ability to act collec- particular goals. Community organizers
tively. The social capital of networks facili-start with a focus on the inequality of power
tates the development of a common agenda and resources, identify a community of
and increases commitment of members to interest defined against the power structure,
pursuing that agenda. Therefore, networks and emphasize confrontational tactics.
with high social capital are able to take con- While many community organizers define
frontational positions when their agenda their goal as building power, community
encounters opposition. builders prefer to talk of developing civic
capacity. A third stream of community
organizers, often led by women, focuses on
COMMUNITY BUILDING vs. the human and relational development of
COMMUNITY ORGANIZING community members and organizations
(Stall & Stoecker, 1998). This model lacks
A rhetorical divide has emerged between the oppositional edge of power organizing
community builders, who emphasize social and therefore seems more compatible with
capital, and community organizers who community building. In an effort to identify
work with disenfranchised communities to the common core of different successful
make demands on the existing power struc- community change projects, examples were
ture. Critical urban scholars often view both selected to include both increased civic
options as two sides to the same coin of the capacity and access to real material improve-
decentralization and privatization of state ments in the quality of life for residents. Def-
functions (cf. Lake & Newman, 2002). initions of civic capacity vary from the more
Community building and community stringent criterion of requiring participants
organizing both emerged as ways to engage to consider what is good for the community
residents of poor communities in solving as a whole (Stone, 2001) to the more fre-
their own problems (Alinsky, 1969, 1971; quent use of the term as effective engage-
McNeeley, 1999). They both build on long-� ment with the public realm (cf. Williams,
standing traditions in social work and polit- Shinn, Nishishiba, & Morgan, 2002). The
ical activism in the US and have more general definition of civic capacity does
accommodated an increasingly conservative not imply community consensus, but rather
political climate in the last three decades civic engagement with the result of more
(Fisher, 1996). They share an approach democratic governance at various scales.
which emphasizes (1) community residents Civic engagement can be a mainly indi-
working together to identify and solve their vidual, small group, or organizational
problems, (2) development of a sense of concern. The individuals, networks, organi-
common purpose and an action agenda, (3) zations, and institutions that make up a
support for leadership development and community may participate out of self-�
increased organizational skills of residents interest in civic activities and still collec-
and groups, and (4) sustained stakeholder tively contribute to the ability of a
commitment to achieving collective goals. community to exert power and influence
They differ most around the definition of and to leverage and use resources (cf.
the community and the rhetoric of coopera- Marwell, 2004). Community building
tion versus confrontation. Community efforts can promote expanding islands of
builders downplay differences in self or common purpose and collective action
group interest and structural and historical which in some instances may cohere into a
factors that create and maintain economic unified effort and in others may be decided
and political inequality. Presuming that through democratic processes with winners
shared interests will emerge, they seek to and losers.
 Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods╇╇ | 223

In practice, the goals of building power major participants, and (3) conducting a day
and building civic capacity have similar out- long workshop with experienced commun-
comes. These include the following: (1) resi- ity organizers and community builders to
dents effectively engage important economic review and critique my analysis. The model
and political actors; (2) they influence the presented below was developed through this
local social and economic agenda; (3) they process.
gain access to public and private sector
resources; and (4) they use their resources to
influence the local physical and social A CONCEPTUAL MODEL LINKING
environment. COMMUNITY BUILDING AND
In a prior version of this chapter, I ORGANIZING ACTIVITIES TO CIVIC
mapped the strategies and outcomes associ- CAPACITY
ated with successful initiatives to compare
the activities engaged in by both camps Figure 24.1 presents a generic model of the
(Saegert, 2006). The model presented grew relationship between community building/
out of a project of the Aspen Institute community organizing strategies and out-
Roundtable on Community Change to comes. The model can be read as flowing
understand what successful community from left to right or as a cycle. Prior levels
change efforts had in common. I focused on of community civic capacity feed into any
identifying the processes and the outcomes current community and civic capacity build-
that were general to such efforts, and not ing strategies which lead to outcomes that
confined to specific outcomes like housing influence future strategies.
or economic development, or improved Because both the strategies employed and
public health. The methods employed outcomes are embedded in ongoing social
included: (1) reviewing the existing written relationships and processes, they are not
literature and drawing on my own experi- always clearly distinguished. However, in
ences participating in and studying change order to understand the effectiveness of
efforts to develop a tentative description of strategies, they must be separated conceptu-
what these efforts had in common; (2) ally from outcomes.
selecting a small number of case studies that Community building and community
I would investigate more intensely through organizing are local activities with local out-
telephone and in-�person interviews with comes. These include increased contact

Community Community
building civic capacity
strategies strategies
Community
organizing Community External Community
Initial community civic capacity

Community building initiator

Individual building social civic capacity

Leadership outcomes capital outcomes
development • Local • Influence
social • Public/
Organizational capital Political private
CBO
capacity • Change participation resources
agenda • Social
agenda
• Improved
Coalition building conditions
• Change
social and
Community • Human Confrontation physical
capital environment
Community visioning/
community-based
planning

Figure 24.1╇ Building civic capacity

224 |╇╇ S. Saegert

among community residents which in suc- advisory boards, steering committees, or

cessful efforts leads to greater social capital more targeted coalitions. Community build-
at the local level. For example, residents get ers in the field report engaging in particular
together to clean up vacant lots, to establish activities with the goal of increasing civic
block watches etc. They also help each other capacity. Aside from efforts to develop
with personal problems, provide referral external social capital, these activities range
networks for jobs, housing openings, and from lobbying government officials, to peti-
schools, and in general work to achieve indi- tions, to voter drives, and to confrontation-�
vidual and collective goals by using their oriented “actions.” More external social
own resources. In community organizing, capital and higher levels of involvement
these outcomes are secondary and may be with electoral politics and government indi-
less prevalent because of the focus on cate higher levels of community civic capa�
accountability of those with more power city. The ability to use confrontational
and resources. Community organizing in tactics when needed is also a mark of civic
marginalized neighborhoods aims to develop capacity.
one or more agendas for community change. The outcomes of community civic engage-
Community builders may see this as emerg- ment strategies are separate from the actions
ing more piecemeal. Successful community that lead to them. As one CBO leader stated,
building or community organizing leads to meetings with powerful stakeholders, lobby-
concrete improvement in community con- ing, petitions, and actions are the exercises
ditions such as cleaner vacant lots or less that lead to civic capacity, but they are not
crime. Finally, community building and civic capacity itself. Civic capacity exists
organizing activities affect the human capital when a community can influence important
of individuals. Leadership development decisions made by external public and
most explicitly supports the acquisition of private sector actors, when the community
skills and knowledge by community resi- can access economic and social resources to
dents. But even less active participants gain achieve its own agenda, and when it can
skills in group processes, knowledge of com- also influence the content of the larger social
munity resources, and competence in spe- agenda.
cific tasks. These may be as wide ranging as The final community civic capacity
increased gardening skills from community outcome is less obvious and was pointed out
garden projects through expanded know- to me in an interview. Communities not
ledge of how to research complex economic, only need to be able to achieve the civic
environmental, or political issues affecting capacity outcomes listed, they need to be
the community. able to operate effectively at the many scales
The literature on community building involved in using resources and implement-
implies that community building itself will ing policies, decisions, and agendas to actu-
increase civic capacity. This tendency is rein- ally improve the community. For example,
forced by social capital theorists (cf. if the community brings a court case and
Putnam, 1993, 2000) who see civic engage- wins a favorable judgment, they need to be
ment as an incidental byproduct of informal able to assure that the judgment gets imple-
voluntary association participation. Indeed, mented in a way that achieves the commun-
increasing civic capacity by developing what ity’s purposes and is not diverted by other
is often called bridging social capital is often agendas of the many actors involved in
seen as part of community building. Yet the implementation. Taken together, increased
development of social capital rich networks community civic capacity encompasses both
that include more socially, politically, and power over others and power to do for
economically powerful others most often oneself with others.
results from intentional actions and strat-
egies employed by community builders. One
example is the inclusion of local private and
public sector influentials as members of
 Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods╇╇ | 225

DIMENSIONALIZING COMMUNITY community building emphasize consensus,

BUILDING AND COMMUNITY community conversations, partnerships, and
ORGANIZING cooperation. Achievement of goals comes
through the development and use of social
As indicated in Figure 24.1, important differ- capital both within communities and across
ences among different community building different sectors. Thus community civic
and organizing efforts occur in the strategic capacity relies primarily on expanded social
decision of who to involve first. The point of networks that include important private and
entry for community building and organizing public sector actors.
can be individual residents and informal A third distinction derives directly from
social networks, community based organiza- the application of social capital theory.
tions (CBOs), or local institutions such as Putnam and Coleman both argue that social
schools or churches, or the community as a capital is an “unintended” consequence of
whole, defined as either individuals and certain kinds of social networks. The spon-
informal groups, or formal organizations, or taneous and unintended aspect of commun-
both. While points of entry differ, most com- ity building provides another divide between
munity building efforts end up engaging all those who consider themselves community
three levels, though to different extents and builders and those who identify as commun-
in different ways. Thus one dimension for ity organizers. It also opens up the con-
analysis concerns the breadth of community sideration of community building strategies
engagement. that build civic capacity to activities aimed
A second important distinction lies in a at increasing control over resources through
preference for consensus building versus collective action that are not usually con-
confrontational organizing. They begin from sidered to be either community building or
different assumptions about the possibility community organizing. For example, one of
of solving problems cooperatively. But the case studies on which this model was
rather than being polar opposites, each based described the organizing processes of
strategy attempts to deal with the tension residents living in landlord abandoned
between the goal of increasing marginalized buildings which they eventually transformed
communities’ access to resources, opportun- into Limited Equity Cooperatives. The resi-
ities, and power in mainstream society and dents often had no particular analysis of
needing to challenge business as usual to how to achieve their goals although some
achieve that goal. were influenced by oppositional movements
Community builders work to increase such as the Rent Strike Movement in New
social capital within the community and York City and others drew on solidarity
externally for the purpose of expanding based tactics learned in their churches.
resources and cooperation to achieve goals Technical Assistance and Organizing groups
shared by all stakeholders. The identifica- who supported co-�op formation also varied
tion of shared goals that cross boundaries of in their orientations. But the outcome was
community, class, and levels of power are to transfer valuable New York City real
not seen as inherently problematic. Com- estate into title held collectively by poor
munity organizers emphasize building and New Yorkers of color (Saegert, 2006).
using power to achieve goals, primarily by
winning resources and control of decisions
from the public and private sector. They see
CONCLUSIONS
the struggle for power in political terms and
conflict and competition as essential parts of
Revisiting Cooperation vs.
the process.
Competition and Confrontation
In its focus on people solving problems
together, much of the community building The comparison of consensus and confron-
literature downplays issues of power, con- tational/competitive strategies makes two
flict, and competition. These discussions of points meant to further our understanding of
226 |╇╇ S. Saegert

the contribution of community building to mines whether this translates into demo-
civic capacity: (1) community civic capacity cratic decisions. The same is true for agenda
requires the ability to exercise power as well centralization versus multiple agendas.
as the ability to work collaboratively within Processes of collective action are also
and outside the community; (2) while the nested within each other, as for example the
organizing strategies of consensus-�oriented gains in civic capacity of the owners of
and confrontation-�oriented approaches limited equity cooperatives often get
differ, successful development of community expressed in larger community forums.
civic capacity depends on using the right CBOs involved in community building form
approach at the right time, in the right place, and join community coalitions. Research on
and with the right people. The attainment of community building and civic capacity could
civic capacity requires the ability to form dis- explicitly address the history of community
tinct interests and goals, to develop shared building at different scales and be alert for
agendas, and to act collectively. It requires cumulative effects. It would be a civic capa�
cultivating strong and weak ties, recognizing city outcome in itself if certain communities
allies and enemies, and changing the cast of became more able over time to attract and
characters as contingencies shift. use resources for community building.
Four issues are especially important for Second, while accounts of community
the civic capacity outcomes of community building (cf. Chaskin, 2001; Warren, 2001)
building strategies: breadth of engagement, allude to particular conditions that have
democratic processes, centralization of the worked for and against a viable community
change agenda, and results in terms of fabric in particular communities, I found no
power and resource access. In actual cases, studies that systematically examined how
trade-�offs are made along these dimensions. changes in immigration, regional or national
Problems of exclusion, hierarchical decision- job and housing markets, the strength of the
�making, and inefficacy occur in all models. economy, etc., affected community building
Many, perhaps most, strategies, target and/or civic capacity. Many plausible con-
particular groups within a community such nections exist from the effect of immigration
as Latinos, or lower-�income residents, or and resident turnover on civic engagement
particular sectors, such as churches, schools, and social integration to how changes in the
or organizations concerned with employ- stock market affect funding for community
ment. Community civic capacity should be building initiatives. More qualitatively, the
broadly representative of all populations political and social culture of particular
and sectors. However, power differentials areas may have an effect on participation in
suggest that civic capacity needs to be built community building efforts and their out-
especially among marginalized groups. At comes (cf. Duncan, 2001).
the same time, starting with more marginal Taken together, these issues importantly
populations increases the difficulty and influence the judgment of whether a particu-
uncertainty of achieving effective civic lar community building/organizing effort
capacity. Social capital approaches attempt increased community civic capacity. In some
to overcome this trade-�off by developing cases, the efficacy attributed to a particular
cross-�sector, cross-�class, and cross-�race rela- community building initiative may just be the
tionships. In very different ways, confronta- tip of the iceberg of prior community build-
tional and self-�help strategies such as ing and organizing efforts and investments.
collective ownership attempt to offset exist- In other cases, the forces for social frag-
ing resource deficits with people power. mentation and community civic incapacity
Democratic processes occur at different may be so strong that much higher level
scales in the different models. The commun- investments are required for longer periods
ity organizing/leadership development of time. Similarly, these prior conditions may
approaches increase the number of particip- affect the utility of different strategies in par-
ants that can potentially influence decisions, ticular contexts. A next step in understanding
but the structure of decision-�making deter- contextual influences would be to go beyond
 Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods╇╇ | 227

a case by case assessment, to the development Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A
of a systematic framework for analysis. definitional framework and case studies from a com-
prehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs
Review, 36(3), 291–323.
Community Building under Neoliberalism Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of
human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
This chapter began by noting the significance S95–121.
of the context in which voluntary, collective DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in
action is required to replace state provision community development. Housing Policy Debate,
12, 781–805.
of goods and services, and to provide social
DeRienzo, H. (2008). Lessons learned: Perspectives on
integration against strong economic and his- community development. Milan, Italy: IPOC di
torical forces that weaken the bonds of Pietro Condemi.
family, community, and nation. Many practi- Duncan, M. (2001). Social capital in America’s poor
tioners and residents of marginalized com- rural communities. In S. Saegert, M. R. Warren, & J.
P. Thompson (Eds.), Social capital and poor com-
munities turn to community building and
munities (pp. 6–86). New York: Russell Sage.
organizing efforts that include cooperation Fisher, R. (1996). Neighborhood organizing: The
and confrontation, that engage multiple importance of historical context. In W. D. Keating,
stakeholders around divergent interests, and N. Krumholz, & P. Star (Eds.), Revitalizing urban
that both partially succeed and partially fail. neighborhoods (pp. 39–49). Lawrence: University
Press of Kansas.
They do so because they perceive few or no
Lake, R. W. & Newman, K. (2002). Differential cit-
other alternatives to continued marginaliza- izenship in the shadow state. GeoJournal, 58,
tion, lack of access to resources and oppor- 109–120.
tunities, and continuing degradation of the Lowry, G. (1977). A dynamic theory of racial income
physical and social conditions of their lives. differences. In P. Wallace & A. LaMond (Eds.),
They also often accomplish some, though Women, minorities and employment discrimination
(pp. 153–188). Lexington, MA: Heath.
rarely all, of their goals. Acknowledging the Marwell, N. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state:
similarities as well as differences among com- Nonprofit community-�based organizations as polit-
munity building and organizing models ical actors. American Sociological Review, 69(2),
invites activists to view choices strategically, 265–291.
and based on the context and goals involved. McNeely, J. (1999). Community building. Journal of
Community Psychology, 27(6), 741–750.
The comparative approach used in this Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic
chapter also suggests the possibility of traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
synergy and increased democratic civic capa� University Press.
city from the co-�existence of different models Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and
in a particular community, even if the organi- revival of American community. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
zations involved do not always agree.
Saegert, S. (2006). Building civic capacity in urban
neighborhoods: An empirically grounded anatomy.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(3), 275–294.
NOTE Saegert, S., Warren, M. R., & Thompson, J. P. (2001).
Social capital and poor communities. New York:
This chapter was supported by the Aspen Institute Russell Sage.
Roundtable on Community Change through a grant Stall, S. & Stoecker, R. (1998). Community organizing
from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. or organizing community? Gender and the crafts of
empowerment. Gender and Society, 12, 729–756.
Stoecker, R. (1997). The community development corpo-
ration model of urban redevelopment: A critique and
REFERENCES an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19, 1–23.
Stone, C. N. (2001). Civic capacity and urban educa-
Alinsky, S. D. (1969). Reveille for radicals. New York: tion. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 595–619
Random House. Warren, M. R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community
Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: building to revitalize American democracy. Prince-
Random House. ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Williams, D., Shinn, C., Nishishiba, M., & Morgan, D.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research (2002). Toward an understanding of civic capacity:
for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). West- An anatomy of community issues that matter to stu-
port, CT: Greenwood Press. dents. Journal of Public Affairs, 6, 241.
 CHAPTER 25

How Does Community Matter for Community Organizing?

David Micah Greenberg

OVERVIEW WHY LOOK AT ORGANIZING

SERIOUSLY—AND CRITICALLY?
This theoretical chapter describes ways that
community context can matter for commun- Community organizing can make a differ-
ity organizing and its outcomes. In doing so ence in poor people’s lives. It can develop
it seeks to reframe a particularly contentious indigenous leaders, shift power toward the
debate in organizing and development prac- disenfranchised and toward persons of color
tice—the relative efficacy of conflict vs. con- (Fainstein & Fainstein, 1974), create social
sensus modes of organizing. Proponents of capital and community cohesion (Saegert et
consensus organizing hold that “traditional” al., 2001), and direct additional resources to
models of organizing, those which empha- distressed areas (Rubin & Rubin, 1992;
size protest and divergent interests, are not Greenstone & Peterson, 1973). However,
likely to succeed. Proponents of other organ- any critical account of the role of organizing
izing modes, sometimes implicating com- must also understand that it does not always
munity development practices, see consensus accomplish its goals—or that it can produce
organizing as the manipulation of existing different types of outcomes that may fall
networks without changing terms of power. short of the transformative ambitions from
Instead of viewing conflict or consensus-� which it stems. This fact, well understood
based strategies in a vacuum, I view these by veterans of collective action, is often
strategies as emerging in local political cul- neglected both by writers on community
tures where patterns of conflict or consensus organizing and by scholars of movement
are themselves key dimensions of political activity generally (Giugni, 1998). While
institutions. This is an argument that com- much writing on organizing focuses on its
munity “matters” in community organizing, successes, many efforts stumble or are
in that organizing promotes a vision or defeated (Marcuse, 1999; Stone et al.,
frame of community itself. This vision finds 2001). Some campaigns may build power
confluence or resistance from existing polit- for the organization without achieving any
ical structures and inter-�organizational pat- external goals. Others may achieve their
terns of interaction. While institutional immediate objectives but not affect broader
resistance to a campaign’s frames about social or political dynamics. Given the range
community may make it more difficult for of potential outcomes of community organ-
campaigns to succeed, this resistance also izing, is there any framework that can help
holds open the possibility for broad shifts in us understand what dynamics may lead to
power and in inter-�organizational dynamics. different types of successes and failures?
Within communities of practice around
organizing, one attempt to explain the scale
and significance of changes lies in assess-
ments of the relative merits of conflict and
consensus organizing. This debate is closely
 How does Community Matter?╇╇ | 229

related to another highly charged question, Of special relevance to CDCs, Eichler

whether or not community development directed a demonstration project for the
corporations (CDCs) operate in a proper Local Initiatives Support Corporation
relationship to political action. Stoeker (LISC) to test principles of consensus organ-
(1997, 2002) argues that CDCs operate izing. This program used a consensus-�
within a flawed framework that emphasizes organizing model to bring together
the manipulation of existing arrangements, stakeholders (including neighborhood asso-
as opposed to seeing the world in its truest ciations, service groups, banks, and elected
terms: full of conflict and interests that rele- officials) in the Monongahela Valley region,
gate the disadvantaged to that status. In a Phoenix, and other areas, so they could
later piece, Stoeker argues that CDCs who come together to form new CDCs. For pro-
attempt to conduct community organizing ponents of consensus organizing—promi-
will not be successful, even though not nently, Ross Gittell and Avis Vidal (1998),
organizing will relegate them to irrelevance. whose book describes the LISC demonstra-
Stoeker’s positions about CDCs (and about tion project—this organizing for CDC for-
organizing by CDCs) is situated in relation- mation proves that more confrontational
ship to a belief that consensus organizing, a organizing is counterproductive.
recently developed offshoot of organizing Arguments around conflict and consensus
practice, is less effective than other models organizing stem, at least in part, from diag-
articulated in the United States since the noses of community development as an
1950s. Although purposive attempts to industry, and may be seen as purposive
change urban neighborhoods and govern- attempts to alter discourse and therefore
ment through collective action at the grass practice by community groups. However, as
roots are probably as old as cities and states hypotheses to predict outcomes of organ-
themselves (Castells, 1983), discourse about izing, I argue that they are theoretically
community organizing within the United incomplete, because both do not sufficiently
States draws extensively on the institutional account for dynamics of community context
history of a practice developed from Saul and structure. As analysts of community
Alinsky’s work in the Chicago’s Back of the change processes, proponents of both con-
Yards (see Alinsky, 1971). Alinsky emphas- flict and consensus organizing privilege
ized contentious tactics and confrontation issues of framing and tactics over issues of
to provoke positive action toward com- community structure. That is, those who
munities by powerful actors. In recent years, hold that mobilization (on either model) is
a different approach to organizing emerged more effective believe that people’s collect-
in reaction to organizing’s tendency to ive capacity to analyze community structure
emphasize conflict. For Michael Eichler, is one of the most important factors that
founder of the Consensus Organizing Insti- determines whether or not they will be able
tute, the confrontation model often results to create change. Both argue that seeing the
in failure because it refuses to create issues world in terms of powerful conflicts, on the
of mutual self-�interest that can bring one hand, or seeing the world in potential
together broad constituencies: allies on the other (and adopting the tactics
that stem from either analysis) will result in
The organizer who sees the world in terms of more significant outcomes for change. I
absolutes is doomed. Most people, regardless argue that this position is analogous to what
of income, realize how complicated the world Margaret Archer (1988) calls “upward
has become. Just ask any parent. We can no
conflationism”—the theoretical stance that
longer afford to oversimplify. Instead, we
have to admit how complicated and contra-
practices on the part of individuals and
dictory the world has become.â•›.â•›.â•›. We need to groups from below create larger structural
teach people how to analyze the self-�interest patterns.
of potential partners and have the ideological Archer’s argument is that there are three
flexibility to mix and match partners. types of errors that social theorists some-
(1998) times make. The first is a “downward
230 |╇╇ D. M. Greenberg

conflationism,” with which she associates describes the ACORN model as avoiding
many Marxist writers. Downward confla- inter-�organizational work and seeking to
tionists write that structural forces, or those create new power-�building organizations
“above” the realm of individual and collect- through a universal process. In fact, in
ive agency, help constitute the practices of accounts of social movement activity more
those actors. The second is an “upward con- broadly, the role of varied context or local
flationism,” held by microsociologists or structure is often obscured. Even Castells’
rational choice proponents, who see larger sympathetic, comparative account of urban
cultural practices to be determined from the movements sees the articulation of commun-
actions of individuals and groups from ity as a stage in a mobilization process—and
“below.” The third error is a “medium con- potentially a hindrance—in the development
flationalism,” where writers argue that of class consciousness. This lack of appreci-
structure and agency constitute each other. ation of the variety of contexts is somewhat
Archer’s argument is that each type of “con- indicative of trends in the social movements
flationism” makes it harder to gather literatures to see structure dichotomously,
insights about the periods of change or as political opportunities that are either
stasis. Archer’s argument is relevant to the “open” or “closed,” (McAdam, 1982), with
consensus vs. conflict organizing debate, the former facilitating movement building
because it directs attention to the possibility and the latter shutting it down. Instead, I
that different organizing campaigns (agentic argue that political structure should be seen
efforts) may interact with different neigh- as a mediating variable with which move-
borhoods (structural factors) in different ment interacts.
ways, sometimes succeeding in creating I argue that two aspects of community-�
change, and sometimes failing to create level institutions should be taken seriously
change or to reinforce them. But if agentic in our analysis of the context of organizing.
issues—framing and tactics—are only one The first aspect involves community organ-
side of the story about organizing and its izational networks—the ways that local
potential impacts, how can we conceptual- groups interact with each other. As writers
ize neighborhood and community context in on community structure have understood
a way that might be more complete? since analysis of inter-�organizational net-
works in the 1970s (Lauman et al., 1977),
power within neighborhood systems is
WHAT ASPECTS OF COMMUNITY greatly influenced by the structure of rela-
STRUCTURE MIGHT MATTER FOR tionships among local groups. Although
ORGANIZING? organizing creates relationships among indi-
viduals, it also may change the balance of
Community organizing is based in place. power among existing community groups,
Place is the resource from which organizers or change the terms of interaction among
draw residents and organizations. Place is them—affecting local dynamics of coopera-
also a target for change, in that it seeks to tion or contention. The second critical
sway its concrete outcomes and local insti- aspect of neighborhood institutions involves
tutions that a campaign attempts to sway. rules, policies, or practices on the part of
However, the role of varied community con- place-Â�based actors. While concrete “wins”—
texts as both resource and target for organ- getting funds for a school program, getting
izing is significantly under-�theorized in the the city to shut down an unwanted busi-
organizing literature. That is, while sensitive ness—are significant accomplishments, we
to the possibility of varied community needs should also look carefully at the ways that
in the very model of local, self-�defined organizing may redirect agencies to be
empowerment, organizing practitioners increasingly open to political participation
often describe organizing practice as if it in a sustained way, as these are the changes
occurred in a vacuum of social or commun- most likely to benefit neighborhoods. In the
ity space. For example, Delgado (1986) case of organizing around housing or
 How does Community Matter?╇╇ | 231

community development issues, these prac- during the Koch administration identifies
tices are mostly likely to be seen among discourse around race as a critical compon-
agencies or policies that influence local ent to maintaining governing coalitions. In
development activities and outcomes. their extensive account of the Community
These two structures—organizational Action program, Greenstone and Peterson
networks and political institutions—are (1973) write that community groups’ mobil-
both relational, dynamic structures. As rela- ization of African Americans around issues
tional structures, they are possessed of dif- of discrimination was an important part of
ferent terms of interaction, or different the challenge they posed to urban political
political cultures. One way to understand systems.
the context for organizing is to identify a Along these lines, I argue that discourse
neighborhood’s distinct, recognizable, polit- about race and about conflict not only helps
ical culture typified by qualities of practice, structure relationships between local gov-
terms of exchange, and recognized dis- ernment and residents, but also that these
courses. These terms of interaction are signi- claims provide the basis for interaction
ficant to assess from an organizing among community organizations. This is
perspective, as campaigns occur within— because community organizations, many of
and sometimes attempt to change—these which were formed in relationship to urban
political cultures. Within these local cul- political challenges of the 1960s and 1970s,
tures, conflict and consensus are not simply have their roots deeply touched by issues of
key terms in the debate around organizing race. In the 40 years after Community
practice. They are also embedded within Action, urban challenge, and local disrup-
local political cultures themselves. tions, questions of race remain an extremely
important component to local political chal-
lenges and political structures. For this
WHAT ARE SOME RELEVANT reason, both community organizations and
DIMENSIONS OF COMMUNITY’S political institutions are intensely aware
POLITICAL CULTURE? both of issues of conflict and issues of differ-
ence. That is, the ways that local groups
Drawing on the democratic deliberation interact with each other is informed by an
literature (Mouffe, 2000; Benhabib, 1996) understanding about the role of difference
and the literature on race and political and the role of conflict in community life. I
action, I argue that there are two important elaborate on both dimensions below.
dimensions of political culture to consider in
understanding how organizing emerges in
Conflict
diverse neighborhoods. These dimensions
involve (1) the presence of conflict, and (2) I define the presence of “conflict” in com-
the articulation of racial and ethnic differ- munity culture as the extent to which groups
ence in community. The first dimension, and government employ coercive means,
conflict, is widely understood as fundamen- contentious tactics, and tension. This defini-
tal to political activity. The model I espouse tion is consistent with the normative, theo-
for understanding neighborhood context retical literature on democratic deliberative
adds an additional dimension, by under- theory (see Mouff, 2000), and also on social
standing that conflict in the US is often set movement studies about the institutionaliza-
in relationship to issues of racial and ethnic tion of protest (Piven & Cloward, 1977).
difference. Both local government and com- Sometimes coercive means and punitive
munity organizations make issues of racial tactics are employed by political machines,
and ethnic difference an important part of and by groups seeking to challenge these
their culture, or otherwise make its omission machines. But even outside “machine” polit-
also salient for the ways they project author- ical systems, issues of conflict are particu-
ity and challenge. For example, Mol- larly salient. The salience of this dimension
lenkopf↜’s (1994) account of New York City of political culture is illustrated by the
232 |╇╇ D. M. Greenberg

difference between the Giuliani and Bloom� may frame action in more general terms,
berg administrations’ approaches to govern- without explicit reference to the racial,
ance in New York City.1 The Giuliani ethnic, or class composition of their constit-
administration relied successfully on uencies, even when constituencies are pri-
conflict-Â�oriented, “hard-Â�ball” approaches to marily people of color.
governance and political action, seeking These two dimensions of political culture
contentious, wedge issues (such as welfare are separable from each other, as illustrated
reform and homeless rights) that mobilized by in Table 25.1 and elaborated in descrip-
the Mayor’s white ethnic base. In contrast, tive paragraphs below.
the Bloomberg administration’s approach to
governance has been marked by relatively
Diverse-�Inclusive Neighborhoods
conspicuous efforts at consensus building
around the same, potentially contentious First, cultures I characterize being “diverse-Â�
policy issues. At the same time, a mayoral inclusive” (low evocation of conflict, high
administration’s strategy is not the only evocation of difference) attempt to incorpo-
factor which defines a political culture, with rate new groups into neighborhood and
many advocacy groups refusing to particip- civic life without excessive conflict. These
ate in consensus-�building efforts. cultures attempt to accommodate difference
through sensitivity to diversity through com-
munication, negotiation, and deliberation
Difference
over contentious tactics and separatist/
I draw on language employed by democratic nationalist claims (on the part of organiza-
theorists (Benhabib, 1996; Young, 2000) to tions), or punitive or coercive modes of
describe representation of racial and ethnic incorporation (on the part of local govern-
difference as a second important dimension ment). Some hypothetical cases might
of local political culture, calling it the extent include resource rich, progressive suburbs
to which communities articulate fundamen- with the political institutions to incorporate
tal distinctions among constituencies. The and provide in some way for new
presence of “difference” as a variable in constituencies.
local political culture should not be con-
fused with the ways that race objectively
Consensus-�Pluralist Neighborhoods
figures into local outcomes, but instead as a
critical frame for community action that is “Consensus-Â�pluralist” local cultures (low
either voiced or not voiced. Either explicitly, evocation of conflict, low evocation of dif-
through inclusion, or implicitly, through de-� ference) emphasize attempts to build broad
emphasis, political cultures make represen- and inclusive agreement based on shared
tations about race-�based patterns of political values. These cultures de-�emphasize the
and economic exclusion impacting their potential that particular interests may super-
neighborhoods. Communities for whom sede the ability of institutions to accommo-
racial or ethnic difference is an important date them. In such communities, coalitions
component of political culture may have may emphasize shared values, articulate a
many national or ethnic associations, or vision of “one community” acting in concert
support diverse, multi-�lingual outreach by for self-�betterment, build openness in com-
organizations and government. In contrast, munication among partners, and share
local cultures that de-�emphasize difference information between state and public

Table 25.1╇ Two dimensions, and four types of community political cultures

Low evocation of difference High evocation of difference

Low evocation of conflict Consensus-pluralist Diverse-inclusive

High evocation of conflict Partisan-advocate Agonistic-pluralist
 How does Community Matter?╇╇ | 233

groups. Some hypothetical cases include Plain) are examples of these types of
places where New England, town-�meeting communities.
type institutions prevail and have helped
enforce deliberation and consensus building.
HOW DOES ORGANIZING (OF
DIFFERENT MODELS) INTERACT
Partisan-�Advocate Neighborhoods WITH LOCAL POLITICAL CULTURES?
“Partisan-Â�advocate” cultures (high evoca-
tion of conflict, low evocation of difference) Getting back to this chapter’s original (but
understand the basis for inter-�group inter- side-�stepped) question, I argue that in differ-
action within neighborhoods or cities in ent neighborhood contexts, conflict organ-
terms of particularist agendas driven by per- izing or consensus organizing might create
sonal history and organizational affiliation. different types of responses from local and
In these cultures, ideology, race, class, or state actors. In practice, organizing groups
other social groupings suggest little to actors take different approaches to collective
about the need for change. These cultures action—some avoid conflict or seek it selec-
are characterized by contentious tactics, but tively, and some embrace it. Similarly, as
racial and ethnic difference is not a central campaigns are developed, leaders make
frame through which political action is decisions about whether to emphasize or de-�
organized. Examples of these may include emphasize these issues of racial and ethnic
neighborhoods where community politics is difference. Claims articulated in campaigns
dominated by a few, elite interests or associ- are important not only because they appeal
ations that are not fully cohesive; or even to identities of groups and individuals in
ethnically diverse neighborhoods where organizing campaigns, but also because pat-
“machine” politics provides the basis terns of interaction between residents, local
for€ incorporation, rather than cultural groups, and the state form complementary
associations. (or competing) claims to those advanced by
the organizing. Regardless of its particular
source, claims about community structure
Agonistic-�Pluralist Neighborhoods and community change intrinsic within
organizing, and the tactics that followed
Communities that emphasize both difference these orientations, significantly inform the
and conflict I call “agonistic-Â�pluralist,” bor- ways that other groups responded to organ-
rowing the term from writers about demo- izing, helping determine whether they
cratic deliberation (Mouffe, 2000; Benhabib, remained bystanders, joined up with the
1996). Bonnie Honig’s articulation of cause, mobilized against it, or otherwise
“agonism” characterizes this culture well: attempted to influence the campaign.
The stakes that successful organizing
the inescapability of conflict and the ineradi-
cability of resistance to the political and moral
might have on local political institutions
projects of ordering subjects, institutions, and becomes clearer to organizers and activists
values .â•›.â•›. it is to give up on the dream of a as they interact with neighborhood groups,
place called home .â•›.â•›. free of power, conflict, elected officials, and governmental agencies
and struggle. about broad and potentially issues within
(Benhabib, 1996, p. 186) community life. By holding meetings with
residents, pushing agendas with members of
Such cultures stress tension and conflict as other community organizations, carrying
means toward political action, and frame out actions and demonstrations, and inter-
this action within an explicit context of acting with governmental agencies and
racial and ethnic difference. Progressive, elected officials, groups learn whether their
contentious neighborhoods (New York’s efforts might be incorporated into existing
Lower East Side or Williamsburg; San Fran- community dynamics, or if they pose a more
cisco’s Mission District; Boston’s Jamaica radical threat to political institutions. As
234 |╇╇ D. M. Greenberg

leaders interact with staff and members of Similarly, changes in the way that state
other groups, other organizations recognize actors frame their work is likely to be asso-
the character of a group’s claims toward ciated with changes in substance of their
race and toward conflict, how it relates to policies and their inclusivity of resident
their own efforts, and whether it is com- groups. This dynamic is illustrated by Figure
plementary or dissonant with their own. 25.1.
That is, while the specific demands of cam- As such, I argue that context “matters”
paigns can themselves be seen to be signific- for organizing outcomes, because particip-
ant by other groups, equally important are ants in organizing themselves develop a col-
the ways that these demands are viewed as lective understanding of place, and because
an extension of broad claims about race and contests over this representation influence
about conflict within community. what change becomes possible through
Where agreement forms, or where ten- organizing. This perspective is a critical aug-
sions stemming from divergent views about mentation to the debate on consensus organ-
race and about conflict are quickly accom- izing, as seen in different hypothetical
modated, collective action may build on scenarios. For example, what might be a
previous successes, or continue general set- radical orientation toward difference and
backs within that neighborhood. Where dis- conflict in one setting, proves to be accepted
sonance forms between groups about the and easily incorporated by another com�
orientation of organizing work, campaigns munity—as in the case of a progressive,
spark more friction within the community, challenge-�oriented neighborhood group
and between residents and government. acting in a neighborhood with institutions
While this friction presents challenges for that are already oriented toward norms of
organizing, making it more difficult to racial justice; in such a case, organizing
“win,” it also holds out the potential to (when successful) may exist to reinforce
reshape relationships among community against “external” political forces (such as
groups and to change power dynamics gentrifiers, with a different political orienta-
between neighborhoods and city hall. These tion and resource demands) and to maintain
shifts in culture are also likely to be associ- local institutions. In another situation even
ated with shifts in local power structures— tentative evocations of challenge or racial
in the networks of organizations, or in the and ethnic consciousness may be met
orientation of governmental institutions. with€ fierce resistance, enact dynamics of

Orientation Results in dynamic Forms a potential

toward conflict path within organizing organizing outcome
and difference campaign

CONFLUENCE Potential continuity:

between a group’s The potential to win
orientation and policy goals, while
those of community sustaining the direction
groups and city hall of local mobilization
Organizing
and community action.
group develops
an orientation
toward conflict
and difference
DISSONANCE: Potential change:
community
a group’s orientation The potential to win
is different from policy goals, while also
other community remaking the terms of
and state inter-organizational
organizations relations and shifting
significantly local
power dynamics.

Figure 25.1╇ Theoretical model of organizing in context

 How does Community Matter?╇╇ | 235

contention and challenge, and carry the view, this account would avoid both the
potential to introduce new policies and dis- dichotomously posed debates around con-
courses as a result. Similarly, one could be sensus and challenge-�based organizing. We
consensus oriented in a dysfunctional, should also be sensitive to exploring ways of
machine-Â�dominated, conflictual community, contending—understanding that there is not
and by winning campaigns introduce the just one form that struggle can take. We
potential for “a new way of doing business” should also be sensitive the specific context
where the consistent articulation of in which these struggles occur—understand-
consensus-�building principles still poses a ing that practices effective in one neighbor-
radical threat to community dynamics. hood might provoke a different response in
others. We should also depict the phenome-
non of organizing in a way that describes
WHAT ARE IMPORTANT CAVEATS? the role both of human agency and of social
structure. The model described above tries
In the model above, I talk about the implica- to illustrate the interaction between the two
tions of dissonance and confluence as poten- broad categories of agency and structure—
tial outcomes, because success is likely at least as collective action and movement
dependent on factors other than the orienta- activity at the neighborhood level illumi-
tion of a group toward challenge or toward nates them.
consensus. Although developing a specific
orientation toward community—a frame for
local action—is one way to attempt to NOTE
capture “hearts and minds” of residents
over the course of organizing (as the literat- 1. The author acted as an organizer and advocate
during both administrations.
ure on social movement framing suggests),
the power to enact community changes does
not come through rhetorical appeal alone or
through more passive appeal to identity. REFERENCES
Instead, we should be open to other aspects
Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: A practical primer
of practice—ones that are more sensitive to for realistic radicals. New York: Random House.
the basic skills of organizational power Archer, M. S. (1988). Culture and agency. Cambridge,
building, such as building relationships, UK: Cambridge University Press.
developing leaders, and providing opportun- Benhabib, S. (1996). Democracy and difference. Prince�
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ities for collective decision-�making. In
Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots. Berke-
essence, while my argument is that framing ley: University of California Press.
processes cannot be understood in a Delgado, G. (1986). Organizing the movement: The
vacuum, it is also that framing processes roots and growth of ACORN. Philadelphia: Temple.
alone do not change neighborhoods. In Eichler, M. (1998, September/October). Organizing’s
past, present, and future. Shelterforce 101.
reductionist terms, how “angry” a handful
Fainstein, N. & Fainstein, S. (1974). Urban political
of residents are, how sensitive they are to movements: The search for power by minority
issues of race, how inclusive and coopera- groups in American Cities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
tive they are, or how color-�blind they Prentice Hall.
imagine themselves to be, does not alone Gittell, R. & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing:
Building social capital as a development strategy.
effect change. Instead, residents must learn
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
to build effective organizations. Giugni, M. (1998). Was it worth the effort? The out-
comes and consequences of social movements.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 371–393.
CONCLUSION Greenstone, J. D. & Peterson, P. E. (1973). Race and
authority in urban politics: Community participation
and the war on poverty. New York: Russell Sage
My overall goal in this chapter has been to Foundation.
move toward a more nuanced theoretical Lauman, E. O., Marsden, P. & Galaskiewicz, J. (1977).
account of organizing outcomes. In my Community-�elite influence structures: An extension
236 |╇╇ D. M. Greenberg

of a network approach. American Journal of Soci- Social capital and poor communities. New York:
ology, 83(3), 594–631. Russell Sage Foundation.
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the develop- Stoeker, R. (1997). The community development cor-
ment of the black insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago: poration model of urban redevelopment: A political
University of Chicago Press. economy critique and an alternative. Journal of
Marcuse, P. (1999). Housing movements in the USA. Urban Affairs, 19(1), 1–22.
Housing, Theory and Society, 16, 67–86. Stoeker, R. (2002). Community organizing and com-
Mollenkopf, J. (1994). A phoenix in the ashes: The rise munity development: Apples and oranges? Chicken
and fall of the Koch coalition in New York City pol- and egg? Paper presented on COMM-�ORG: the On-�
itics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Line Conference on Community Organizing and
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Development. Retrieved from http://comm-�org.
Verso Books. utoledo.edu/papers.htm.
Piven, F. F. & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor people’s Stone, C., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D., & Pierannunzi, C.
movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of
York: Pantheon Books. reforming urban schools. Lawrence: University Press
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (1992). Community organ- of Kansas.
izing and development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy.
Saegert, S., Thompson, J. P., & Warren, M. (2001). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
 CHAPTER 26

Doing Democracy Up Close

Culture, Power, and Communication in Community Planning

Xavier de Souza Briggs

practitioners, for their part, have either

The planner who approaches the cultural frame-
work with technical expertise alone soon finds
adopted “cookbook” recipes for handling
others’ perceptions of his role quite narrow and
groups and situations (generic rules for facil-
his operating arena and impact highly circum-
itating successful meetings or resolving dis-
scribed .â•›.â•›. On the other hand, focusing on process
putes, for example) or have generated a rich
alone limits the planner to symbolic emotional
craft knowledge from trial and error—but
support roles and unduly hampers his capacity for
professional judgment. not necessarily in forms that are conscious,
(Bolan, 1969, p. 308)
shareable, and open to debate.
I focus on face-�to-face planning episodes
Decades have passed since Bolan insisted and planners’ choices within them, examin-
that planners be more than technicians or ing a brief ethnographic account of talk-�
sources of “emotional support” in the com- based, face-Â�to-face interactions or “speech
munities in which they work, and the stakes occasions” (Austin, 1961; Searle, 1969).
are higher than ever. With ethnic diversity The accounts are derived from my fieldnotes
on the rise in traditional “settler states” as consultant to a large-Â�scale, multi-Â�
such as the United States, Canada, and Aus- neighborhood community planning and
tralia, as well as in Europe, and with development initiative in a northeastern U.S.
increased attention to diversity in many city. I emphasize that planners and other
younger democracies in the developing public service professionals should seek to
world, professionals and others engaged in understand and respond to the diverse com-
local planning and problem-�solving (hereaf- munication codes and subtle power relations
ter, “planners”) face higher expectations that shape face-Â�to-face encounters, and I
that they behave in culturally competent provide advice on how to do both (for
ways and promote more inclusive decision-� details, see Briggs, 1998). Such understand-
making (Sandercock, 2000). This is perhaps ing and response—“knowing-Â�in-practice,”
most visible in the ways that planners com- to use Schön’s (1982) phrase—are especially
municate and handle power dynamics crucial where planners aim to get results
within and among groups. Yet despite rele- while meaningfully involving various
vant and even provocative contributions in “publics” or stakeholders in decision-Â�
planning theory and the social sciences over making. Those efforts require effective prac-
the past two decades, there has been remark- tices and constant learning, not just having
ably little effort to examine culture and the right values. Otherwise, many face-�to-
power in face-�to-face communication, such face interactions in a diverse society will
as in the planning meetings on which so struggle along at needlessly high levels of
much local work hinges. More specifically, confusion, distrust, and even resentment.
researchers have often treated these topics The risk and opportunities entailed in such
as abstractions for theorizing, not as con- interactions are especially significant when
crete problems and opportunities for the planners enter disadvantaged areas, as is the
planners involved (Forester, 1985). Many case with many community planning efforts.
238 |╇╇ X. de S. Briggs

But the principles developed here apply to meetings and, to a lesser degree, the con-
most face-�to-face encounters and are part of texts that surround them. For my purposes
a larger effort to free planning in democratic here, “community planning” is synonymous
societies from communication “distortions” with “neighborhood planning”: efforts by
(Forester, 1989), not to mention irrelevance. which residents and others in a spatially
defined area, often working in tandem with
planning professionals, seek to develop a
WHY COMMUNITY PLANNING IS blueprint for their collective future—to
IMPORTANT AND HARD protect what they have and secure improve-
ments in their quality of life. In America, the
Increased social diversity—in the US, it roots of such planning efforts run deep, at
comes alongside growing economic inequal- least as far back as the reformist era of the
ity—has sharpened the focus on politics and late 19th and early 20th centuries, when set-
public participation in local planning and tlement houses began to appear in crowded
decision-�making in democratic societies. industrial cities (Rohe & Gates, 1985).
Friedmann (1987, p. 14), for example, Community planning is policy development
argues that the pace of change and complex- on the micro level, often with deliberation
ity of problems in the public arena call for at its heart, but it is also an effort by local
“a renewal of politics, initially at the local stakeholders to write themselves a story.
scale of citizen encounters.” Innes (1996) Baum (1997, p. 295), in a detailed study of
offers consensus building, and underscores two community planning processes in Balti-
the role of “communicative action” (Innes, more, describes such planning as the effort
1995), to redefine the ideal of effective plan- to help move residents’ conversations with
ning. Influential voices outside the planning themselves and with technical experts from
field likewise agree that strong democracy is “communities of memory” to future-Â�
threatened by the loss of activities and asso- oriented “communities of hope.” At all
ciations that engage people locally, face to stages, clear, trustworthy face-�to-face com-
face (Barber, 1984; Fung, 2004). Renewed munication among actors is crucial to
efforts now aim quite often to build local getting significant and sustainable results.
social cohesion or “social capital” (Putnam, There are several reasons for which com-
2000), empowerment, and “community munity planning, after roughly two decades
capacity” (Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & in obscurity, is once again attracting great
Vidal, 2001). interest nationwide. First, where such plan-
Democracy is a labor intensive business, ning is participatory, it reflects a broad
especially in diverse societies. But relatively effort to shift public and private decision-�
little action-�oriented research has considered making toward models that favor stake-
how to make that business work at the holder involvement, from site-�based
micro level, face to face, through talk—with management in business to models for “rein-
planning or policymaking as a part. For the venting government” (Fung, 2004; Osborne,
most part, we have “how to” guides on 1993). Second, community planning is
public meetings and other media that are increasingly prescribed as a trigger for
terse on points of power and culture. In efforts to revitalize low-�income urban neigh-
general, rhetoric is rarely studied today, as it borhoods, and life in such neighborhoods
was 2,000 years ago, notes Brown (1983, p. came back on the screen politically in the
136), “to explain the relationships between 1990s.
the practice of language and the exercise of But as Chaskin (2005) observes, many
power.” community planning processes face power-
This study thus addresses an important ful tensions between democracy (the ethos
gap in research and reflective practice, using of associational action) and bureaucracy
a major community planning initiative to (the imperatives of programs, budgets, and
highlight cross-�cultural confusion, power expectations from funders and other exter-
relations, and other problems in face-�to-face nal authorities). Grassroots activists, who
 Doing Democracy Up Close╇╇ | 239

founded community-�based organizations to consultant to a large-�scale planning process

plan for and revitalize forgotten neighbor- in five densely populated, high-�poverty, pre-
hoods, now worry that some of these organ- dominantly African-�American and Latino
izations have outgrown their constituencies neighborhoods in a single city (I use pseudo-
(Gonzalez, 1993). Mayors and planning nyms for person and place names below). I
departments worry, as before, that local am a mixed-�race, male planner, and these
visions will favor parochial interests over ethnographic accounts—drawing both on
citywide priorities. And those who engage in participant observation and on informal (nat-
community planning, whether as consult- uralistic) interviewing—are, by nature, per-
ants, public officials, or citizen planners, sonalistic and subject to interpretive bias.
worry, as always, that the fruit of their
efforts may occupy little more than shelf
space. Looking for a Common Code:
Whereas earlier research and commentary Communication, Culture and
on community planning focused squarely on Confusion
issues of culture, power, conflict, and the
legitimacy of the planner’s role (e.g., Peattie, It’s 8:30 PM on a mid-Â�winter night in the
1968; Rein, 1969; Arnstein, 1969; Bolan, Clydewood neighborhood, an overwhelmingly
1969; Ecklein & Lauffer, 1972), most recent African-�American and Latino area where
work celebrates programmatic best practices almost half the population lives below the
or stories of winning advocacy campaigns. poverty line. The planning task force made up
With a few notable exceptions, this work is of residents and chaired by a local community
quite journalistic, thin on concepts to guide development corporation (CDC) is meeting
for the third time at a neighborhood youth
analysis or show why the “formulas” fail in
center. The room is small for the 16 persons
some contexts. Descriptive accounts and pro- present, and long tables have been arranged in
fessional primers, both old and new, mostly a “U” shape to face the front. Fred, the CDC
allude to the miscommunication, cross-� executive director, chairs the meeting, wel-
cultural gaps, and subtle power relations that coming participants, reminding residents of
characterize public encounters. Fortunately, a the larger objectives, and leading everyone in
large body of research in anthropology, com- a prayer at the start, group hug at the close.
munication, sociolinguistics, and sociology Like most of the task force members, he is
has addressed these issues in detail. African-�American and over 50. Two hired
planning consultants are standing: Julio, a
30ish Hispanic planner, is facilitating, and
Karen, a white Anglo (non-�Hispanic) planner
PREVIEW AND APPROACH
in her mid-�40s, is recording comments on
large sheets of butcher-�block paper on the
I examine a single planning episode, empha- wall. The planners met with Fred before the
sizing how key aspects of community plan- meeting to go over meeting roles and review a
ning practice reflect the dynamics of “social tentative agenda. Julio and the residents are
performance”: socially organized, politically doing most of the talking. He asks general
subtle, culturally shaped, and talk-�based questions about social services in the area and
public interactions or speech occasions in probes on their responses; from time to time,
which participants play roles much like per- he encourages residents to explore different
formers in a play (Goffman, 1959). I focus topics and to modify the comments recorded.
on broad patterns of social performance Midway through the meeting, the group is
discussing the rehabilitation and conversion of
common to a range of face-�to-face citizen
an abandoned city-�owned building for use as
encounters in which planners and other a youth center. Shari, one of only two teen�
public service professionals may find them- agers present, is standing in one corner as she
selves, not the intricacies of group behavior expresses strong concerns that the facility be
generally, to which a vast and distinct literat- designed with youth [“users” in the planning
ure is devoted. The speech occasion presented jargon] in mind. She is African-�American, 17
below was edited from fieldnotes I took as years old. “Y’all gotta listen to the young
240 |╇╇ X. de S. Briggs

people; we don’t never get anything made for stituents, let alone encode their own speech
us right! Don’t never get askedâ•›.â•›.â•›.” Shari, who for those constituents to understand (the
stands a slender but strong 6-foot-�2, is latter being a feedback problem not evident
pumping the air with her outstretched fingers in the narrative above but one with which
and moving her head from side to side across
Karen struggled in many other instances).
her shoulders for emphasis. I make a mental
These problems, different conceptions about
note that her body is saying as much as her
mouth. Julio asks her to be more specific what is to come in a meeting and code con-
about how the proposed youth facility should fusion once talk begins, can have devastat-
be designed: “Ok, so what do you want to see ing effects, alienating participants,
there? Enter it in your mind’s eye—what does threatening the trust needed to develop and
it look and feel like?” Based on earlier conver- act on plans collaboratively over time, and
sations and her comment a moment ago, I get inhibiting valuable exchange and learning.
the sense that this is a question Shari is seldom Speech occasions like the one presented
asked, and Shari seems caught off guard. She above are “socially performed.” People
is still and silent as Julio probes further. I see (social actors) assume roles in face-�to-face
that Karen is staring at Shari and quivering
interaction in order to manage the impres-
with (what looks like) fear. Later, when the
sions of fellow actors (Goffman, 1959).
meeting is wrapped up, I confer privately with
Karen, who tells me how threatened she felt Moreover, social actors rely on verbal and
by Shari’s behavior. Julio and I then talk to nonverbal forms or “codes” that are familiar
her about the verbal and nonverbal cues that to them (Hymes, 1974; Kochman, 1981).
different people use to communicate. Julio Goffman’s performance framework captures
said that he “read” Shari as emphatic, impas- the broad parameters of the situation: actors
sioned but not at all threatening to the plan- seek to manage the impression of other
ners or process. actors, not necessarily to manipulate but to
maintain a normal, understandable exchange,
In this encounter, a technically able planner, in other words to “uphold the situation”
due perhaps to her life stage, as well as her (Goffman, 1971, p. 23). Code concepts, on
class and ethnic background, was unable to the other hand, reveal the substance of com-
decode the speech of a community resident, munication and confusion, as well as specific
a young woman who, among other contri- talk strategies within those parameters.
butions, played an important “bridging” For example, the planners described above
role, connecting the local task force to youth wanted to project objectivity and respect for
in her neighborhood. Far from being threat- resident views while steering discussion in
ening, Shari was, by local reputation, an ways that informed their work, and these
ambitious and outspoken leader among her planners may not have reached a tacit or
peers—well liked by local leaders and by explicit consensus on these situational, as
project staff because she cared deeply about opposed to technical, aims in advance,
the issues our planning effort emphasized. despite the pre-�meeting. Based on later obser-
To Karen, though, Shari’s emphatic out- vation and informal interviews, the residents
burst connoted threat. Because Shari was present brought a range of intentions: to
(literally) standing tall in a sit-Â�down project authority as the “old guard,” to
meeting, and because her body language ensure that younger voices were not sup-
underlined her strong feelings about the pressed by these older figures, and so on.
issues at hand, Karen was silent and visibly Staff added more unstated agendas. Conver-
on edge for the remainder of the meeting. sations with Karen reflected scant awareness
Planning efforts struggle over situations on her part of these multiple agendas and
like this one, wherein planners: (a) differ role performances, above and beyond the
from other meeting participants in their factual exchange assumed by rational theo-
sense of the proper bounds of the social per- ries of planning and policymaking, in which
formance and of the various aims of social participation merely generates “input.”
actors in the situation; and (b) fail to reli� The raw material of the encounter con-
ably decode the speech of their resident con- sisted largely of verbal and nonverbal
 Doing Democracy Up Close╇╇ | 241

communication organized along ethnic, (scripts), along with the range of forms
class, institutional, and other dimensions. (codes) to expect, would have helped Shari,
The following basic concepts will help us Karen, and others to exchange information.1
analyze this episode: scripts are the conven- This is part of the “norming” that groups
tions or expectations that different actors can do in advance of their work together
bring to a particular face-�to-face encounter (Hackman, 1990). Forester (1989) has
(community task force meeting, public called explicitly for a focus on planning as
hearing at city hall, etc.), and codes are the mutual “sense making.” But to norm and
specific linguistic forms used to talk (Saville-� make sense together effectively, actors
Troike & Kleifgen, 1986). The evidence is involved in a situation must be aware that
that Karen and Shari differed according to scripts exist and have some sense of what
the scripts they brought to the meeting— their own scripts include.
their expectations as to appropriate behav- In general, when verbal and nonverbal
ior, what constitutes emphasis versus threat, behavior are confusing and even threaten-
and so on—as well as the codes they ing, ask insiders what they think such
employed, both verbally and nonverbally. behavior means, and be ready for a range of
More specifically, Karen felt threatened by answers. While I am not suggesting that
Shari’s volume and emphatic tone, as well as planners become behavioral scientists, the
her nonverbal signals: standing for emphasis, field researcher’s healthy concern for the
pumping the air with her hands, swaying her range of cultural assumptions present in a
head from side-�to-side as she looked at the setting like the one described, and a willing-
planners—in other words, by a style of face-Â� ness to ask elementary questions, can go a
to-face rhetoric rooted in ethnicity and social long way (Lofland & Lofland, 1995).
class (Kochman, 1981; Gumperz, 1982). Although one may trigger suspicion and
Karen’s script also reflected an institutional defensiveness with probing inquiry, my
logic: her tendency to focus on what Chaskin experience is that most people understand
(2005) labels “bureaucracy” in community the need to get second opinions about “what
planning (budgetary and programmatic went on” (to debrief an encounter) and,
imperatives) rather than democracy (collect- further, that people appreciate being
ive voice and action). counted enough to offer their insights. A
Typical of such confusion, neither Shari few relatively neutral probes that might
nor Karen were aware that there was a com- have been helpful for Karen, with or without
munication problem, nor that code confu- her colleagues’ input after the meeting,
sion could change the outcomes of the include the following:
meeting, as well as future relations among
the actors involved (Hymes, 1974; Wolf- What did Shari mean when she said “young
gang, 1979). When planners and other people never get asked?”
Shari, what did you mean when you said .â•›.â•›.?
actors in a social setting share life stage, eth-
Say more aboutâ•›.â•›.â•›.
nicity, class level, and other social traits, the
Do other young people feel strongly about
chance for code confusion and mistaken that?
intentions are much reduced: codes and I don’t know about that [issue/sentiment].
scripts will largely coincide in homogeneous What’s that all about?
settings. But in the practice of community
planning, so often conducted across these Although social performances and code
social borders, common communication clashes can be terribly confusing, we never-
conventions can hardly be assumed. theless tend to actively fit meanings to them,
to make sense of them, rightly or wrongly,
based on prior experiences (Garfinkel,
OPTIONS FOR ACTION 1967). If code and other performance prob-
lems are therefore common but fairly invis�
What to do? Discussions, whether public or ible to the key actors involved, all sides of
private, about acceptable conventions the encounter may become even angry, not
242 |╇╇ X. de S. Briggs

just uncomfortable, because actors tend to DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

read intentions into what has “gone wrong”
in the interaction (Erickson, 1979, p. 122). I could have subtitled this chapter “trouble
These stand-Â�offs are, at worst, highly pater- at community meetings.” Planners, espe-
nalistic and parochial on the part of outsid- cially those working in neighborhoods or
ers with authority (“these community people other field settings, are often called upon to
don’t know what they want, their ideas be more than informed technicians, to
aren’t helpful, and they don’t see the bigger assume a variety of public roles that support
picture,” or “we could never get that past effective communication and shared
the board!”) and resentful in the view of decision-Â�making processes. But knowing
residents (“those racist ‘experts’ are at it what you don’t know is important, and the
again, they don’t know what I know and largely unrecognized dynamics I have exam-
don’t care to learn it”). Such inferences may ined here are also important, for reasons of
confirm the worst fears and preconceptions legitimacy as well as effectiveness. Our still
each side of the interaction has about the insufficient attention to the links among
other. communication, culture, and power, rein-
Where decoding is concerned, because forces the belief that, like the stereotypical
social meanings are subject to various filters, technicians of old, planners and policy pro-
it is critical, as suggested above, to ask fessionals work top-�down and write techni-
various actors—young and old, richer and cal reports, diagnosing social problems and
poorer, newcomers and long-Â�termers, from removing pathology “over there,” with little
various ethnic groups—what means what consideration to local knowledge, values, or
and what actors intend. As for encoding culture (Gans, 1968; Scott, 1998; Tauxe,
effectively, planners who are able to “code 1995). We cannot simply ignore the per-
switch” to make themselves understood in formance aspects of face-Â�to-face interactions
particular settings bring undeniable advan- or prescribe formulaic responses to the chal-
tages to these encounters. This practice, also lenges examined here. Nor should we simply
known as “style switching,” was first docu- retreat to value statements about how
mented by researchers among African-� important it is to engage the public in
Americans (Mitchell-�Kernan, 1972), but is decisions that matter. Rather, we should
practiced by members of various groups collect and share principles for reading com-
who navigate across boundaries of commu- munication codes and power relations, espe-
nication. Moreover, “going street”—an cially in multicultural settings, and for
informal way to describe switching from responding in ways that promote mutual
standard American English to a particular learning. Such competence is critical for
group’s dialect—was described in literature doing democracy “up close” in a world of
long before social scientists deemed the phe- diverse publics and complex public
nomenon important enough to study. It is a problems.
survival skill for people who must function
in two or more social worlds or “speech
communities” (Gumperz, 1968), each with NOTE
its preferred patterns of communication. As
I have elaborated elsewhere (Briggs, 1998), 1. In other sessions, we, the consultant team, shared
power dynamics, and notable power imbal- with participants some of our conventions for
communicating and listening during the meeting
ances, are often at play in these encounters and asked about their expectations. We also
as well. debriefed amongst ourselves after each meeting
These concepts focus attention on the and shared the tasks of checking our interpreta-
understandable differences that human actors tions of events with other actors involved. Time
and role, of course, constrained us in all of these
bring to these settings and away from sim-
efforts.
plistic analyses that hold confusion and anger
to be—always and everywhere—signs of con-
scious prejudice or the will to dominate.
 Doing Democracy Up Close╇╇ | 243

REFERENCES In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Discourse strategies. Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Hackman, R. (1990). Groups that work (and those
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), that don’t): Creating conditions for effective team-
216–224. work. San Francisco: Jossey-Â�Bass.
Austin, J. (1961). How to do things with words. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An
London: Oxford. ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory pol- Pennsylvania.
itics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging para-
Press. digm: Communicative action and interactive prac-
Baum, H. S. (1997). The organization of hope: Com- tice. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
munities planning themselves. Albany: State Univer- 14(3), 183–189.
sity of New York Press. Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus build-
Bolan, R. S. (1969). Community decision behavior: The ing: A new view of the comprehensive planning
culture of planning. Journal of the American Insti- ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association,
tute of Planners, 35(5), 301–310. 62(4), 460–472.
Briggs, X. de S. (1998). Doing democracy up close: Kochman, R. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict.
Culture, power, and communication in community Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
building. Journal of Planning Education and Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social
Research, 18(1), 1–13. settings: A guide to qualitative observation and anal-
Brown, R. H. (1983). Theories of rhetoric and rhetor- ysis. Boston: Wadsworth.
ics of theory: Toward a political phenomenology of Mitchell-�Kernan, C. (1972). On the status of
social truth. Social Research, 50(1), 126–157. black€ English for native speakers. In C. Cazden, V.
Chaskin, R. J. (2005). Democracy and bureaucracy in a John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in
community planning process. Journal of Planning the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Education and Research, 24(4), 408–419. Winston.
Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. Osborne, D. (1993). Reinventing government: How the
(2001). Building community capacity. New York: entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public
Aldine de Gruyter. sector. Reading, MA: Addison-�Wesley.
Ecklein, J. L. & Lauffer, A. A. (Eds.). (1972). Com- Peattie, L. R. (1968). Reflections on advocacy planning.
munity organizers and social planners. New York: Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 3(2),
John Wiley and Sons. 80–88.
Erickson, F. (1979). Talking down: Some cultural Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and
sources of miscommunication in interracial inter- revival of American community. New York: Simon
views. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: & Schuster.
Applications and cultural implications (pp. 99–126). Rein, M. (1969). Social planning: The search for legiti-
New York: Academic. macy. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
Forester, J. (Ed.). (1985). Critical theory and public 35(4), 233–244.
life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rohe, W. M. & Gates, L. B. (1985). Planning with
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Ber- neighborhoods. Chapel Hill: University of North
keley: University of California Press. Carolina Press.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: Sandercock, L. (2000). When strangers become neigh-
From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton bors: Managing cities of difference. Planning Theory
University Press. and Practice, (1), 13–30.
Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation. Princeton, Saville-�Troike, M. & Kleifgen, J. A. (1986). Scripts for
NJ: Princeton University Press. schools: Cross-�cultural communication in elementary
Gans, H. J. (1968). People and plans: Essays on urban classrooms. Text, 6, 207–221.
problems and solutions. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1982). Some of what a planner knows: A
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. case study of knowing-�in-practice. Journal of the
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Â�Hall. American Planning Association, 48(3), 351–364.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in every- Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain
day life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. schemes to improve the human condition have failed.
Goffman, I. (1971). Relations in public. New York: New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Basic Books. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge Uni-
Gonzalez, D. (1993, January 7). In the South Bronx, versity Press.
the grassroots grows up. New York Times, pp. B1, Tauxe, C. S. (1995). Marginalizing public participation
B4. in local planning: An ethnographic account. Journal
Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The speech community. In D. L. of the American Planning Association, 61(4),
Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social 471–481.
sciences. New York: Crowell, Collier and Macmil- Wolfgang, A. (Ed.). (1979). Nonverbal behavior: Appli-
lan. cations and cultural implications. New York:
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Ethnic style in political rhetoric. Academic.
 CHAPTER 27

Community Organizing for Power and Democracy

Lessons Learned from a Life in the Trenches

Harold DeRienzo

It is difficult, if not ultimately self-�defeating, programs we develop, ultimately creates

to undertake a community organizing effort frustration on all sides and in the end does
without some understanding or appreciation an injustice and disservice to the very people
of the economic, social, and political envir- we purport to be helping.
onment within which such an effort will Before defining community, however, it
operate, along with some anticipation of helps to define a contrasted perspective of
how our work fits (or not) within that “neighborhood,” especially since the terms
context. “neighborhood” and “community” are so
But in the process of deciding on the kind often used interchangeably.
of community organizing effort to under- To my way of thinking, a neighborhood
take and how such an effort will be received is little more than a “housing services
and what chances such an effort has for cluster” where residents live in close enough
success, it is also necessary to test our own proximity to provide the underlying eco-
assumptions about, and to be clear as to nomic bases to support an array of neces-
how we ourselves define, community. After sary and/or desired services. I say “and/or”
all, if we do not start from a grounded desired services because a low-�income neigh-
premise, and we undertake to do “commun- borhood may be able to do little more than
ity organizing” nonetheless, then we are support a bodega on every corner, given the
presuming, probably to our own frustration fact that there is a high density of popula-
and to the detriment of those on whose tion but with each household barely able to
behalf we purport to be working, that com- afford necessities.
munity exists and that it is possible to use In a neighborhood, each household is an
that reality for the development of, or to independent economic entity, with the
further, some collective human benefit. On source of economic capacity derived, for the
the other hand, if we are actually intent most part, from without the confines of the
upon “organizing community,” then we given area. So the characteristics of a neigh-
need to know what we are attempting to borhood are:
organize and what are the internal and
external supports and constraints we have 1. Atomization. Each household exists as a
to work within. But either way, knowing (or self-�contained social unit, a collective
at least having a sense of↜) what we are consumption unit (for goods, media,
trying to organize or knowing the state of information, and politics) and, econom-
community within which we are attempting ically speaking, an individual labor-�
to organize should be a critical first step bargaining unit in the regional, national,
before we get started. And, I also believe and global economy.
that the prevailing practice of not paying 2. External Economic Dependency. The
better attention to the importance of the means needed to maintain lifestyles are
goals we choose, of being sloppy with termi- primarily obtained from outside the
nology, and thereby being sloppy in the neighborhood.
 Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned╇╇ | 245

3. Service Infrastructure. The individual economy.” In my experience, since the

neighborhood components (houses, funders and the outside protagonists
with little substantive relevance to who (you know, the ones with all the
resides within them) are connected by answers) start with the premise that the
an infrastructure comprising utility and world is as it is because of some natural
transportation networks, shopping and law or natural order of things, the goal
other service hubs, education and other then becomes to teach people how to
supportive services. survive and thrive within this world
that, after all, works so well for them.
In contrast to this rather “stripped down” But let any one of them lose their house-
concept of neighborhood elaborated on hold incomes and find themselves
above, the concept of “community” is much without the benefit of family or inher-
more powerful, but just as difficult to achieve ited wealth and they will learn soon
and maintain in reality as is the power. In enough that the “community” that they
fact, community and power (in the tradi- believe they live in, is not a community
tional sense) are interrelated and functionally at all, just a local residential service
interdependent, as explained below. cluster that sustains them only to the
For “community” to exist, I believe there extent that it is supported by them
needs to be three necessary and integrally through their outside economic endeav-
related components: ors. “Community,” without some eco-
nomic capacity that defines the relations
1. Commonality. Something—geographi- between and among its members and
cal circumstances, children, beliefs, advances the quality of life of those
needs, issues, (private) troubles that are within that “community,” is not a com-
recognized as (public) issues, or what- munity at all, just an aggregation of
ever—that any group of people may people within some set of shared
hold in common must exist for there to circumstances.
be a basis for community. But although 3. Collective Capacity. This third neces-
commonality is a necessary component, sary component of community follows
this first component of community is from the first two components—com-
often seen as the only necessary basis monality and interdependence. For a
for a community organizing effort—the community to be a community there
beginning and the end of most practi- must be an internal capacity to accom-
tioners’ quests in search of the bases for plish goals that are commonly resolved
their work. But without a more expan- to be necessary or desirable. For the
sive perspective, most such efforts most part, in established communities,
almost always will fail once the external the vehicles for accomplishing the com-
supports for the effort are removed. monly held agenda of its members are
2. Interdependence. This is a difficult called institutions. And I would main-
concept to appreciate, especially for tain that it is possible to gauge the rela-
those who fund comprehensive com- tive health of any community by
munity initiatives, community building, determining the extent to which its insti-
and ambitious community organizing tutions are controlled by the residents
efforts. What interdependence presumes or by outside resources. But implicit to
is that a necessary component of com- understanding community, and it fits
munity is economic. For example, Max well within the conventional definition
Weber (1968) defining an urban com- of power as a covenant among people,
munity as: “predominance of trade-Â� is that collective capacity only results
commercial relations”; Wendell Berry from each individual having something
(1993) defining community as the to offer to the collective “pot” from
“locally understood interdependence of which common good can be achieved.
local people, local culture and local Ask yourself the question: with no
246 |╇╇ H. DeRienzo

access to the primary sources of wealth preference expressed through political pro�
(natural resources, information, techno- cesses (mostly voting) would define our social
logy, means of production, and the like) structures, our economic system and our
and with most people possessing or institutional framework. But that was naive.
trending toward negative wealth, what Politics, social structures, predominant
opportunity is there for entering into culture and institutional arrangements—all
such contracts and, by so doing, creat- of which comprise the arrangements for
ing the bases for exercising power? sharing power within our society—are
necessarily defined by the needs of the pre-
Having defined community, I would main- dominant economy. The needs of that econ-
tain that most of the community building omy—concentrated access to resources,
efforts that I have been exposed to or partici- information, technology, and wealth; a
pated in would fall under two categories or mobile and disciplined workforce; encour-
models: (1) the “Static Enhancement” Model, agement toward individual and household
and (2) the “Transformative” Model. consumption; the tolerance for the “family”
The Static Enhancement Model accepts as the most expansive acceptable social unit;
the prevailing social, economic, political government that is limited in its regulatory
order as a given, and then seeks to infuse intrusion, and so on—is anathema to the
resources into the local organizing efforts to very concept and (as I believe we are seeing
“enhance” the capacities of local residents now) the very reality of community. This
to adjust to and thrive within the given cir- cannot be ignored if we are truly serious
cumstances—the recognized and accepted about community organizing. And if we are
status quo. But this premise is totally mis- not that serious, then let’s be honest and
placed in that reality is not fixed and is not declare community an anachronism and go
predetermined. To quote from Isaiah Berlin on to project some alternative set of humane
(1991), “ends are not .â•›.â•›. objective values, social arrangements that will ensure that we
discoverable within man or within the tran- do not become slaves to the very private,
scendent realm .â•›.â•›. Ends are not discovered consumptive lives we have accepted and
at all, but made, not found but created.” In cling to with abandon.
other words, “reality” is not some immutÂ� Due to this dominant and preemptive
able existence or some force incapable of social trend toward individual consumption,
being influenced and to simply be reckoned there is increasing individual isolation, polit-
with. “Reality” is being made, transformed, ical disenfranchisement, and economic mar-
continually. The real question for all of us is ginality in our society. If we are going to
whether we will be subjects of that trans- organize in order to improve lives and trans-
formation (continually acting upon that form any aspect of current power-�sharing
reality) or objects (totally at the mercy of arrangements, these dynamics that both
whatever is reality at any given time, to destroy and prevent community must at
borrow a concept from Paulo Freire). This least be recognized and drawn into our con-
brings us to the next model. siderations and our work.
The Transformative Model accepts that This brings us to the concept of power, a
reality is being made and remade continu- concept that goes hand-�in-hand with the
ally and also accepts that people working concept of community. Hannah Arendt
together actually can be a part of making (1963) distinguishes between strength (our
history, not merely observing it. This leads individual attributes held in isolation against
to a need to appreciate the economic and all others) and power, which she defines in
political context within which we organize terms of a mutual covenant binding people
and to have an appreciation of the concept together into what amounts to a power
of power. structure, and embodied within community.
When I was young, I believed that living Power, like community, lasts for as long
in a democracy, people had political power as € people remain working together and
and that political expression and political disappears as soon as they disperse. But,
 Power and Democracy: Lessons Learned╇╇ | 247

more important, due to the structure and organized and undertaken to minimize
continual processes of community (expressed the hurt and not to change any of the
through the three attributes of commonal- underlying dynamics that politically
ity, interdependence, and collective capa� empowered the proposed actions to
city), power remains always latent and begin with. These are necessarily stop-�
accessible because community exists. But gap activities that use the threat of dis-
like power, community is a fragile circum- ruption and the possible risk of creating
stance. Once people disperse (into isolation) the public perception of social wrong to
and give up commonly held circumstances, prevent or minimize harm.
refrain from mutually supportive activities, 3. Transformative/Developmental Organ-
and allow the means for collective capacity izing. This form of organizing has as its
to erode, community dies and takes the goal the long-�term, structural trans-
capacity for exercising power along with it. formation of power-�sharing arrange-
And, just for the record, community is not ments. How is such a thing
and cannot be sustained by organizing. accomplished? First, it is necessary to
Community is only sustained by the infra- recognize the challenges that any com-
structure of relations and networks and munity organizing effort is confronted
processes that make up that community. with. Second, it is necessary to strike at
Similar to being able to gauge the absence of the heart of the problem by seeking to
community by the total control of local change the destructive dynamics of indi-
institutions by outside forces, the recognized vidual isolation, economic marginality,
need for constant organizing is also an indi- and the resulting political disenfran-
cation of the absence of community. In a chisement. There is no specific work
sense, a call for constant organizing is an plan. But most approaches that seek to
attempt to compensate for a lack of power directly attack those symptoms of a
due to the absence of community. dying community and seek to change
Given the circumstances outlined above, the destructive dynamics that destroy
current community organizing efforts, I and prevent community represent a
believe, can be characterized in three ways: good start. A few examples follow:

1. Organizing for Domestication. These 1. Public Space. It amazes me how

efforts are generated most times by out- willingly we are giving up public
siders who believe that they have the space in favor of private isolation,
answers and that by teaching people individual consumptive gratifica-
how to think, how to dress, how to act, tion, and total self-�reliance. The
what values to bring to any circum- first order of business for any totali-
stance, and so on, that these people will tarian regime is to destroy public
be saved. Unfortunately, too many of space and replace it with fear, dis-
my colleagues are perfectly happy with trust, loathing, individual insecu-
this form of organizing. They treat rity, and suspicion. (Think of the
people as objects to be manipulated, potential for this in the wake of
many times for their own selfish ends 9/11.) But in our society, we seem
(control, power, money, self-� to be voluntarily giving up public
aggrandizement, or whatever). space in favor of some consumption-
2. Organizing Around Issues—Issue-Â� Â�dominated nirvana. (An East Ber-
Specific Mobilization. This form of liner after the fall of the Berlin wall
organizing is very important in that these reportedly lauded the wonders of
efforts often are undertaken to stop a western-�style democracy that he
major regressive action that would hurt characterized as “canned beer and
large segments of the population. But no responsibility.”) Any community
important as these efforts are, they must effort must seek to restore the use
be recognized for what they are—efforts of public space.
248 |╇╇ H. DeRienzo

2. Institutional Accountability and to maintain membership by con-

Control. The organization I work tinually organizing one mobilization
for sponsors a city-�wide mutual campaign after another. It remains
housing association called CATCH, to be seen if this direct political
a city-�wide group that redevelops involvement will make a difference
abandoned and distressed proper- (i.e., long-�term use of public
ties, trains residents, and turns resources to maximize local eco-
control of the corporations over to nomic participation and maximize
residents. Our local affiliate, the economic and social benefits), but it
Central Harlem MHA, is the only is a worthwhile effort.
community development corpora-
tion in Harlem that is resident con- The underlying goal of any legitimate com-
trolled. The struggle has been munity effort need not be very dramatic.
difficult and the challenges ahead The goal of any community organizing
are many, but the potential is that effort should be to concurrently promote
when local residents effectively human values and to reverse the destructive
control the resources of nearly 600 dynamics that isolate people, marginalize
units of housing and all of the them economically, and disenfranchise
internal demand (repair jobs, sup- them€ politically. Whatever evolves from
plies, contracting services, etc.) that such efforts may or may not fit our conven-
goes along with it, this will begin to tional definition of community, but will
facilitate the necessary attributes of necessarily constitute the humane and sus-
community and make a small begin- tainable attributes we all seem to long for in
ning in tearing away the destructive pushing our rhetoric about values of
anti-�community dynamics of isola- community.
tion, economic marginality, and
political disenfranchisement.
3. Political Involvement. On its own,
REFERENCES
political involvement is a useless
exercise, but in tandem with other Arendt, H. (1963). On revolution. New York: Viking
community building activities, can Press.
make a difference. I believe, con- Berlin, I. (1991). The crooked timber of humanity:
sciously or unconsciously, that one Chapters in the history of ideas (H. Hardy, Ed.).
New York: Alfred J. Knopf.
reason that ACORN joined with
Berry, W. (1993). Sex, economy, freedom and com-
unions to form the Working munity. New York: Pantheon Books.
Families Party in New York was Weber, M. (1968 [1958]). The City (D. Martindale &
based on a frustration with having G. Neuwirth, Trans. & Eds.). New York: Free Press.
 PART IV

Globalization and Community

Development
 CHAPTER 28

Introduction to Part IV
James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

Communities are not solely products of emerge from them. We cannot do justice to
those within them. Instead, communities are such a large and important set of issues in
produced through a whole range of relation- this part. But we believe the chapters that
ships and processes that transcend any given follow are a productive set of readings that
community. Increasingly those processes will enable community developers to think
and relationships are global in geographic more productively about the ways in which
scale. The global sets of relationships that globalization is part of what they do.
shape and help produce communities take The part begins with a pair of chapters
many different forms; globalization is about that describe the basic impacts of economic
far more than the facts that cheap goods can globalization on American communities.
be imported and jobs outsourced overseas. The first, from Williamson, Imbroscio, and
More specifically, globalization occurs Alperovitz is a primer on the basic political
through the globalized flows of capital, and economic impacts of globalization and
goods, people, cultures, policies, ideologies, free trade on American communities. Their
and movements. Several different processes findings are somewhat restrained, and they
are at work here. The speed with which argue that most of the economic impacts
capital moves, and the global scale at which have been overstated in debates about glo-
it operates have profound implications for balization: both by proponents and critics.
what can, and cannot, be done in commun- They also argue, however, that the political
ity development. The growth of large trans- implications of globalization are more
national migrant communities connects the important than is usually recognized. The
social relations and social significance of second chapter from Newman is about the
communities well beyond the geographic ways in which urban land has become
boundaries of any given place-�defined com- increasingly intertwined with globalized
munity. Social movements increasingly, and flows of capital—and this is particularly true
out of necessity, operate both in communit- in post-�industrial cities, where profitable
ies in the United States and in other places investments are disproportionately found in
around the world. Finally, the ideas that land development, rather than more produc-
inform practice are themselves increasingly tive economic activities such as manufactur-
globalized, as political economic under- ing or services. Newman’s piece, written as
standings are transferred from one context the foreclosure crisis was becoming all too
to another. There are thus several different, clear to the American public, puts that crisis
and although related, practically and analyt- into its proper perspective—as a crisis
ically distinct ways in which globalization brought on by surplus capital flooding into
has transformed the terrain of communities communities with little care about the
and, thus, community development. In this impacts of such a deluge on the people in
relatively short part we address how these those communities.
global sets of relations shape urban com- The second pair of chapters looks at the
munities, and what organizational forms migration of people in a globalized world.
252 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

This movement of people creates particular because of how well it grounds globalization
organizational forms that, while they may in real places with real people—and demon-
vary a bit in empirical content, have, gener- strates the potential for human agency to
ally speaking, been part of the immigrant make globalization a more equitable set of
experience as long as there has been immi- processes.
gration. The first, by Cordero-Â�Guzmán and Finally, the chapter ends with Jurik’s
Quiroz-�Becerra, addresses the practices of chapter on the movement of the ideas and
immigrant community-�based organizations practices of microenterprise in community
(CBOs). While immigrant CBOs do many of development globally. The story often told
the same things as non-�immigrant commun- of how microenterprise emerged in the
ity development organizations (housing, global South and spread North is one which
advocacy, etc.), there are concerns, issues, is incomplete. And properly understood, the
and problems that are particular to immi- story is one in which ideas that emerged in
grants and which often result in new organi- institutions in the global North spread the
zations to address them. The second chapter idea to the underdeveloped world; once it
by Orozco and Rouse is about hometown was established there in places like Bangla-
associations (HTAs) and the roles that desh and the Andes region of South
HTAs play in the development of their com- America, it then came back to the United
munities in their countries or, more accu- States and other developed countries.
rately, cities and towns, of origin. Together these chapters help us realize
The chapter from Hermanson on “solid- the myriad ways in which community devel-
arity organizing” in the global flows of opment is a globalized set of processes. The-
commodities is unusual in this book, in orists and practitioners need to understand
that€ it is a case study. But we felt that it these processes in order to recognize what
made sense to use it, not just because of the constraints and opportunities it presents to
inherent interest of the case, but also the field of community development.
 CHAPTER 29

Globalization and Free Trade

Thad Williamson, David Imbroscio, and Gar Alperovitz

What exactly is globalization? How does it This is the case even though some types
matter for communities? It is often assumed of services—in particular, producer services,
in popular discussion that increased globali- services that meet the needs of businesses—
zation means that economic activity either have become more tradable. The upward
no longer is or can in the future be tied to change in services traded outside the local-
particular communities. But this is not the ity, however, is more than offset by the
case. In fact, more economic activity in the baseline increase in services and decline in
United States economy is now inherently manufacturing. The growing exposure to
local—at the same time that more economic global trade thus has occurred in tandem
activity is tied to trade and global economic with an increase in the degree to which eco-
activities. nomic activity in the United States has
We can begin to grasp this paradox by become more localized.
considering the countless professions and It is thus fair to ask whether the stakes in
services that remain almost entirely unaf- the free trade debate may have been exag-
fected by international trade in any direct gerated by free trade advocates—even as the
sense: think of carpenters, doctors, school- negative effects of globalization may also
teachers, plumbers, local government have been overstated by some activist critics.
employees, gardeners, custodial workers, Only 12.2%—less than one-Â�eighth of the
barbers, and construction workers. Thomas goods and services produced in the United
Michael Power calculates that “About 60 States in 1999—were sold abroad (Eco-
percent of U.S. economic activity is local nomic Report of the President 2000). As
and provides residents with the goods and Dunn writes, Americans
services that make their lives comfortable .â•›.â•›.
Almost all local economies are dominated should not believe that further trade liberali-
by residents taking in each other’s wash” zation will either produce large increases in
U.S. incomes or impose large costs on Ameri-
(1996, p.€ 37). Moreover, this figure has
can unskilled workers. U.S. trade restrictions
steadily increased, not decreased, in the have already been reduced to such low levels
postwar era, largely due to the growth in that there is not much more to either accom-
retail and wholesale sales, services, financial plish or fear in this area.
and real estate, and state and local govern- (2000, p.€129)
ment as a percentage of all economic activ-
ity. Wiewel and Persky similarly conclude From our perspective, the larger point is
that due to the “deindustrialization of urban that the economic loss from reasonable
areas, a steady expansion of local consumer restraints on trade adopted in the interest of
services, and the considerable growth of the sustaining community economies would also
local public and health sectors .â•›.â•›. the econo- not be cataclysmic—and might be a price
mies of large metropolitan areas are now worth paying in order to nurture democratic
more locally oriented than ever” (1994, self-Â�governance. Given the impact of eco-
p.€129). nomic dislocations on community and on
254 |╇╇ T. Williamson et al.

community democracy, there is much to the Portugal, making use of the absolute advant-
judgment offered by Dryzek: “Irrespective age enjoyed by Portugal in both goods.
of any positive economic benefits of free Indeed, if capital were totally mobile, there
trade (and even these may appear only in would be no reason in this example for it to
the aggregate, at the expense of large losses remain in England, since both wine and
to particular categories of people), almost cloth could be produced more cheaply
all the implications for democratic control abroad.
are negative” (1996, p.€79). Simply put, the world today is one in
which the input of capital can be and is
moved across borders; “trade” does not
CAPITAL MOBILITY AND THE CRISIS consist simply of different countries’ capital-
OF FREE TRADE IDEOLOGY: THE ists competing in product markets on the
THEORETICAL CRITIQUE basis of comparative advantage. Rather,
investments are regularly made across
The conventional theoretical argument for borders as capitalists seek not only compar-
free trade holds that free mobility of goods ative but absolute advantage. When they do
across borders permits each country to spe- so they weaken the home economy. A world
cialize in areas of “comparative advantage,” of unrestrained capital mobility and free
as the 19th century classical economist trade in product markets logically implies
David Ricardo put it, resulting in increased either heavy unemployment in higher-�cost,
welfare for all. Adherence to Ricardo’s doc- higher-Â�wage nations or a sharp reduction in
trine of comparative advantage has led wages in such nations so that they can
many economists to suggest that barriers to remain competitive. To be sure, we do not
trade are economically foolish and would yet live in a world of truly seamless capital
impose welfare costs on consumers. mobility. But capital mobility across borders
However, the simple translation of 19th does now take place on a far greater scale
century insights from Ricardo into blind and at a greater velocity than the original
support for free trade ignores how dramati- proponents of the comparative advantage
cally the world has changed—and in par- model could ever have imagined.
ticular, it ignores the mobility of capital. A second difficulty with unrestricted free
Ricardo posited a situation in which trade involves the problem of ensuring that
England required 100 workers to produce a regulations imposed on the domestic pro-
given amount of cloth and 120 workers to duction of goods do not lead to unfair dis-
produce a given amount of wine, whereas in advantages for domestic producers. Adam
Portugal cloth could be produced with 90 Smith clearly saw the logic of this problem.
workers and wine with only 80 workers. In The Wealth of Nations he suggested that
Ricardo noted that by concentrating all its imposing tariffs on imported goods would
production in wine, Portugal could actually be good economic policy. He argued that:
end up with more cloth (via trade with
England) than it could if it shifted some of it will generally be advantageous to lay some
its production to cloth—even though Portu- burden upon foreign [industry] for the encour-
agement of domestic industry .â•›.â•›. when some
guese production of cloth was more efficient
tax is imposed at home upon the produce of
than English production. the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that
Daly and Cobb (1989) offered the fol- an equal tax should be imposed upon the like
lowing striking observation about Ricardo’s produce of the former.
story: As Ricardo himself noted, the com- (1993 [1776])
parative advantage principle works only
because capital is assumed not to move If we extend the logic of Smith’s argument
across borders. Given free, relatively costless to regulatory requirements, we conclude
mobility of capital between England and Adam Smith would likely have been quite
Portugal, English capitalists could profitably sympathetic to the concerns environmental-
choose to produce both cloth and wine in ists and workers in the United States have
 Globalization and Free Trade╇╇ | 255

voiced about permitting goods produced can undermine community. The following
under regimes that do not enforce environ- discussion is divided into three broad topics:
mental laws or workers’ rights to have free first, the direct impact increased globaliza-
and open access to the U.S. market. tion and freer trade may have on communit-
A third difficulty with the theory of free ies and workers; second, the impact of
trade is that it presumes the prices of goods international economic integration on
fully reflect the actual costs of production. national economic policies; and third, the
The central point here is that because for impact of new trade agreements on the
various reasons market prices often do not ability of governments both to uphold their
accurately reflect the true costs of goods, own social and ecological standards and to
there is no reason simply to assume that a take measures to strengthen community
policy of free trade will necessarily generate stability.
the most socially efficient outcome.
Finally, there is the matter of economic
history. For most of its own period as a IS GLOBALIZATION DESTABILIZING
“developing nation,” the United States itself AMERICAN COMMUNITIES?
employed protectionist policies. Eckes points
out that the first act of Congress under the We begin by examining the ways in which
new Constitution in 1789 was to implement trade and increased economic integration
an 8.5% revenue tariff. Support for higher may directly impact the economic prospects
tariffs spiked sharply upward in the first of American workers and their communit-
quarter of the 19th century—and generated ies, focusing on the issues of job loss, wages
largely positive economic consequences. and inequality, and increased volatility and
Eckes notes: insecurity in the labor market.
From the War of 1812 to World War II,
American import duties averaged over 25 The General Impact of Trade and Imports
percent ad valorem on all dutiable goods in all
on Jobs and Wages
but six years. In sixty of those years the
average rate was 40 percent or higher.╛.╛.╛. Eco- Perhaps the most common-�sense under-
nomic data show that the United States standing of how increased trade can hurt
achieved high levels of economic growth after American workers and communities involves
the American Civil War, and declining prices new imports entering the American market
for many protected goods suggest that in the
and directly displacing American producers.
context of a large continental market protec-
tionism was not inconsistent with rapid eco-
The growth of imported Japanese cars in the
nomic development .â•›.â•›. None of the world’s 1970s and 1980s and the concomitant
present industrial nations achieved economic decline in Detroit, Flint, and other auto-�
success without experiencing a sustained pro- producing communities is a paradigmatic
tectionist phase. example of how trade can harm American
(1999, pp.€60–61) communities.
An analysis by Scott (2000) provides
evidence that between 1992 and 1999 trade
CAPITAL MOBILITY AND THE CRISIS had a net negative impact on employment in
OF FREE TRADE IDEOLOGY: THE the United States. Scott reports that
EMPIRICAL CRITIQUE
while rising exports created about 4.1 million
jobs, rising imports lost 7.3 million, for a net
There are sound theoretical and historical effect of 3.2 million jobs lost due to trade.
reasons, then, to question pure free trade While other [statistical] techniques .â•›.â•›. may
arguments if one is serious about the eco- yield smaller estimates of the size of the trade
nomic prospects of American communities. effect, there can be no debate about the fact
It is also necessary to understand empirically that trade has been a net destroyer of domestic
the specific ways in which “globalization” jobs in this period.
256 |╇╇ T. Williamson et al.

One form of job loss related to globaliza- countries account for just 2% of the Organ-
tion results from trade in product markets. A ization for Economic Cooperation and
second form of job loss comes when corpora- Development (OECD) countries’ combined
tions move production from domestic loca- economies—the impact of trade on jobs and
tions overseas. To take one example, early in wages of competition from low-�wage com-
2001 Matsushita, a Japanese-�owned manu- panies must necessarily be small.
facturer of air conditioner compressors, Other economists, however, have ques-
closed down its factory in Mooresville, North tioned this relatively optimistic view of
Carolina, and laid off 530 workers, so as to trade’s consequences on wages and inequal-
relocate production to China and Malaysia. ity. For instance, Rodrik suggests that it is a
As one analyst of the state’s economy put it, mistake to look at only the direct effects of
“The Northern states shed these low-Â�end jobs trade in a vacuum. Rodrik paints a picture
20 years ago, and they came here. But now of the qualitative changes involved in a
technology is replacing a lot of workers, and more open world economy: “The relevant
the cheap labor isn’t here anymore—it’s over- measures of openness in this context are not
seas” (Firestone, 2001). the volumes of trade or of investment, but
Other studies on the impact of trade on the ease with which international transac-
job loss have shown that while trade has tions can be carried out” (1997, p.€17). The
had a tangible negative impact on employ- impact on wages in industries sensitive to
ment, trade in product markets alone does trade or capital mobility can also have a
not account for most of the job loss and spillover effect into the economy at large.
deindustrialization that took place during Further, while many economists argue that
the last quarter century. Most economists job-�destroying technology has done more
place greater blame on improved techno- direct damage to manufacturing jobs than
logy, which makes some jobs redundant; trade, Adrian Wood has argued that
related to this, corporate restructuring— increased competition from the South may
“downsizing”—also has played a role. have served as an exogenous stimulus to the
But while trade cannot explain everything implementation of such labor-�saving tech-
it does have important impacts. For nologies (Wood, 1995).
instance, a study by Kletzer of over 60 In short, trade almost certainly has a sub-
industries in the manufacturing sector finds stantial impact on growing wage inequality.
a positive relationship between job displace- While the direct effects of trade on wage
ment rates and import penetration. Kletzer inequality probably is relatively small
(2000, p.€ 382) concludes that “workers (accounting for 20% or less of the total
have good reason to worry about job and increase in inequality), trade also has
income security in the face of increasing important indirect effects on inequality.
foreign competition.”
Is increased trade linked to the well-�
Reducing Labor’s Bargaining Power
documented rise in income inequality over
the past 30 years? Most academic research It is now widely recognized that it is increas-
on this question has concluded that trade is ingly easy for American-�based multinational
part of the story of rising inequality but corporations to locate major capital invest-
probably not the major part. One landmark ment outside the United States, in some
study by Borjas, Freeman, and Katz found cases closing down American-�based manu-
that growth in trade could account for no facturing. And, as Palley puts it, capital
more than 10% of the increase of wage mobility, “by increasing the options availÂ�
�inequality between American college and able to business .╛.╛. has increased the bar-
high school graduates over the course of gaining power of firms vis-Â�à-vis both labor
the€ 1980s (cited in Gordon, 1996). And and government. Business in turn has been
Krugman (1998) has repeatedly urged that able to use its increased bargaining power to
since the total volume of North–South trade win concessions from both labor and gov-
is still small—imports from developing ernment” (1999, p.€8).
 Globalization and Free Trade╇╇ | 257

A study by Bronfenbrenner (2000) illus- infrastructure which directly increase

trates how the threat of capital flight plays employment in the United States.
out at the firm level. She found that 51% of The leakage issue has gained increasing
employers, and 71% in manufacturing, attention in recent years, but the problem
involved in some 407 National Labor Rela- itself was recognized as early as the 1930s
tions Board union elections threatened to by Keynes, who advocated a pragmatic
close their facilities during the union organ- approach to trade. Keynes warned of the
izing drives. Equally telling, when employers dangers to which protectionist policies could
made threats, union win rates in relatively lead, but he saw no need to sacrifice the real
immobile sectors such as health care and economy on the altar of free trade. In the
transportation were twice as high (60%) as early 1930s he strongly advocated the intro-
in manufacturing (28%). Thus the very duction of a revenue tariff in Britain as a
threat of moving, can itself severely under- precondition for an expansionary fiscal
cut union organizing—helping to depress policy aimed at increasing employment.
wages in the labor market as a whole. Such a tariff would help offset the costs of
increased public spending, stop leakages
abroad (“in so far as it leads to the substitu-
THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON tion of home-�produced goods for goods
NATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY previously imported, it will increase
employment in this country”), and ensure
The second major way globalization may against a massive trade deficit (Keynes,
impact communities and community stability 1963, p.€279).
is by hampering national economic policy-
making. The following discussion focuses on
Weakening of Welfare States
two specific ways globalization may under-
mine domestic economic strategies. Another important consequence of globali-
zation is the impact of increased openness
on the capacity of governments to tax
Leakages Prevent a Traditional Keynesian
capital at a rate sufficient to help provide for
Strategy
a strong welfare state. As Rodrik observes,
One way increased economic integration due to increases in capital mobility, globali-
may threaten national economic policy is zation increasingly “results in increased
through “leakages.” Leakages in national demands on the state to provide social insur-
economies, in the form of import purchases, ance while reducing the ability of the state
now make a traditional Keynesian demand-Â� to perform that role effectively.” Govern-
stimulus policy less effective, thereby ments find it more difficult to tax corpora-
making it more difficult for nations to tions that can move elsewhere. Indeed,
manage general economic instability and to Rodrik’s analysis of taxation trends in 18
achieve full employment. Government stim- OECD countries demonstrates that
ulation of the economy results in substan-
tially higher purchases of imports by taxes on labor respond positively to increases
consumers, and each dollar leaked out of in lagged [trade] openness, while taxes on
capital respond negatively .â•›.â•›. In other words,
the economy can no longer be recirculated.
there is strong evidence that as [global] eco-
Hence, the multiplier effect of increased nomic integration advances the tax burden of
domestic spending, so central to Keynesian social insurance programs is shifted from
demand-�led expansions, is diluted. This is capital to labor.
particularly true when fiscal stimulation (1997, p.€63)
takes the form of tax cuts: a significant per-
centage of new consumer spending is likely The reason? Non-�mobile forces, including
to be spent on imports, leading to greater especially labor and rooted capital, must
leakage than if stimulation had taken the pay the full cost of domestic taxes, while
form, say, of government investments in mobile factors can avoid them.
258 |╇╇ T. Williamson et al.

There is a burgeoning literature on None of the important constraints on Ameri-

whether globalization undercuts the very can social and economic policy come from
possibility of social-�democratic policies. In abroad. We have the resources to take far
its strongest form, the hypothesis is that glo- better care of our poor and unlucky than we
do; if our policies have become increasingly
balization over time will produce a conver-
mean-�spirited, that is a political choice, not
gence of political-�economic arrangements
something imposed on us by anonymous
across national borders that will drag down forces. We cannot evade responsibility for our
state intervention and welfare policies to a actions by claiming that global markets made
lowest common denominator. Some schol- us do it.
ars also stress the fact that increased finan-
cial integration decreases the ability of
individual nations to pursue independent THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON
fiscal or monetary policies. Other scholars DEMOCRATIC SELF-�GOVERNANCE
agree that pressures on the welfare state
have increased in advanced capitalist This section turns to the third major set of
nations, but argue that other factors, concerns pertaining to globalization: the
such as the slowdown in productivity possibility that the emerging process of glo-
growth associated with the rise of services-� balization and the emerging set of rules gov-
based economies, are more important in erning the international economy could
explaining these pressures than globalization severely weaken prospects for democratic
per se. self-�governance.
A third group of scholars vigorously
rejects not only the strongest form of the
convergence argument but also the very Globalization can Undercut Established
characterization of the world economy as Social and Ecological Norms
“globalized.” These scholars acknowledge Free trade regimes have the potential to
that the world economy has an increasing undercut established democratically deter-
number of international linkages but argue mined norms, especially labor standards and
that it is still primarily dominated by environmental legislation. These norms can
national-�level economic units. For instance, be undercut in two distinct ways. First,
Wade (1996, pp.€ 86–87) notes that allowing imports from countries with sub-
“national economic borders still define the standard labor and environmental protec-
boundaries of systems of capital accumula- tion laws to enter the United States can give
tion.” Wade points out that most produc- those countries a trading advantage based
tion in the major economic powers remains on exploiting either humans or nature,
oriented toward domestic consumption, that thereby weakening support for higher norms
most capital investments are domestic in the nation with better labor and ecolo-
investments made out of domestic savings, gical protections. Second, free trade regimes
and that multinational corporations con- may require that a particular government’s
tinue to base their strategic and R&D opera- specific rules represent an unfair restraint of
tions in home countries. trade. Rodrik points out that there is “little
An assessment by Glyn (1998) of substantive difference” between permitting
domestic and external constraints on “pro- “blocked exchanges” such as prison labor
gressive economic policy” in the OECD or child labor to occur in one’s home
countries judges that domestic political con- country and in permitting unrestricted
straints on job-�creating Keynesian policies imports of goods made under such con-
continue to be more important than ditions to undercut local producers.
globalization-Â�related constraints—and that
there is still considerable scope for autono-
mous national economic policymaking
within the world economy. Echoing this
view is Krugman (1998, p.€79), who holds,
 Globalization and Free Trade╇╇ | 259

International Trade and Investment fit squarely within States’ traditional author-
Agreements can make Industrial Policies ity.” American laws that the European
and other Community-�Supporting Policies Union has already claimed to be inconsist-
Illegal ent with the WTO regime include “State
environmental standards that exceed federal
A second specific way labor and environ-
levels; buy-�local, and minority and small-�
mental norms may be challenged is through
business set-�aside laws; State unitary tax
global free trade rules that potentially over-
laws; and differing State regulations of
ride local- and state-�level innovations aimed
banking and insurance.” And some 74 laws
at stimulating local self-�reliance and overall in California alone are estimated to be in
community stability. Except under tightly potential violation of WTO provisions
defined conditions, such rules essentially (Gordon, 2001, p.€36).
forbid labor and environmental laws at Some observers have pointed out that in
either state or federal levels from being particular cases the new WTO agreements
stronger than “international standards” if could have a positive impact on economic
they restrain trade. Even more suspect from development policy in the states. Schweke
the perspective of the World Trade Organ- thus suggests that WTO “subsidy discip-
ization (WTO) are policies aimed at directly line” policies are a “double-Â�edged sword”:
providing preferences to local goods, local new WTO rules could lead to a decrease in
producers, and local workers. state job-�chasing activities that involve large
Currently most American states have pol- subsidies to mobile corporate firms. In our
icies on the books favoring local producers view, however, a consistent critique of WTO
in one way or another, such as preferences intervention into state and federal level poli-
for local suppliers on bids for state con- cymaking suggests that both good policies
tracts. The emerging trade regime could in (restricting suspected carcinogens) and bad
principle allow other countries to challenge policies (providing indiscriminate subsidies
all such policies; a WTO panel in Geneva to exporters) should be debated and either
would then make a decision on whether the enacted or defeated by democratic publics,
policy in question is acceptable. If the ruling not by distant trade regimes.
went against the local or state law, the Indeed, perhaps the most problematic
United States would be subject to trade feature of the WTO, and the one that best
sanctions unless the laws were changed. explains the passionate grassroots opposi-
Each nation retains the constitutional power tion to the institution, is that the procedures
to keep its own laws, but only at a steep through which decisions on these matters
price, in the form of trade penalties. Numer- are made fail the basic test of accountability
ous challenges to countries’ existing social to democratic publics. As Kuttner (1999, p.
policies have already taken place under the 4) notes, “The WTO is a stunningly undem-
WTO/General Agreement on Tariffs and ocratic institution. It operates at several
Trade (GATT) regimes and in the European removes from popular sovereignty, much as
Union. the pre-�democratic deliberative institutions
As Gordon notes, there is a likelihood of of the seventeenth and eighteenth century
many, many more challenges to state law in operated.” Simply put, the guiding purpose
the United States under the provisions of of the WTO is the promotion of com-
NAFTA and the WTO as well as the pro- merce—not democratic deliberation regard-
posed Free Trade Agreement of the Ameri- ing how international trade should be
cas (FTAA). Seven specific WTO agreements balanced against the distinctive economic
call into question existing state legislation practices and institutions of individual
and taken together, as Gordon argues, they nations.
represent a significant change in the demo-
cratic structure of governance in the United
States, and indeed “threaten to internation-
alize many policy decisions which previously
260 |╇╇ T. Williamson et al.

CONCLUSION see advantages in locating in particular

places.
These criticisms of the impact of corporate-� Our approach to the question of how to
led globalization upon communities and respond to globalization is distinguished
workers in the United States and abroad do from conventional economic discourse in its
not span the full range of challenges that emphasis on democracy and community as
have been offered. For instance, we have not the central frame of reference. Building the
discussed the impact of the spreading of conditions of democracy from the bottom
Western products and culture via the proc- up in the communities where Americans live
esses of globalization. Similarly, the glo- is an underlying and fundamental value. So,
balized export of Western consumption too, is preserving real scope for effective
attitudes and standards has profound democratic decision-�making at the national
resource and ecological implications that we level. We do not deny that trade in product
cannot adequately address here. markets can produce important economic
Even accepting that trade produces gains for trading nations; nor do we deny in
important gains, globalization presents principle the social desirability of positive
several direct challenges to communities’ net capital flows from advanced industrial-
economic stability and standards of living. ized nations to the developing world. But
To recapitulate the key issues: first, the old unrestrained trade and increased financial
story of “comparative advantage” among integration also have economic and social
nations with rooted capital competing in costs—and, most importantly, costs to
product markets is no longer adequate; we democracy itself.
live in a world where increasingly mobile
capital seeks out absolute advantages.
Second, social welfare is not enhanced by REFERENCES
permitting standards of production, includ-
ing labor and environmental laws, to be Bronfenbrenner, K. (2000, December). Raw power:
eroded by unrestricted trade. Third, the Plant-�closing threats and the threat to union organ-
emergent global trade regime threatens to izing. Multinational Monitor.
Daly, H. & Cobb, J. (1989. For the common good.
undercut policies in the United States, Boston: Beacon Press.
particularly at the state and local levels, that Dunn, R. (2000, January/February). Review of The
are aimed at strengthening community and Lexus and the Olive Tree. Challenge, pp.€129–130.
helping local producers and local workers. Dryzek, J. (1996). Democracy in capitalist times. New
Finally, from the standpoint of democracy York: Oxford University Press.
Eckes, A. (1999). U.S. trade history. In W. Lovett, A.
and community, there are important values Eckes, & R. Brinkman (Eds.), U.S. trade policy:
other than gains in aggregate “economic History, theory and the WTO (pp. 36–90). Armonk,
welfare” or “consumers’ well-Â�being” that NY: ME Sharpe Inc.
must be taken into account in formulating Economic Report of the President 2000. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
international economic policy. Trade-�related
Firestone, D. (2001, February 23). A chief exporter,
job loss at the local level not only wreaks and not at all pleased about it. New York Times.
havoc on thousands of individuals’ lives but Glyn, A. (1998). Internal and external constraints on
also undermines the material basis of mean- egalitarian policies. In R. Pollin (Ed.), Globalization
ingful local democracy. and progressive economic policy (pp.€ 391–408).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Globalization thus provides an array of
Gordon, D. (1996). Fat and mean. New York: Basic
challenges to American communities. Books.
However, it is also important to bear in Gordon, M. (2001, July). Democracy’s new challenge:
mind that not all forms of capital have been Globalization, governance, and the future of Ameri-
loosened from the ties of place and com- can federalism. Report for the Demos Organization,
New York.
munity by globalization processes. Many
Keynes, J. M. (1963). Mitigation by tariff (1930). In
services—which occupy an increasing share Essays in Persuasion. New York: W.W. Norton.
of the American economy—are inherently Kletzer, L. (2000). Trade and job loss in manufactur-
placed based, and many corporations may ing, 1979–1994. In R. Feenstra (Ed.), The impact of
 Globalization and Free Trade╇╇ | 261

international trade on wages (pp. 349–396). Scott, R. (2000, March 24). The facts about trade and
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. job creation. Economic Policy Institute Issue Brief.
Krugman, P. (1998). The accidental theorist. New Smith, A. (1993 [1776]). The wealth of nations. New
York: W.W. Norton. York: Oxford University Press.
Kuttner, R. (1999, December 20). The end of citizen- Wade, R. (1996). Globalization and its limits. In S.
ship? American Prospect. Berger & R. Dore (Eds.), National diversity and
Palley, T. (1999). The economics of globalization: global capitalism (pp. 60–88). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Problems and policy responses. AFL-�CIO working University Press.
paper, Washington, DC. Wiewel, W. & Persky, J. (1994). The growing localness
Power, T. M. (1996). Lost landscapes and failed econo- of the global city. Economic Geography, pp.€129–143.
mies. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wood, A. (1995). How trade hurt unskilled workers.
Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(3), 57–80.
Washington, DC: Institute for International Eco-
nomics.
 CHAPTER 30

Post-�Industrial Widgets
Capital Flows and the Production of the Urban

Kathe Newman

THE AMERICAN DREAM process loans, and the secondary market

facilitated access to national and global
Homeownership is lauded in the US as a capital. Subprime market share exploded
tool to build wealth, revive failing cities, and from 8.6% of originations in 2002 to
engage the civically disengaged. The U.S. 20.1% in 2006 (Joint Center for Housing
homeownership rate reached 69% in 2006 Studies, 2006). In 2005, the total dollar
and many celebrated the vast scores of amount of subprime originations was $625
Americans, including many people of color, billion (Joint Economic Committee, 2007).
who achieved the often-�elusive American The emergence and expansion of the sub-
Dream. But homeownership is more than prime market had the potential to transform
the American Dream. It is a critical segment disinvested communities, and the borrowers
of the post-�industrial economy and housing-� in them, but questions have emerged about
related expenditures accounted for 23% of the quality of subprime lending leading
U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2005 (Joint some to wonder whether redlining had been
Center for Housing Studies, 2006). replaced by access to poor quality capital.
Despite the homeownership gains and the Until recently, most researchers, advocates,
increasing share of people of color who have and lending associations argued that abuses
become homeowners, not everyone is enthu- within the subprime market were the result
siastic. After decades battling the effects of of a minor group of lenders rather than a
redlining and disinvestment and participat- reflection of industry-�wide practices. This
ing in organizing campaigns to increase argument became hard, if not impossible, to
access to capital for residents of poor com- sustain by 2007 as liquidity dried up, fore-
munities, community organizations are closures skyrocketed, and the threat of
acutely aware that capital has returned to recession loomed over the entire US—if not
inner-Â�city neighborhoods. But many ques- the world’s—economy.
tion whether their neighborhoods have If the subprime crisis is conceptualized as
increased access to capital or capital has the action of a minor group of predatory
increased its access to them. Their concerns lenders, the problem is individualized, seg-
have focused on the subprime market, which mented, and inherently local. But if it is
ostensibly provides credit for people with instead seen as embedded in the financial
less than perfect credit ratings. Many bor- institutional relations that support the eco-
rowers with credit records that qualify for nomic health of the country and are globally
prime loans instead receive subprime credit networked, the problem looks quite differ-
suggesting that “subprime” is a better ent. I explore the role of the financial sector
description of the loans than the borrowers. in the expansion of the post-�industrial
The subprime market expanded exponen- economy and place the emergence of sub-
tially since the early 1990s as technological prime lending within that context. I am
advances and credit scoring enabled lenders keenly interested in the role of the state in
to more finely assess risk and quickly the development of these processes and
 Post-Industrial Widgets╇╇ | 263

institutional structures and in their relation- predatory lending. Poor and/or abusive
ship to place. lending practices, in their view, were playing
The expansion of credit and banking as a an instrumental role in foreclosures. The
share of the economy complicates the way events of 2007–2008 suggest that many
in which capital flows and its relationship to lenders were engaging in risky lending prac-
place. As finance has become an ever larger tices and much of the attention has focused
component of the deindustrialized economy, on loan origination practices in the two
parts of the credit system have started to years prior. The events magnify the trends
look more and more like the production of in predatory lending and racial/geographic
the industrial era. Mortgages might be targeting and the effects of these long-�term
thought of as the post-�industrial widget and practices on disadvantaged communities and
for the financial system to increase its output populations.
requires an increase in the number and
dollar amount of mortgages. The flow of
capital from neighborhoods through brokers MORTGAGES, THE NEW ECONOMY,
and lenders to investors and the subprime AND THE CITY
lending industry links global (and local)
capital to urban places providing the con- Harvey (1982, 1989) linked the develop-
nection—the node—to facilitate capital ment of the built environment to the pro-
accumulation, completing the flow from the duction of surplus capital in the primary
ethereal world of securities and investment circuit of production. Capital switching
to the real-�world communities. As finance from the primary to the secondary circuit
has become a more significant component of ensured continued opportunities for accu-
the U.S. economy, the state sees an increas- mulation. Harvey and those who followed
ing national interest in financial sector were teasing out the structure of the post-�
expansion. Legislative, regulatory, and insti- industrial economy and its relationship to
tutional changes allowed finance to expand, place during a period of transformation
including, most notably, growth of the rela- when the shape of the post-�industrial
tively unregulated subprime mortgage economy was just coming into view. Even at
market (Apgar, Bendimerad, & Essene, these early stages, it was clear that the struc-
2007; Fox Gotham, 2006; Howell, 2006; ture of financial arrangements was begin-
Chomsisengphet & Pennington-�Cross, 2006; ning to play an increasingly central role in
National Housing Services of Chicago facilitating capital’s movement globally
[NHS], 2004; Newman & Wyly, 2004). from one sector or circuit to another, and
To understand these connections, I situate into investment in the built environment.
the current wave of foreclosures in the Harvey (1989) suggested the increasing
broader political economy. I explore the integral relationship between the production
phenomenon of financialization within of the new economy and the production of
the€ transformation of the post-�industrial place:
economy and its relationship to place. I
review the emerging literature on the role of The effect, however, was to tie the production
the state in the expansion of the post-� of urban infrastructures more tightly into the
overall logic of capital flow, primarily through
industrial economy with particular emphasis
movements in the demand and supply of
on changes in the prime and subprime mort- money capital as reflected in the interest rate.
gage markets. Until recently, foreclosures The “urban construction cycle” therefore
have been explained largely as the result of became much more emphatic, as did the
job loss during economic downturns, rhythmic movement of uneven urban develop-
housing price decline, or personal events ment in geographic space.
such as divorce or illness. As the volume of (1989, p. 36)
subprime originations grew, since the 1990s,
some researchers and advocates have This increased centrality of credit,
warned that foreclosures are the result of finance, and banking has been loosely
264 |╇╇ K. Newman

termed “financialization” (Krippner, 2005; Fixity poses two interrelated problems.

French & Leyshon, 2004; Martin & Turner, First, the market value of a property is
2000). While the term is used to describe dependent in part on its location. Second,
different aspects of finance and the the investment in real estate at a fixed loca-
economy, here we are particularly interested tion traditionally required some in-�depth
in the role that Krippner (2005) explores, knowledge of the property and the place in
namely a shift from commodity production which it was situated. A series of policy
to finance production. Harvey (1999, 1989) changes initiated in the 1980s helped to de-�
anticipated that the state would play an link property from place by increasing the
increasingly important role as fictitious com- ease with which investors—even those
modities, especially land and money, play located on the other side of the globe—
larger roles in the economy but he saw could transcend the fixity of property invest-
finance as distinct from production. “Finan- ment (Fox Gotham, 2006; French &
cial markets separate out from commodity Leyshon, 2004).
and labor markets and acquire a certain Once de-�linked from place, liquidity was
autonomy vis-Â�à-vis production. Urban necessary to turn properties into commodi-
centers can then become centers of ties. Until the 1980s, most mortgages in the
coordination, decision-�making, and control, US were originated by depository institu-
usually within a hierarchically organized tions, whose capacity to make loans was
geographical structure” (Harvey, 1989, p. limited by their dependence on deposits and
22). Harvey’s ideas about production, by the need to ensure timely repayment on
finance, and credit, and the built environ- the mortgages they originated (Stiglitz &
ment present a jumping off point to consider Weiss, 1981). The emergence and rapid
these relationships. growth of the U.S. backed government
Reflecting the growing importance of sponsored enterprises (GSEs) in the 1980s
financialization, the U.S. federal government changed the calculus for mortgage lending
(largely viewed as pursuing deregulation by creating a secondary mortgage market.
policies and a reduction in social policymak- The ability to package and sell loans to
ing since the Reagan revolution of the outside buyers meant that originators could
1980s) has been intimately involved in cre- increase loan origination volume (dependent
ating policies to increase demand for mort- on purchases in the secondary market),
gage products and constructing an lower the cost of lending, and loosen under-
institutional framework that enabled the writing standards. The government’s
mortgage-�industrial complex, its institutions backing of the secondary market provided
and actors, to flourish. In much the same the support necessary to attract secondary
way that Keynesianism guided state policy market investors (Follain & Zorn, 1990;
to address the underconsumption problems Lea, 1990).
of the 1930s, in the post-�Keynesian neolib- Since the 1980s, banks, financial invest-
eral age, the state has played an aggressive ment firms, and government have enhanced
role in insuring the expansion of the new the expansion of the secondary market by
economy by increasing demand for mort- increasing liquidity through sophisticated
gage products, facilitating investment by de-� investment tools that, until recently, were
linking property from place, creating and thought to all but eliminate investment risk.
supporting the expansion of the secondary Collatoralized Mortgage Obligations
mortgage market, and changing tax laws to (CMOs) “tranched” or divided loans into
use housing to further commodity consump- categories of risk allowing investors to
tion (Apgar et al., 2007; Fox Gotham, 2006; invest based on their desired risk and invest-
Howell, 2006; Chomsisengphet & ment return (Wyly, Atia, Foxcroft, Hammel,
Pennington-�Cross, 2006; NHS, 2004). & Phillips-�Watts, 2006; Kendall & Fishman,
The expansion of mortgage production 2000). Changes to federal legislation in the
and homeownership was dependent in part 1980s, such as the 1984 Secondary Mort-
on resolving two issues—fixity and liquidity. gage Market Enhancement Act, expanded
 Post-Industrial Widgets╇╇ | 265

Wall Street’s ability to use these new flexible also fueled the growth of the prime mort-
multi-�class securities. The 1989 Financial gage market (Crews Cutts & Van Order,
Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforce- 2004). Subprime lending can be viewed as
ment Act further encouraged secondary an evolutionary innovation that increased
market expansion by mandating higher the avenues for capital accumulation in the
capital requirements for thrifts, pushing land and housing markets. The later intro-
them to sell loans they originated into the duction of exotic or nontraditional mort-
secondary market (Fox Gotham, 2006; gages and expanded use of Adjustable Rate
NHS, 2004; Follain & Zorn, 1990). Securi- Mortgages (ARMs) can be thought of in
tizing, tranching, credit enhancement, and much the same way. Mortgages are prod-
loan terms such as prepayment penalties ucts and for the financial industry to
helped to facilitate investment by de-�linking expand, it needed to originate more loans.
investment from place and commodify real Given finite demand for prime loans, the
estate (Fox Gotham, 2006). MacDonald only way to increase production is to find
(1996, p. 1183) views this as a fundamental new markets in subprime borrowers or
transformation in the way in which financial people living in communities that have
services were provided: “The localism that traditionally lacked access to prime credit
had defined the delivery of financial services institutions.
in the New Deal era was eroded as national The state thus played a key role in the
capital markets became more important expansion of the secondary market and the
intermediaries of credit and investment evolution of subprime lending. By creating
(Coakley, 1994).” the secondary market and regulating securi-
As these processes expanded, investment ties to expand housing production, the
in housing became ever more intricately federal government enabled the rise of non-�
woven into the U.S. economy. The Tax bank mortgage companies that challenged
Reform Act of 1986 changed the rules on the thrifts and became major actors in the
tax deductions creating an incentive for subprime market. Securitization reduced the
homeowners to use their homes as banks to regulatory impact of the Community Rein-
fund college educations, purchase new cars, vestment Act (CRA) since it gave an advant-
and finance home renovation, further install- age to non-�bank lending institutions by
ing housing and finance as a critical segment creating an alternative source of capital
in the broader economy (Apgar et al., 2007; divorced from place (Follain & Zorn, 1990).
NHS, 2004; Howell, 2006; Chomsisengphet Just as the federal government was gearing
& Pennington-�Cross, 2006). up for one of the most significant reductions
in federal social welfare, heralding a New
Federalism that increasingly devolved
Subprime Lending
responsibility to local government, the 1980
These regulatory and legislative transforma- federal Depository Institutions Deregulation
tions increased the volume of home mort- and Monetary Control Act allowed lenders
gage lending and expanded opportunities to to exceed state interest rate caps, allowing
many borrowers but even with these what has become known as high cost sub-
changes, borrowers with less than perfect prime lending. Two years later, Congress
credit had limited mortgage options until passed the Alternative Mortgage Transac-
the 1990s. The expansion of the subprime tion Parity Act allowing negative amortiza-
market is usually explained as the result of tion, adjustable interest rates, and balloon
increased liquidity and better risk manage- payments, making subprime loans look
ment created through the secondary market, affordable, while allowing hidden, often
combined with a suite of technological inno- predatory, terms (Chomsisengphet &
vations including automated underwriting Pennington-�Cross, 2006; Mansfield, 2000).
and credit scoring, all of which enabled The emergence of subprime and preda-
lenders to quickly and more finely estimate tory lending shifted concern from access to
risk. Such developments, not incidentally, capital to access to quality capital. Subprime
266 |╇╇ K. Newman

lenders have little incentive to turn away they trusted their loan representative” (Stein
overqualified borrowers. Fannie Mae esti- & Libby, 2001, p. 27). The information
mates that fully half of subprime borrowers asymmetries are so great that even the most
qualify for prime credit, which means that savvy consumer has little chance of identify-
borrowers are unnecessarily paying high fees ing the best priced loan.
and interest rates and damaging their credit Subprime and predatory lenders use
(Stein & Libby, 2001; The Reinvestment sophisticated marketing techniques to reach
Fund [TRF], 2005; Carr & Schuetz, 2001). people with little lending experience, educa-
More concern stems from the racial dispari- tion, mobility, or access to alternatives. In
ties in subprime borrowing, which suggest its survey of borrowers, CRC found that
that the mortgage market is racially seg- 80% of African American borrowers with
mented with whites more likely to receive incomes above $45,000, who thought they
prime low cost loans and people of color, had good credit, did not approach a bank
including people of color with good credit, before approaching a subprime lender for a
likely to receive higher cost subprime loans loan (Stein & Libby, 2001). Internet techno-
(Apgar et al., 2007; Wyly et al., 2006; logy and mortgage brokers enable subprime
Howell, 2006; Chomsisengphet & lenders to eliminate branch offices. Lenders
Pennington-�Cross, 2006; Wyly, Atia, & reach consumers through direct marketing
Hammel, 2004; NHS, 2004; Newman & and mortgage brokers who act as loan offic-
Wyly, 2004; Lax, Manti, Raca, & Zorn, ers on the ground as well as home improve-
2000; U.S. Departments of Treasury and ment contractors. As subprime lending
HUD, 2000; Wyly & Holloway, 1999). boomed, the number of mortgage brokerage
Engel and McCoy (2002) argue that resi- firms also increased, growing from 7,000 in
dents of inner-�city communities have 1987 to 44,000 in 2002, and brokers origin-
become “disconnected from the credit ated 45% of subprime originations in 2002
market and hence are vulnerable to preda- (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2004).
tory lending hard sell tactics” (p. 1259). Broker originated lending is considerably
Predatory lenders use “information asym- different from direct institution lending and
metries” to exploit such market disconnec- broker originated loans are more likely to
tion (Engel & McCoy, 2002). Throughout have poor terms. “Borrowers with broker-Â�
the lending process, lenders and mortgage originated loans were more likely to pay
brokers have more information than bor- points (25 versus 15 percent) and more
rowers producing significant power differen- likely to have a loan with a prepayment
tials. Borrowers often lack a complete penalty (26 versus 12 percent)” (Joint
understanding of the borrowing process, Center for Housing Studies, 2004, p. 33).
and their legal rights and rarely obtain their Despite the potential for egregious abuses,
own legal representation (Engel & McCoy, brokers and home improvement contractors
2002; TRF, 2005). The Community Rein- who link borrowers to financing are not
vestment Committee (CRC) (Stein & Libby, closely regulated. Once identified as within
2001) and TRF (2005) found that many a subprime market, residents can expect to
predatory lending victims do not understand receive incessant mailings and phone calls.
the lending process, do not shop for their For those who are most in need, with little
loan, use subprime credit even when they time or the ability to shop, these offers can
qualify for prime credit, do not understand be appealing. In one study, 38% of respond-
the terms of their loans, and do not read ents reported that the idea to take out a
documents at closing. In the CRC study, home loan came from marketing (Stein &
36% of respondents did not read their loan Libby, 2001).
documents. The rationales for not reading It would be reasonable to expect sub-
are telling: “61.9% reported that the docu- prime credit to be closely regulated because
ments were too lengthy; 38.1% felt pres- of the risks to borrowers, lenders, and finan-
sured; 23.8% reported that the documents cial markets; instead, from the brokers on
were too complex; and 19% reported that the ground to the investors in the secondary
 Post-Industrial Widgets╇╇ | 267

market, it is not. Most prime lenders are 1989) presciently noted, the state plays an
regulated by one of the four federal regula- increasing role as fictitious commodities
tory agencies and are subject to periodic occupy an expanding role in the economy
reviews and CRA requirements (Immergluck and that we might anticipate a more visible
& Smith, 2005; Immergluck, 2004). But effect of advanced capitalism on place—the
subprime capital flows through different urbanization of capital.
conduits and a different regulatory struc-
ture. Less than 2% of subprime loans are
sold to GSEs, producing what Apgar et al. CONCLUSION
(2007) refer to as “channel specialization.”
Channel specialization has distinct racial Mortgage foreclosures can be understood as
implications with white borrowers accessing the plight of individual borrowers who are
credit that is more closely regulated than the in financial difficulties well over their heads,
credit accessible to black borrowers: “some as the product of unscrupulous lenders
44.2 percent of all blacks (versus 30.1 seeking to make a profit, or even as the
percent of whites) obtain a loan from less result of disintermediation in which each
heavily regulated independent mortgage lending function is performed by a specialist
companies” (Apgar et al., 2007, p. iv). with brokers originating loans for which
Even though some states have passed they bear no subsequent responsibility other
legislation to limit lending practices associ- than generation. Or we can expand the scale
ated with predatory lending, such as of explanation and view the foreclosure
repeated refinancing without benefit to the crisis as the result of a complex effort of
consumer and balloon loans, states face finance capital and the state to promote the
significant limitations regulating capital expansion of the new economy. The emer-
(Quercia, Stegman, & Davis, 2004). Federal gence of the secondary market and subprime
preemption, capital’s flexibility, and assignee lending heralded a new era of home mort-
liability, along with media campaigns and gage financing. Once accessible only to the
pressure from lenders, rating agencies, and few, the advent of the secondary market and
investment groups that threaten to with- subprime lending transformed access to
draw from lending activities, all limit state capital for consumers and capital. Mortgage
regulatory effectiveness. States that seek to lending became intricately woven into the
regulate predatory lending face aggressive economy through the process of financial�
campaigns by lenders and lending institu- ization. In the new economy, mortgage
tions (Newman & Wyly, 2004). Regulatory loans are the modern day widget. The
safeguards have not kept pace with the expansion of finance has been possible
financialization of the economy. because of state intervention in creating and
In summary, the state has been intimately facilitating the expansion of the secondary
engaged in facilitating financialization and market, increased liquidity, and the de-�
its link to the urban built environment. U.S. linking of real estate from place. The effect
housing policy, macroeconomic policy (espe- on the urban has been just as, if not, more
cially related to artificially low interests dramatic than the effect of the reemergence
rates), and legislative changes that spurred of the city as the command and control
the expansion of the secondary market and center of the new economy which has been
encouraged borrowers to use their homes as seen as a driving force producing jobs and
banks, all helped drive demand for mort- demand for housing. The effect on disad-
gage production, and stoked the expansion vantaged populations and urban places has
of the post-�industrial widget. But the expan- been devastating and the full effects are, as
sion of the subprime market occurred in a yet, unknown. Homeownership has been
space relatively free of regulation, and its heralded as the American dream, a tool to
spatial concentration in certain places meant build intergenerational wealth, revitalize
that the risk was borne by selected borrow- disinvested cities, and stabilize neighbor-
ers and communities. As Harvey (1982, hoods. In€recent years, an increasing number
268 |╇╇ K. Newman

of borrowers, communities, and local gov- changing mortgage banking industry for community
ernments have woken up to find that the based organizations. Graduate School of Design,
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
dream was instead a nightmare. Vacant Boston.
boarded buildings line urban neighbor- Joint Center for Housing Studies (2006). State of the
hoods, borrowers and renters seek altern- nation’s housing 2006. Graduate School of Design,
ative housing, and communities desperately Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
seek strategies and funding to rescue people, Boston. Retrieved from www.jchs.harvard.edu/pub-
lications/markets/son2006/index.htm.
homes, communities, and investments.
Joint Economic Committee (2007, October). The sub-
prime lending crisis: The economic impact on
wealth, property values and tax revenues, and how
REFERENCES we got here. Report and Recommendations by the
Majority Staff of the Joint Economic Committee of
Apgar, W., Bendimerad, A. & Essene, R. (2007). Mort- the United States Senate. Retrieved from www.jec.
gage market channels and fair lending: An analysis senate.gov/Documents/Reports/10.25.07OctoberSub
of HMDA data. Joint Center for Housing Studies. primeReport.pdf.
Harvard University, Boston. Retrieved from www. Kendall, L. & Fishman. M. (Eds.). (2000). A primer on
jchs.harvard.edu/publications/finance/mm07-2_ securitization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
mortgage_market_channels.pdf. Krippner, G. (2005). The financialization of the Ameri-
Carr, J. & Schuetz, J. (2001). Financial services in dis- can economy. Socio-Â�Economic Review, 3, 173–208.
tressed communities: Framing the issue, finding solu- Lax, H., Manti, M., Raca, P., & Zorn, P. (2004). Sub-
tions. Fannie Mae Foundation. Retrieved from www. prime lending: An investigation of economic effi-
fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/financial.PDF. ciency. Housing Policy Debate, 15(3), 533–572.
Chomsisengphet, S. & Pennington-�Cross, A. (2006). Lea, M. (1990). Sources of funds for mortgage finance.
The evolution of the subprime mortgage market. Journal of Housing Research, 1(1), 139–162.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 88(1), MacDonald, H. (1996). The rise of mortgage-�backed
31–56. securities: Struggles to reshape access to credit in the
Crews Cutts, A. & Van Order, R. (2004, January). On USA. Environment and Planning A, 28(7),
the economics of subprime lending. Freddie Mac 1179–1198.
Working Paper #04–01. Retrieved from www.fred- Mansfield, C. L. (2000). The road to subprime “HEL”
diemac.com/news/pdf/subprime_012704.pdf. was paved with good congressional intentions: Usury
Engel, K. & McCoy, P. (2002). A tale of three markets: deregulation and the subprime home equity market.
The law and economics of predatory lending. Texas South Carolina Law Review, 51(476), 476–587.
Law Review, 80(6), 1255–1381. Martin, R. & Turner, D. (2000). Demutualization and
Follain, J. & Zorn, P. (1990). The unbundling of resi- the remapping of financial landscapes Transactions
dential mortgage finance. Journal of Housing of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(2),
Research, 1(1), 63–89. 221–241.
Fox Gotham, K (2006). The secondary circuit of capital National Housing Services of Chicago (NHS). (2004).
reconsidered: Globalization and the U.S. real estate Preserving homeownership: community-�development
sector. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), implications of the new mortgage market. Chicago.
231–275. Retrieved from www.nw.org/network/pubs/studies/
French, S. & Leyshon, A. (2004). The new financial documents/preservingHomeownershipRpt2004_000.
system? Towards a conceptualization of financial pdf.
reintermediation. Review of International Political Newman, K. & Wyly, E. (2004). Geographies of mort-
Economy, 11(2), 263–288. gage market segmentation in Essex County, New
Harvey, D. (1989). The urban experience. Baltimore, Jersey. Housing Studies, 19(1), 53–83.
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Quercia, R. G., Stegman, M., & Davis, W. R. (2004).
Harvey, D. (1999). Limits to capital. New York: Assessing the impact of North Carolina’s anti-Â�
Verso. predatory lending law. Housing Policy Debate,
Howell, B. (2006). Exploiting race and space: Concen- 15(3), 573–602.
trated subprime lending as housing discrimination. Stein, K. & Libby, M. (2001). Stolen wealth: Inequities
California Law Review, 94, 101–147. in California’s subprime mortgage market. San Fran-
Immergluck, D. (2004). Credit to the community: cisco, CA: California Reinvestment Committee.
Community reinvestment in fair lending policy in the Stiglitz, J. E. & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in
United States. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. markets with imperfect information. American Eco-
Immergluck, D. & Smith, G. (2005). Measuring the nomic Review, 71(3), 393–410.
effect of subprime lending on neighborhood foreclos- The Reinvestment Fund (TRFâ•›). (2005). Mortgage fore-
ures: Evidence from Chicago. Urban Affairs Review, closure filings in Pennsylvania. A Study for the Penn-
40(3), 362–389. sylvania Department of Banking, Philadelphia.
Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2004). Credit, Retrieved from www.trfund.com/policy/pa_foreclos-
capital, and communities: The implications of the ures.htm.
 Post-Industrial Widgets╇╇ | 269

U.S. Departments of Treasury and Housing and Wyly, E., Atia, M., Foxcroft, H., Hammel, D., &
Urban€ Development. (2000). Curbing Predatory Phillips-�Watts, K. (2006). American home: Predatory
Home Mortgage Lending. HUD-�Treasury Report. mortgage capital and neighbourhood spaces of race
Retrieved from www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/ and class exploitation in the United States.
treasury. Geografiska Annaler, 88(B), 105–132.
Wyly, E. & Holloway, S. (1999). The color of money Wyly, E., Atia, M., & Hammel, D. J. (2004). Has
revisited: Racial lending patterns in Atlanta’s neigh- mortgage capital found an inner-Â�city spatial fix?
borhoods. Housing Policy Debate, 10, 555–600. Housing Policy Debate, 15(3), 623–686.
 CHAPTER 31

Community-�based Organizations and Migration in

New York City
Héctor R. Cordero-Â�Guzmán and Victoria Quiroz-Â�Becerra

In recent years there has been increasing immigrant communities. Massey and his
interest on the part of social scientists in the collaborators (1987, p. 145) recognize the
study of immigrant groups, organizations, role of voluntary associations when they
and service providers. In this chapter, I write:
address two specific theoretical and empiri-
cal gaps in the literature on immigration and Thus far we have considered various social
organizations. First, I discuss factors related relationships that make up immigrant net-
to the development of immigrant organiza- works, but no less important are certain insti-
tutional mechanisms that facilitate the
tions and present the main characteristics of
formation and maintenance of social ties. A
immigrant groups, organizations, and variety of voluntary associations established
service providers in New York City. Second, by immigrants in the United States promote
I examine the functions that these organiza- regular interpersonal contact, greatly facilitat-
tions have in four areas of the migration ing the process of adaptation and mutual
process: the development, management, and assistance.
maintenance of networks; the provision of
social services to immigrant children and Other researchers have focused directly
families; the articulation of needs and the on the role of community-�based organiza-
development and management of commun- tions (or CBOs) in various aspects of the
ity resources; and the maintenance of ties immigration process and some key themes
and connections to the countries and com- begin to emerge. Lissak (1989) analyzes the
munities of origin. history of social services to immigrants, the
early development of settlement houses, and
the involvement of the Chicago School in
THE LITERATURE ON IMMIGRANT that process. Jenkins (1981, 1988) addresses
GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS the role of ethnicity in social service provi-
sion and how social work practice had to
New York has always been an important adapt to changing and diverse populations.
center for migration (Cordero-Â�Guzmán, Basch (1987) looks at voluntary associations
Smith, & Grosfoguel, 2001). The volume of among the Vicentians and Grenadians and
recent migration and the diversity of finds that these groups provided direct
national origins have resulted in the forma- assistance to immigrants. Kasinitz (1992,
tion of many new organizations and have pp. 111–123) discusses the role of commun-
presented challenges and opportunities to ity organizations in political representation
established immigrant organizations and and incorporation among Caribbean and
service providers. West Indian populations. In an important
Some researchers have emphasized the paper, Hagan and González Baker (1993)
importance of immigrant networks to the document the influence of CBOs in shaping
adaptation and incorporation of immigrants policy during the implementation of the
and to the development and maintenance of Immigration Reform and Control Act
 Community and Migration in New York City╇╇ | 271

(IRCA) after it was signed into law in 1986. provide services to particular groups, or to
They argue that CBOs performed a central the general population, have evolved over
role in the legalization process and in the time and tried to adapt to the needs of the
actual shaping and implementation of the new national-�origin groups that have come
policy at the local level: into the region. As new immigrant com-
munities are established and grow, their
The community group role evolved from the families and children receive services from
INS [US Immigration and Naturalization existing social-�service agencies, which may
Service] vision of paperwork assistant into an or may not be run by members of their own
activist role on behalf of applicants. Indeed, ethnic or national-�origin groups. But, over
the local INS itself changed in the wake of
time, immigrant communities face both
community group influence, becoming more
receptive to community concerns and more
internal community pressures and external
accountable to community interests. pressures for representation that lead them
(p. 521) to begin to form “their own” organizations.
There are three broad types of groups
Their research documents how the “task that form the immigrant social service deliv-
force” created by the local CBOs produced ery system.
publicity materials, appeared in the media,
contacted officials, and ultimately sued and • First, there are immigrant groups, asso-
won in order to clarify and establish regula- ciations, and clubs. These groups are
tions affecting immigrants applying for usually concerned with promoting social
legalization. and economic ties, connections and
While several researchers have examined activities between immigrants from par-
the role of CBOs in various aspects of the ticular countries or regions. They also
migration process, we do not have a more have close economic, social, and polit-
complete picture of who these groups are, ical contact to their areas of origin, are
what kinds of programs and services they mostly organized around community
provide, where they are located, whom events, and have a relatively small
they€serve, and what kinds of resources they social-�service base. These types of
have. This chapter seeks to add to our groups include the Hometown Associ-
knowledge by placing immigrant organiza- ations (HTA) that proliferate in many
tions and service providers, as a group, at immigrant communities and are often
the center of immigration, organizations, small, have a tight leadership, and are
community development, and nonprofit mostly focused on home community
research. issues (Orozco, 2000). These groups,
however, form the basis from which
more formalized organizations emerge.
TYPES OF IMMIGRANT • Second, there are immigrant organiza-
ORGANIZATIONS tions. These groups have been formally
incorporated as nonprofit organizations.
An immigrant organization is an organiza- They have a service portfolio, a direct
tion formed by individuals who are members social-�service base with clients, paid
of a particular ethnic or national origin professionalized staff, offices open to
group, for the purpose of providing social the public with regular service hours,
services primarily to immigrants from the and some sources of donations and
same ethnic or national group. Immigrant funding. These organizations are usually
organizations differ from other social-�service involved in a broad range of social serv-
providers in that they explicitly incorporate ices to immigrants from a particular
cultural components, and a consciousness of country (or region) and are central to
ethnic or national-�origin identity, into their the social-�service delivery system for
mission, practices, services, and programs. particular ethnic groups and in many
Some organizations, originally formed to ethnic or immigrant neighborhoods.
272 |╇╇ H. R. Cordero-Guzmán and V. Quiroz-Becerra

• Third, there are the service providers with immigrant organizations are educated in
a large metropolitan-�level social-�service some of the leading policy and management
base. These organizations provide social schools in the city and have developed experi-
services to clients from a variety of coun- ences in both their communities and in more
tries and also provide services to non-� mainstream institutions and organizations.
immigrant clients (often from racial and A fourth element is connections to the
ethnic minority groups). These organiza- metropolitan social service delivery system.
tions are older, larger, often with multi- In New York, the state funds community-�
cultural staff, and many have offices or based social services largely through a
projects in several neighborhoods. network of nonprofit providers. This means
that someone from the community has to
have the capacity to understand the grants
THE FORMATION OF IMMIGRANT and contracts application process and all of
ORGANIZATIONS the intricacies of program development,
design, management, reporting, and evalu-
Why, when, and how are immigrant organi- ation. Some human resource capacity and
zations formed? Several factors are related connections to the metropolitan social-�
to the formation of immigrant organiza- service delivery system are key assets that
tions. First, organizations are usually formed need to be present within the immigrant
in immigrant communities that are relatively community in order for its associations to
large and growing. Second, as the immigrant develop into more sustainable organizations.
population settles and their various needs The fifth element is organizational
develop, the groups begin to articulate a dis- resources and capacity. Members of immi-
tinct sense of their social-�service needs. This grant communities who come with experi-
usually has two components: first the group ence in the formation and management of
develops a sense of what services it particu- organizations, sometimes acquired in the
larly needs (needs assessment); and second it country of origin, are more likely to form
develops a sense of what it needs differently and sustain organizations. In the case of
or the types of services that must be pro- social service providers, particularly from
vided in a way that is consistent and sensi- low-�income immigrant communities where
tive to the cultural and social practices of “internal” resources may be more difficult
the group. If a group does not have an to obtain, factors related to connections and
unmet demand for services or the service networks with external resources are essen-
can be readily obtained from other existing tial in securing the flow of funds that are
providers the incentives to start new organi- needed to manage and maintain a nonprofit
zations are clearly lowered. organization.
A third element related to the formation While there are other reasons why organ-
of immigrant organizations is the existence of izations are started, we found these five
a social-�service professional and human-� factors to be present in most of the stories
resource base from the immigrant commun- we heard related to the context and reasons
ity that works to start, guide, direct, manage, why national origin groups form their
and administer the new organizations. In organizations.
several instances the founders of organiza-
tions worked in the senior staff of
metropolitan-�level service providers or in THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
service organizations from related groups; IMMIGRANT GROUPS,
eventually these persons left the entities to ORGANIZATIONS, AND SERVICE
start organizations that they see as more PROVIDERS
directly positioned to serve and strengthen
“their communities.” Human resources are In order to get a better sense of the main
key to organizational survival and develop- characteristics of the sector, we asked
ment and many of the staff who work in organizations about some of their main
 Community and Migration in New York City╇╇ | 273

Table 31.1╇ Main characteristics of immigrant groups and organizations in New York City

Year Annual FT staff PT staff Percent Number of Percent Percent

organization budget $US (nâ•›=â•›81) (nâ•›=â•›60) bilingual clients immigrant undocumented
started (nâ•›=â•›74) staff (nâ•›=â•›80) clients (nâ•›=â•›33)
(nâ•›=â•›82) (nâ•›=â•›83) (nâ•›=â•›79)

Mean 1970 7.5m 113 54 70 13,582 64 29

Median 1976 1.0m 17 2 80 3,500 65 20
Minimum 1893 $7,300 0 0 0 75 10 0
Maximum 1995 120m 2,000 1,000 100 250,000 100 95

Source: New York City Survey of Immigrant Groups and Organizations (2000).

attributes. In this section we present some of is 17. Around one-�quarter of the organiza-
the main characteristics of immigrant organ- tions have fewer than five FT employees and
izations and service providers in New York another 25% have between six and 16; the
City.1 largest 25% of the agencies have more than
50 employees.
The information on the percentage of the
Year Started and Location
staff who are bilingual indicates that these
Since the 1950s there have been two histor- organizations are a significant linguistic
ical markers of American immigration that resource and asset. In more than 80% of the
have also been periods where a large number organizations over 40% of the staff are
of immigrant organizations have been bilingual. In 37% of the agencies all the
formed. The first period is during the late staff are bilingual. In terms of the languages
1960s and early 1970s, following the civil spoken by staff, 70% of the agencies
rights movement and changes in the racial, reported that some of their staff spoke
ethnic, or national composition of immigra- Spanish. The other most common languages
tion flows to the United States with increas- were, in order, Korean, Chinese, Haitian
ing numbers coming from Asian, Latin Creole, and Russian. Clearly, one of the
American, and Caribbean countries. A central defining features of immigrant
second period of organizational growth organizations is the presence of a significant
occurred during the late 1980s following the proportion of staff who can speak several
IRCA of 1986 which saw an acceleration of languages.
mass immigration to New York.
In terms of location, 45% of the organi-
Budgets
zations were located in Manhattan, 24% in
Brooklyn, 20% in Queens, 6% in the Bronx, The average annual budget for the organiza-
and 5% in Staten Island. Manhattan is tions was $7.5 million while the median was
therefore overrepresented if we compare the $1 million. Measures of central tendency
location of the organizations to the location provide some information but the dispersion
of immigrants in New York City (since in the data is quite interesting. The bottom
Manhattan only houses about 18% of immi- 10% of the agencies had a budget of less
grants). This is likely due to its central loca- than $80,000. Another 39% had budgets
tion for metropolitan level organizations, between $120,000 and $800,000. The
accessibility for clients from the five bor- bottom quartile of the distribution is below
oughs and the availability of office space. $250,000. At the top of the distribution,
25% of the organizations had budgets
higher than $4 million. The top five agencies
Staff Size and Characteristics
have budgets of $25, $28, $35, $72, and
In terms of full-�time (FT) staff, the average $120 million.
number of employees is 113 and the median
274 |╇╇ H. R. Cordero-Guzmán and V. Quiroz-Becerra

Sources of Funding and the median was 65%. The bottom quar-
tile had less than 30% immigrant clients.
The most common sources of funding for
One in seven of the agencies indicated that
immigrant organizations are: government
100% of their clients were immigrants. The
contracts and subcontracts (56%), commun-
organizations also stated that, on average,
ity fundraisers and individual donations
29% of their clients were undocumented
(18%), foundation grants (15%), corporate
(the median was 20%).2
contributions (5%), funds from the church,
and, in rare instances, fees for services.
Looking more closely at the sources of
THE FUNCTIONS OF IMMIGRANT
funding, it is clear that a significant amount
GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND
of agency budgets come from government.
SERVICE PROVIDERS
More than half of the agencies received over
65% of their budgets from government
Figure 31.1 sets out the various roles and
sources. Grassroots funding is the second
functions of immigrant organizations and
most important source of funding for these
suggests that they are centrally involved in
groups. At the lower end of the distribution,
all four key parts of the migration process.
30% of the groups do not generate any
Let us take each in turn.
grassroots funding and another 40% of
groups receive between 1 and 20% of their
budget from grassroots fundraising. For the Assistance with the Immigration Process
top 25% of the agencies, 10% receive
The first role that immigrant CBOs play is
between 25 and 40% of their funding from
to assist families in the immigration process
grassroots, and the other top 15% of organ-
by providing advice and legal help for indi-
izations receive more than 50% of their
viduals who want to change their immigra-
income from grassroots activities (with one
tion status or sponsor relatives to come to
organization reporting that all income came
the United States. These services include (in
from grassroots funding).
parentheses are the percentage of organiza-
Another source is organized philanthrop-
tions indicating they provide that particular
ies or foundations, but half of the agencies
service): (a) citizenship services (76.5%)
received less than 8% of their budgets from
which involve providing the citizenship
foundations. Only 10% of the organizations
classes and support services necessary for
had more than 35% of their budget coming
the naturalization exam; (b) legal services
from foundations. Similarly, immigrant
(59%) involves the preparation of all of the
organizations receive a small share of their
legal paperwork involved in the immigration
budgets from corporations. Around a half
and naturalization process, together with
of the groups do not receive any contribu-
legal advice and counsel, certified finger-
tions from corporations and another third
printing, adjustment of status petitions,
received less than 17% of their budget from
alien relative petitions, visa extensions and
corporations. Two organizations received
advanced parole, work authorization,
20% of their budget from corporations,
affidavits of support, diversity lottery
three received 25% and one received 45%.
visas,€ replacement of green cards, etc.; and
(c) interpretation and translation services
(72%) which involves translation and
Number and Type of Clients
interpretation of documents and other
The organizations served an average of materials between English and other lan-
13,582 clients annually, and the median was guages. These services are central to the
3,500. The smallest agency served 75 clients migration process but many organizations
while the largest (by far) indicated that they also provide shelter and other forms of
served 250,000 persons. initial support, access to community net-
The organizations’ clients were, on works, and information that are essential to
average, 64% immigrant (or foreign born), newly arrived immigrants.
 Community and Migration in New York City╇╇ | 275

• Recruitment of immigrants
• Help with entry process

• Linkages to country of origin Social services and programs to

• Resources to country of origin assist in adaptation and
• Resources for country of origin incorporation

• Articulate community needs

• Manage resources and
programs
• Community building
• Representation in politics
and policy

Figure 31.1╇ The role of immigrant community-based organizations in the migration process

Adaptation and Incorporation of programs for individuals undergoing special

Immigrants circumstances. These include crime victims
(40%), the disabled (50%), domestic viol-
The second role of immigrant organizations
ence victims (59%), HIV/AIDS (53%).
is to provide services related to the adapta-
A third group of services provided by
tion and incorporation of immigrants into
immigrant organizations involves programs
the new society. Unlike immigration services,
most of these services can be dispensed both for particular subgroups of the population.
to immigrant and non-Â�immigrant popula- Included in this category are children’s serv-
tions, but there are specific needs and chal- ices (63%), day-�care services (35%), gay
lenges associated with providing services to and lesbian issues (36%), senior-�citizen serv-
the former. These include such matters as ices (62.5%), women’s services (58%), and
language, differences in knowledge about youth services (78%).
social services, cultural sensitivity, awareness While most of these services treat discrete
of the most appropriate method to deliver needs, many are designed to help immi-
services, and recognition of groups’ particu- grants maneuver through existing bureauc-
lar needs (Jenkins, 1988; Padilla, 1997). racies and programs. In that sense they help
General social services (80%) involve a immigrants incorporate into the New York
wide array of economic, social, and health social-�service infrastructure, and into the
services designed to improve the socio- city’s social fabric more generally. This
economic status of the population. Specific should not be seen as a unidirectional
social services include 12 tasks. Benefits process of “Americanization” but rather as
counseling (79%), business counseling a complex process of adapting to a new
(28%), educational services (89%), employ- environment while simultaneously retaining
ment and training (or workforce develop- elements of practice and action that emanate
ment) services (66%), family counseling and from the rules, practices, and cultures of the
case management services (63%), food or countries of origin. Organizations help
nutrition services (53%), general health serv- immigrants adapt while at the same time,
ices (54%), general legal services (34%), often very deliberately, they help to main-
housing services (60%), mental health serv- tain specific cultures and traditions. The
ices (54%), substance abuse treatment importance of Americanization for immi-
(36%), and transportation assistance (46%). grant socioeconomic incorporation has
Another set of services provided by always been contested and immigrant aid
community-�based organizations involves societies have had to balance awareness and
276 |╇╇ H. R. Cordero-Guzmán and V. Quiroz-Becerra

respect of the particular cultural practices of way to influence service delivery and inform
their groups with the need for immigrants to members of the group about service needs in
adapt to their new, often more complex, their communities. Community relations,
social environment. organizing, and advocacy (88%) involves
The tension between integration and the advocating on behalf of the community and
maintenance of customs and ties is present its members, or their ethnic/national-�origin
in most groups and has existed throughout group, organizing residents and group
the history of immigrant organizations. members around issues of relevance and
Archdeacon (1983, p. 184), for example, importance to the community, and advocat-
argues that ing to elected officials, government bureau-
crats, and others on particular challenges
for the social activists who moved into immi- and needs of the community.
grant neighborhoods and established settle- Organizations also provide a form of
ment houses, the term [Americanization] what can be called “social capital” or “com-
meant giving the newcomers the wherewithal munity building” in terms of a set of
to survive in a modern industrial society. They
resources, knowledge, services, and informa-
tried to teach those who came to their settle-
ment houses English, American social customs,
tion and are central to the reconstitution,
and, when necessary, the rudiments of house- formation, and management of immigrant
hold management, health care, and sanitation. social, political, and economic networks.
The best of those reformers, including the CBOs are often engaged in activities which
renowned Jane Addams of Chicago, performed are not individual or family centered but
their work without purposefully assaulting the involve the development of networks
immigrants’ native cultures. between residents and other organizations in
the community with the purpose of building
One of the main challenges for immigrant the physical, cultural, and human resources
CBOs, then, is to manage both the processes of the community. For instance, cultural her-
of adaptation and incorporation while at the itage programs (70%), community economic
same time recognizing and maintaining par- development (72%), conflict resolution
ticular cultural practices. (52%), and labor rights and laws (33%).
Immigrant organizations also represent
the needs and concerns of their particular
Representation for the Immigrant group(s) in media discussions on immigra-
Community tion, ethnicity, and social-�service provision
Another key function of immigrant organi- to immigrant populations. According to
zations can be described as providing repre- Hagan and González-Baker (1993), public
sentation to the immigrant community. This education and information, and the policy-
process has several components that making associated with that, are central
include: roles in many organizations as they seek to
inform policy debates on matters related to
• articulating the needs of the community the socioeconomic adaptation and incorpo-
to metropolitan-�level policy makers; ration of the group at the local and national
• serving as an advocate and network for level.
their ethnic groups; Lastly, immigrant CBOs are engaged in a
• activities that can be categorized as complex relationship with elected officials.
“community building”; Such relationships range from one of com-
• providing representation in politics; and plete dependence, to an attitude of coopera-
• representing the community in policy- tion and common benefit, and even to
making, management, and implementa� mutual disdain, contempt, and neglect.
tion. However, as documented by Marwell
(2003), immigrant CBOs are actively
Many CBOs are actively engaged in organ- engaged in building “political” constituen-
izing immigrants in their communities as a cies and, in many instances, senior staff
 Community and Migration in New York City╇╇ | 277

among the organizations in our study both particular linkages to the main sending
actively ran and in some cases won elected regions in the countries of origin and often
office. sponsor not only movement of resources but
The “representation” aspect of immigrant delegations and visits to and from the coun-
CBOs raises some questions and poses tries of origin. Some networks reaching to
several challenges to the field. First is the the country of origin are central in provid-
question of what Salamon (2002) calls “the ing linkages between elected officials, gov-
legitimacy challenge,” or determining ernment bureaucrats, and political parties in
exactly what the relationship is and should the sending and receiving areas.
be between the organizations and the grass- Second, organizations are involved in
roots community. Second, immigrant CBOs, facilitating and managing the flow of news
like all nonprofits, face human resource, and information and in the preparation of
management, and other resource challenges cultural, religious, or patriotic activities of
that impact on the quality of their programs. importance to the country of origin. And
Third, organizations face pressure to accom- third, many organizations are engaged in
modate to Requests for Proposals (RFP) that activities designed to increase the level of
may or may not fit an assessment of their information, public awareness, and political
specific community needs and priorities. The advocacy in the United States and attempt
pressure to respond to funding imperatives in many ways to influence U.S. policy
versus community needs certainly affects the toward the country of origin. There are
functioning, credibility, and legitimacy of some challenges involved in managing the
organizations. A fourth challenge, related to relationship to the country of origin mainly
the complexity of managing the relationship that while the immigrant community seeks
between CBOs and elected officials (or party to have active involvement and role in pol-
machines), is the potential for patronage itics and policy in the country of origin this
politics and, in the worst cases, corruption. often meets resistance from political party
Fifth, immigrant organizations, particularly leaders in the countries of origin who would
those that receive government funding, are rather limit the involvement of these organi-
in a contradictory relationship vis-Â�à-vis the zations (and communities) to raising funds
state in that they may advocate for particu- and resources, and to advocating in the
lar programs and positions but at the same United States on behalf of home country
time as they receive significant state government policies and interest (Graham,
resources for their programs they are the de 2001).
facto state representatives and agencies in
their communities (Cordero-Â�Guzmán &
Navarro, 2000). From the perspective of CONCLUSION: CBOs AND
clients, they are receiving state-�entitled serv- MIGRATION PROCESSES
ices through the CBO, and therefore some-
times the line between “the CBO” and “the Immigrant groups, organizations, and
state” is blurred in practice. service providers fulfill several important
social functions, fill key service gaps in their
communities, and are involved in all stages
Linking Immigrant Communities to their
of the immigration and adaptation process.
Countries of Origin
They are involved in the recruitment of
The fourth role of immigrant organizations immigrants, as people find out about possib-
is to serve as a liaison between ethnic/ ilities of bringing relatives; they help others
national communities and their countries of obtain visas; and they are involved in the
origin. Managing this relationship has three actual entry and settlement process.
main components. First, facilitating and Through their various services, CBOs play a
encouraging the flow of economic resources, central role in the orientation of immigrants,
remittances, and other investments to the their reconstruction of social ties, and
country of origin. Many organizations have their€ adaptation and incorporation process.
278 |╇╇ H. R. Cordero-Guzmán and V. Quiroz-Becerra

Immigrant organizations also play a central NOTES

role in all aspects of community formation
and development, including building com- 1. The data that follow come from information pro-
vided by immigrant organizations in New York
munity pride and identity, representation in
City between September 1999 and August 2000.
politics (through personnel, connections, 2. Many organizations did not answer this question,
and various kinds of support), in policy dis- which is understandable in the light of changes in
cussion, formulation and implementation, in the laws which allow organizations to service
managing the relationship with elected offi- undocumented clients in some government-�funded
programs (child health) but not others (food
cials, and in managing the flow of metropol-
stamps). Some church groups refuse to receive
itan (federal, state, and city) and private or government funds in order to free themselves from
donation resources to the local communities any restrictions on providing services to the
through various grants, loans, and other undocumented. Many other agencies feel that
forms of funding for programs and activ- restrictions on serving the undocumented run
counter to their mission of serving everyone in
ities. Lastly, these groups are part of the
need regardless of immigration status and they
linkages to and from the country of origin. try, often with great difficulty, to find private
They provide resources and information, funds to service that population.
including materials, human resources, and
funds for projects and activities, and are a
resource to the countries of origin in the REFERENCES
United States. All of these activities open
up€ contacts, opportunities, information, Archdeacon, T. (1983). Becoming American: An ethnic
exchanges, networks, development possibil- history. New York: Free Press.
ities, and, ultimately perhaps, more Basch, L. (1987). The Vicentians and Grenadians: The
role of voluntary associations in immigrant adapta-
migration.
tion to New York City. In N. Foner (Ed.), New
The more than 300 community-Â�based immigrants in New York (pp. 159–194). New York:
organizations that make up the backbone of Columbia University Press.
the immigrant service delivery system in Cordero-Â�Guzmán, H. & Navarro, J. G. (2000). Man-
New York City, and that are replicated in aging cuts in the “safety net”: What do immigrant
groups, organizations, and service providers say
cities and towns throughout the United
about the impacts of recent changes in immigration
States and other migrant destinations, are a and welfare laws? Migration World, 28(4), 20–26.
vital part of the fabric of their communities Cordero-Â�Guzmán, H., Smith, R., & Grosfoguel, R.
and of a diverse civil society. Immigrant (Eds.). (2001). Migration, transnationalization and
organizations are at the center of programs race in a changing New York. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
that assist in the social, economic, and polit-
Graham, P. (2001). Political incorporation and re-�
ical incorporation of immigrants and in incorporation: Simultaneity in the Dominican
efforts to maintain contacts, investments, migrant experience. In H. Cordero-Â�Guzmán, R.
and linkages with the countries and regions Smith, & R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), Migration, transna-
of origin. Understanding the role and func- tionalization and race in a changing New York (pp.
tions of immigrant associations, their con- 87–108). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Hagan, J. & González Baker, S. (1993). Implementing
nections to metropolitan and national the US legalization program: The influence of immi-
policymakers, and their linkages to their grant communities and local agencies on immigra-
communities is central to theoretical tion policy reform. International Migration Review,
debates, research, and understanding prac- 27(3), 513–535.
tice in the fields of organizations, commun- Jenkins, S. (1981). The ethnic dilemma in social serv-
ices. New York: The Free Press.
ity development, race and ethnicity, and Jenkins, S. (Ed.). (1988). Ethnic associations and the
migration studies. welfare state: Services to immigrants in five coun-
tries. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kasinitz, P. (1992). Caribbean New York: Black immi-
grants and the politics of race. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Lissak, S. R. (1989). Pluralism and progressives: Hull
House and the new immigrants, 1890–1919.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Community and Migration in New York City╇╇ | 279

Marwell, N. P. (2003). Ethnic and post-�ethnic politics Orozco, M. (2000). Latino hometown associations as
in New York City: The Dominican second genera- agents of development in Latin America. Washing-
tion. In P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, & M. Waters ton, DC: Inter-�American Dialogue.
(Eds.), The second generation in metropolitan New Padilla, Y. (1997). Social services to Mexican American
York: Ethnographic insights (pp. 227–256). New populations in the United States. In G. Cardenas &
York: Russell Sage. A. Ugalde (Eds.), Health and social services among
Massey, D. S., Alarcón, R., Durand, J., & González, H. international labor migrants (pp. 9–27). Austin: Uni-
(1987). Return to Aztlán: The social process of inter- versity of Texas Press.
national migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: Salamon, L. M. (2002). The state of non-�profit America.
University of California Press. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
 CHAPTER 32

Migrant Hometown Associations and Opportunities for

Development
A Global Perspective

Manuel Orozco and Rebecca Rouse

INTER-�AMERICAN DIALOGUE groups are completely voluntary and do not

have official nonprofit status, such as 501(c)3
For many migrants, their first priority is status in the United States. Those associations
staying connected to families and friends left that achieve a higher level of institutional
behind. They do so by calling relatives, visit- maturity are more likely to adopt formal
ing home, and sending remittances. Emo- nonprofit status and seek funding from
tional connections with the homeland are organizations and governments.
not limited to family ties, and migrants may Due to the voluntary nature of groups
also maintain their cultural identities by and the working-�class profiles of their
patronizing migrant businesses or purchas- members, the amount of time devoted to
ing nostalgic products from their countries HTA activities is often limited.
of origin, such as tortillas, rum, or spices. For any HTA, the primary activity is fun-
Another type of engagement—hometown draising for ongoing programming or special
associations, also known as HTAs—are needs, such as a natural disaster in the home
organizations that allow immigrants from country. Most HTA projects are focused on
the same city or region to maintain ties with the promotion of health or educational
and materially support their places of activities.
origin. Groups working in Latin America, South-
At the same time, HTAs create a new east Asia, and Africa donate school or
sense of community among recent immi- medical supplies to local institutions, or
grants with similar backgrounds. They also provide basic infrastructure through the
represent a transnational identity rooted as construction of clinics, classrooms, parks,
much in the migrant’s country of origin as and homes. HTAs will also donate money
in the migrant’s adopted home. for special occasions or circumstances, such
HTAs are active throughout major as a religious celebration or to repaint or
migrant destinations, such as the United repair a local church.
States, Europe, and parts of East Asia. The Oftentimes, HTAs liaise with local organ-
total number of HTAs is unknown as these izations in the home community in order to
associations change in number every year. implement their projects. For example, in
Mexican HTAs number somewhere around Guyana, the most common local partners
3,000, and Filipino groups may amount to are local nonprofits and churches (see Table
1,000, whereas there are about 500 Ghana- 32.1). In Mexico, 80% of HTAs report
ian organizations. approaching municipal leaders to discuss
their projects, coordinate efforts, and dis-
tribute resources.
WHAT HTAs DO HTA fundraising activities can include
cookouts, cultural events and concerts,
HTAs are usually led by a board of directors raffles, and sports tournaments. Groups are
or elected officers. For the most part, these often able to secure corporate sponsorship
 Migrants and Opportunities for Development╇╇ | 281

Table 32.1╇ Local partners for HTA project imple- senders in the United States of Latin Ameri-
mentation in Guyana can origin belong to an HTA. Surveys have
Percent shown that 29% of remittance senders from
Guyana who live in the United States belong
Local associations 26 to an HTA, while 16% of Jamaicans are
Churches 24 HTA members (see Table 32.2).
Notable people 13 Among African migrants, 16% of Nigeri-
Mayor’s office/township ╇ 8 ans in the United States participate in an
HTA, compared to 15% of Ghanaians.
International organizations ╇ 3
However, in the case of Ghanaians, this
Local businesses ╇ 1
figure is relatively higher among migrants
Other 25 living in Europe (see Table 32.3).
Source: Orozco (2004). Varying levels of membership are also
seen in Southeast Asia, suggesting that
migrant communities may be more organ-
for their activities, including sponsorship by ized in certain places than in others. While
immigrant businesses. Although levels of more than a quarter of Malaysians living in
success vary, these HTAs operate with Japan contribute to an HTA, only 4% of
limited resources and usually raise less than their counterparts in Singapore do (see
US$20,000 a year. Table 32.4).
In some cases, fundraising is not limited
solely to the immigrant community. The Table 32.2╇ Remittance senders in Latin America
who belong to an HTA
group Comite Ixchiguan in Delaware
reached out to local media in the aftermath Country Percent
of Hurricane Stan in 2005 to collect dona-
tions for affected families in Guatemala. Guyana 29
Yet activities such as concerts and beauty Jamaica 16
pageants are more than fundraisers: they Ecuador 10
also promote culture and solidarity in the Haiti 10
receiving communities. Honduras ╇ 7
Many HTAs have also started to develop
Colombia ╇ 6
projects and services aimed at immigrants,
Nicaragua ╇ 4
such as assisting with voter registration,
providing legal and social services, or teach- El Salvador ╇ 4
ing a native language or culture to the chil- Mexico ╇ 4
dren of immigrants. Dominican Republic ╇ 3
The Fante Benevolent Society of Chicago, Guatemala ╇ 3
a Ghanaian HTA in the United States, has Bolivia ╇ 1
made its mission promoting Ghanaian tradi- Average ╇ 9
tions and values in the diaspora by helping
with the “neighboring and outdooring cere- Source: Manuel Orozco. Surveys carried out by the author.
monies” when a child is born. Meanwhile,
Table 32.3╇ Percent of West African remitters who
in the Netherlands, Ghanaian HTA activ- contribute to an HTA
ities often focus on burial traditions.
Country of residence Country of origin

Ghana Nigeria
HTA MEMBERS: WHO ARE THEY?
United States 15 16
The percentage of remittance-Â�sending United Kingdom 28 ╇ –
migrants who belong to HTAs varies from Germany 37 ╇ 0
one origin group to another. For example,
on average, only about 9% of remittance Source: Orozco (2005a).
282 |╇╇ M. Orozco and R. Rouse

Table 32.4╇ Percent of Southeast Asian remitters who contribute to an HTA

Country of residence Country of origin

Indonesia Malaysia Philippines

Japan 43 26 30
Hong Kong 75 ╇ – 63
Singapore ╇ 9 ╇ 4 31
Malaysia 88 ╇ – 46

Source: Orozco and Fedewa (2005).

It is difficult to pinpoint the factors that largely professionals, are more likely to have
may lead certain people to participate in an some sort of legal status, and earn higher
HTA, but these may include political incomes.
culture, family links, material circumstances, Filipinos working in places like Japan,
cultural identity, and levels of integration. Hong Kong, and Singapore tend to be
Overall, it seems that more recent arrivals contract-�based workers, including lower-�
tend to become the core members of HTAs paid service workers, and while these
while HTA leaders tend to be more estab- migrants do contribute to HTAs, they tend
lished immigrants. Central American remit- to do so in smaller amounts (see Table
tance senders who live in the United States 32.6). However, their participation in HTAs
and belong to HTAs tend to be over age 40, is equally active, reflecting a cultural tradi-
have US citizenship, and visit their home tion among Filipinos to remain dedicated to
country once a year or more (see Table 32.5). their communities of origin.
The example of the Filipino diaspora It is important to note that the reach of
further highlights the way in which migrants’ HTAs in a given immigrant community
personal and cultural circumstances may extends beyond formal membership, as non-
impact their tendency to donate to an HTA. members often attend fundraising events
Filipino migrants can be found throughout and make donations. For example, Guy-
the world and on nearly every continent. anese HTAs in the United States are usually
According to the Ateneo Center for Social made up of fewer than 20 members, but
Policy in Manila, over 90% of philanthropic they usually receive contributions from more
donations from the Filipino diaspora come than 100 people, meaning that some 40,000
from developed countries in North America, (or 20%) of all Guyanese immigrants in the
Australia and New Zealand, and Europe. In United States have donated to a Guyanese
these countries, Filipino populations are HTA.

Table 32.5╇ Features of Central American remittance senders in the United States and HTA membership

Type of activity Belongs to HTA

Yes No

Is over 40 years old 60 44

Visit country once a year or more 56 30
Helps family in home country with other obligations 55 20
Has been in the United States more than 10 years 44 29
Remittance sender is a US citizen 38 22
Sends over US$350 31 18

His or her income is $32,733 $20,659

Source: Orozco (2006).

 Migrants and Opportunities for Development╇╇ | 283

Table 32.6╇ Features of Filipino remittance senders and HTA membership

Belongs to an HTA

Japan Hong Kong Singapore

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Is over 30 years old 70 50 72 63 67 64

Maintains family business in the Philippines 24 16 12 7 23 11
Has been abroad more than five years 49 44 75 64 56 47
Sends over US$200 77 85 30 21 56 45

His or her income is $18,763 $19,486 $5,163 $5,264 $11,641 $7,333

Source: Manuel Orozco, Survey of Southeast Asian remitters commissioned by author, 2005.

HTAs AS DEVELOPMENT PLAYERS capacity of the local government has fallen

short.
The United Nations Development Program The case of Mexico is striking in this
defines development as a condition that respect. In Mexican hometowns with fewer
creates “an enabling environment for people than 3,000 people, HTA donations are
to enjoy long, healthy, and creative lives.” A equal to more than 50% of the money in
development player aims to find solutions to municipal public works budgets. In towns
human needs and to offer alternative ways with populations under 1,000 people, HTA
to promote self-�sustainability. donations can amount to up to seven times
The work of HTAs generally targets the the public works budget, according to the
most vulnerable populations, sometimes findings of political scientist Manuel
overlapping with development but not Orozco.
always. Indeed, HTAs have largely attracted It is essential to keep in mind, however,
attention in the development community for that while these donations are channeled
projects in the home country that are primarily to the poor, these resources alone
ongoing or support income generation do not constitute a solution to the structural
(microenterprises, agricultural activities, constraints of the poor. Also, HTA money
etc.) rather than one-�off projects such as the often fails to create financial security for
rebuilding of a church. households or sustainable development in a
For example, the Sankofa Foundation, a community.
Ghanaian diaspora organization in the While HTAs are undoubtedly improving
Netherlands, is currently undertaking a the quality of life in the communities they
long-�term, income-�generation project in serve, their influence is further limited by
rural communities in Ghana. The Sankofa both funding and organizational restraints.
Family Poultry Project mobilizes invest- Group leaders, for the most part, are not
ments from Ghanaian migrants in the Neth- necessarily trained or experienced in the
erlands to provide start-�up materials and organization, implementation, or evaluation
technical training so that women in Ghana of development projects. Many HTAs do
can raise poultry and operate their own not work effectively with local community
businesses, with the goal of becoming eco- stakeholders and therefore do not under-
nomically independent. stand their development priorities; they also
These types of projects are significant cannot ensure that the community will prop-
because of the potential they have to erly care for new facilities or donations.
promote equity, an important component of Orozco has identified a series of criteria
development philosophy. They may often to evaluate the effectiveness of a migrant
impact more people than remittances alone, HTA as a development player (see Table
and provide aid in communities where the 32.7).
284 |╇╇ M. Orozco and R. Rouse

Table 32.7╇ Development potential of an HTA

Ownership Correspondence Sustainability Replicability

Community members Project meets basic Project enables Resources for the project
participate in decision- needs; needs met are a development goals; does are available in other
making; community development priority; and not constitute a burden or communities; and
members participate in implementation occurs in entail added costs; and institutional environment
implementation; and association or has a long life cycle. facilitating implementation
community members coordination with other is available in other
have control of project institutions. communities.
after completion.

Source: Orozco (2005b).

In his 2005 evaluation of Mexican HTAs Fund of the Inter-�American Development

operating in Jerez, Zacatecas, Orozco finds Bank to fund the work of HTAs in Mexico,
that the development impact of these associ- Honduras, and Haiti. A second round of
ations is more effective when they are more funding for HTA development projects will
organizationally mature. In other words, the be completed through IFAD in 2007, with a
development potential of HTAs grows over focus on HTAs based in Europe.
time. In addition, HTAs are more effective Governments have also become involved
as development players when they conduct in the development work of HTAs, and
their work in partnership with other organi- perhaps two of the most successful govern-
zations, foundations, or governments. ment–HTA collaborations have taken place
in Mexico and in El Salvador. In 1993, the
state government of Zacatecas, Mexico,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DONORS AND introduced the program Dos por Uno (Two
GOVERNMENTS for One), in which both the federal and state
governments match one dollar for each
International organizations, foundations, dollar that HTAs contribute to development
governments, and the private sector have the projects in Zacatecas.
potential to link their development priorities By 1999, the program had expanded to
to the work of HTAs, helping them define include local governments and became
their goals and better implement their strat- Tres€ por Uno (Three for One), encompass-
egies. Contributions can be both in material ing not just the state of Zacatecas but also
and manpower. Also, it is important for other Mexican states such as Guanajuato,
states and other donors to work with HTAs Jalisco, and Michoacan. In 2005, Mexican
and other migrant organizations to develop HTAs raised about $20 million for develop-
a joint agenda that will address issues of ment projects throughout Mexico, which
common concern. was matched by $60 million in Mexican
Both nongovernmental (NGOs) and federal, state, and local government
international organizations have already contributions.
formed innovative partnerships with HTAs In El Salvador, the national development
in order to promote development. Oxfam agency FISDL developed a similar program
Novib, the Dutch arm of international NGO to match the funds of Salvadoran HTAs,
Oxfam International, works with the called Unidos por la Solidaridad (Unity for
African diaspora in the Netherlands to fund Solidarity).
HTA economic development projects in Through this program, HTAs submit
places like Somalia, Ghana, and Burundi. proposals to FISDL, which then evaluates
The International Fund for Agricultural their feasibility and responsiveness to com-
Development (IFAD) of the United Nations munity needs. In order to participate, HTAs
has also spearheaded work with HTAs, must match at least 10% of the total cost of
teaming up with the Multilateral Investment the project. Between 1999 and 2003, 45
 Migrants and Opportunities for Development╇╇ | 285

projects with HTAs were executed in 27 Sal- predominantly volunteer organizations. Gov-
vadoran municipalities, representing a total ernments need to develop confidence-�building
investment of $11.3 million—$7 million tools and initiatives that make migrants
from FISDL, $2.3 million from municipali- recognize that their home-�country govern-
ties, and $2.1 million from HTAs. ments are serious and committed to working
Finally, the private sector also has the with them.
potential to play an important role in the
work of HTAs. In 2003, the Salvadoran
bank Banco Agrícola launched an innovat- REFERENCES
ive program that matches remittance trans-
fers made through the bank with a donation Mexico: HTAs, fertility, labor. (2006, October). Migra-
to a fund for community projects led by tion News, 13(4), University of California Davis.
Orozco, M. (2004, January). Distant but close: Guy-
migrant associations.
anese transnational communities and their remit-
Through this program, entitled Manos tances from the United States. Report commissioned
Unidas por El Salvador (United Hands for by the U.S. Agency for International Development,
El Salvador), Salvadoran HTAs were able to Washington, DC.
bid on grants for development projects. In Orozco, M. (2003, September). Hometown associ-
2006, donations made by Banco Agrícola to ations and their present and future partnerships:
New development opportunities? Report commis-
HTA projects in El Salvador totaled more sioned by the US Agency for International Develop-
than $200,000 according to the Pan-� ment, Washington, DC.
American Development Foundation. Orozco, M. (2005a, October 23). Diasporas, develop-
Remittance industry giant Western Union ment and transnational integration: Ghanaians in the
has also followed suit in Mexico, unveiling US, UK and Germany. US Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC.
its four-�for-one program in 2005. This Orozco, M. (2005b). Hometown associations and
program, modeled after the Mexican gov- development: Ownership, correspondence, sustaina-
ernment’s Tres por Uno initiative, adds an bility and replicability. In B. J. Merz (Ed.), New pat-
additional tier of matching funds to dona- terns for Mexico: Observations on remittances,
tions made by Mexican HTAs, up to a cap philanthropic giving, and equitable development (pp.
157–210). Cambridge, MA: Global Equity Initiative,
of $1.25 million. Harvard University.
While these partnerships are promising, Orozco, M. (2006, March 22). Diasporas, philanthropy
there is potential for more and deeper col- and hometown associations: the Central American
laboration between HTAs and both public experience. Inter-�American Dialogue, Washington,
DC.
and private donors.
Orozco, M. & Fedewa, R. (2005, August). Regional
Both HTAs and donors need to find integration? Trends and patterns of remittance flows
a€ space for interaction and communication within South East Asia. Inter-�American Dialogue,
to€ overcome the fact that HTAs are Washington, DC.
 CHAPTER 33

Global Corporations, Global Campaigns

The Struggle for Justice at Kukdong International in Mexico

Jeff Hermanson

At Kukdong International Mexico S.A. de Mexico, producing high-�quality apparel for

C.V., a Korean-�owned textile and apparel the European and US markets. The principal
factory located in Atlixco, Puebla, a struggle products of the Mexican plant are sweat-
took place in 2000 that demonstrated the shirts for Nike and Reebok. At full capacity
state of development of an important new the plant would employ 2,500 workers and
social movement, the global movement for produce US$25–30 million worth of product
justice in the maquiladoras and export each year.
processing zones of the world. This global The Kukdong plant is the result of the
movement brings together a new generation company’s strategy to become the low-Â�cost
of workers, most of them young women producer in the growing market of college
from rural areas of the developing countries apparel production. The key elements of the
of the Third World, and a new generation strategy are high technology, vertical inte-
of young people, mostly college students, of gration, and proximity to the market. And,
the developed countries of the US, Canada, of course, low wages, even though at this
and Western Europe, to confront the power- level of technological development, labor
ful global production and marketing net- costs are a very small part of the cost of the
works that dominate many industries in finished product, and low wages are not the
today’s world. This new social movement main factor in determining the company’s
also links up with more traditional organi- success.
zations, such as local and national trade The site of the Kukdong plant, Atlixco, is
unions and global union federations, and a small city located in an agricultural region
older NGOs and “solidarity organizations,” in southern Puebla state. Since the signing of
to form flexible and diverse networks NAFTA, the rural economy of Mexico has
capable of waging powerful struggles for suffered a crisis, as the Mexican peasant
justice on many fronts, from the production farmers entered into direct competition with
sites in the global south to the shopping the farms of the US, and prices for their
centers and business districts of the global crops fell drastically. As a result, the chronic
North. unemployment and endemic poverty of the
An analysis of this struggle reveals an southern part of the state reached an
important contemporary form of the con- extreme level, provoking mass emigration to
frontation between labor and capital, a form urban centers, to the maquiladoras of the
that reflects a new internationalism that is northern border regions and to the US, espe-
emerging to meet the challenges of corpor- cially New York City.
ate globalization. Faced with the crisis of unemployment,
The Kukdong International Corporation extreme poverty, and emigration, the Puebla
is a Korea-�based multinational production state government adopted the standard neo-
company with over US$400 million in liberal “remedy”: attract foreign direct
annual sales. The company has plants in investment, and jobs, by keeping wages low
Indonesia, Bangladesh, China, Korea, and and providing services to foreign investors
 Global Corporations, Global Campaigns╇╇ | 287

who set up maquiladoras in the state. Puebla company told them that they would have to
had the advantage of being in the lowest of become members of, and pay dues to the
Mexico’s three minimum-Â�wage zones, “zone FROC-Â�CROC, or be fired. Despite repeated
C,” and having a tradition of textile and requests, they would not see the contract
apparel production. until more than a year later.
Puebla is one of Mexico’s most con- Kukdong’s manager insisted on paying
servative states, with a strong conservative 10% above the minimum wage, and offered
Catholic presence, and a state government free transportation, as well as free breakfast
controlled by the most conservative wing of and lunch in the company cafeteria, as part
the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the of his recruitment package. He also prom-
PRI. The PRI in Puebla, like the national ised wage increases “every three months,”
PRI, follows the “corporativist” model of and promised to build a child-Â�care center for
political organization that allowed the party the young children of workers. These last
to dominate Mexican politics for over 70 two promises were not kept.
years. The Puebla PRI has strong popular The company and the FROC-�CROC
base organizations, in the countryside the worked together to recruit workers,
National Confederation of Peasants (CNC) traveling on weekends to the small villages
and in the cities and towns the Regional in the zone around Izucar de Matamoros.
Federation of Peasants and Workers Within a few months they had recruited
(FROC), affiliated to the national union approximately 850 workers, mostly young
center, the Revolutionary Confederation of women between 16 and 21 years of age, the
Peasants and Workers (CROC). The FROC-� daughters and sons of the impoverished
CROC has also adopted the PRI-�supported peasants, cane-�cutters, and former sugar-�
policy of keeping wages low to attract mill workers.
foreign investment and create employment. What Kukdong did not know, and what
When a potential foreign investors the FROC-�CROC did not tell them, was
approach the Puebla state government, they that these villages have a long historical tra-
are told that an agreement with a union dition of rebellion and struggle, dating back
leader is necessary to gain access to workers. to the Mexican revolution of 1910 and
In the case of Kukdong, an agreement was beyond. In the decades since the revolution,
reached with the state authorities in the fall the region became known for the militancy
of 1999, and the factory was built and ready of the sugar-�cane cutters and the mill
to operate by the end of November. Shortly workers at the Atencingo ingenio, as well as
after the first workers were hired, in Decem- the workers at the Bacardi rum distillery in
ber, Kukdong management and the leader Izucar de Matamoros itself.
of the FROC-�CROC signed a collective bar- When the workers learned of the pres-
gaining agreement. This agreement is a ence of the FROC-�CROC union, they were
classic “protection contract,” merely restat- upset that they had no choice, but thought it
ing the minimum terms and conditions of would be good to have a union to help them
employment mandated by the Federal Labor solve some of the problems that were
Law. The article on salaries is brief: “the already beginning to be felt. The company’s
minimum wage in effect in the region.” In promises of a child-Â�care center and 3-month
addition, the contract includes the standard raises were not kept, and the “free break-
clauses guaranteeing the union’s exclusive fast” turned out to be nothing more than
control of hiring, and the “exclusion coffee and bread; and the “free lunch” was
clause,” which gives the union the right to often inedible, even rotten, and served on
demand the firing of any worker who ceases dirty plates. The company’s Korean supervi-
to be a member of the union, whether by sors yelled at the workers and threw gar-
resignation or expulsion. The workers ments in their faces when they made a
would not learn that this contract existed, mistake. The union “representative” was
or that they were represented by the FROC-� either absent or unwilling to help. The
CROC, until several months later, when the resentment of the workers began to grow,
288 |╇╇ J. Hermanson

focused on the bad treatment, the broken students led the organization of a cafeteria
promises, and at being forced to join and boycott at Kukdong, and were then fired by
pay for a union that did nothing for them. the company, touching off a wildcat strike
Meanwhile, in the United States, the uni- by almost all the Kukdong workers. In early
versity students who were the main consum- December, a volcanic eruption forced the
ers of the sweatshirts produced at Kukdong evacuation of the villages where many
had organized themselves. Their organiza- Kukdong workers lived with their families.
tion dated from a campaign in the late Although the company knew about the
1990s by the US textile-�apparel union, evacuation, they did not inform the workers,
UNITE, against the giant jeans company, and Kukdong continued in operation. When
GUESS. This campaign, as one of its stra- the workers returned home and found their
tegic elements, established “Student GUESS families moved to shelters in unknown loca-
Boycott Committees” on several campuses, tions, they were outraged. They refused to
because of the GUESS company’s emphasis return to work until they had located their
on the youth market, and the brand’s vul- families and they were sure they were safe.
nerability to pressure by university students. When they did return to work, the company
Although the GUESS campaign was ulti- forced them to work overtime to make up
mately unsuccessful, the student committees for the lost production.
survived and became organizing centers for As a result of this incident, tensions in the
a new, broader “anti-Â�sweatshop” move- plant were running high. On December 15,
ment, that later became formalized as the 2000, five workers, most of them “line
organization “United Students Against supervisors” who had lead worker respons-
Sweatshops” (USAS). USAS educated stu- ibilities, organized a boycott of the company
dents about conditions in global sweatshops cafeteria. The boycott was a complete
and agitated for disclosure of production success, and the vast majority of the workers
locations for the university-�licensed apparel. participated.
In the spring of 2000 they forced several After the Christmas holidays, Kukdong
dozen universities to disclose the informa- management fired the five workers, alleging
tion and adopt codes of conduct for the fac- that they had forced others not to eat in the
tories where this apparel was produced. company cafeteria on December 15. As
USAS also forced the universities to set up word spread of the firings, anger grew into
and fund the “Workers’ Rights Consor- open rebellion. On January 8, the workers
tium” (WRC) an independent nonprofit staged a 2-hour work stoppage and
organization to investigate conditions at the informed management that they had 24
factories and enforce the codes of conduct. hours to reinstate the five leaders and to get
USAS began to use the university disclo- rid of the FROC-�CROC. The next day, after
sure lists to investigate factories and see for receiving no response from the company,
themselves how college apparel was being over 600 of the 850 workers began a work
produced. One of the first factories outside stoppage, and occupied the yard inside the
the US that was investigated by the students company walls, but outside the factory
was Kukdong in Atlixco, Puebla. In the late buildings. They elected 10 workers, includ-
summer and fall of 2000, the American Fed- ing the five fired leaders, as a “temporary
eration of Labor-Â�Congress of Industial leadership committee,” and attempted to
Organizations (AFL-�CIO) assisted the stu- negotiate with Kukdong management, but
dents by linking them up with two Centro were rebuffed. The CAT activists and other
de Apoyo al Trabajador (CAT) activists to community supporters, including many
carry out the investigation. In November parents of the Kukdong workers, joined the
2000, a delegation of five USAS students strikers in the company yard, bringing food
from several universities visited Mexico, and and blankets.
met with several Kukdong workers. Within On the second day of the strike, the
a month, the very same workers who had Kukdong workers sent a commission of
met with the CAT activists and USAS three workers to the plenary meeting of the
 Global Corporations, Global Campaigns╇╇ | 289

National Workers’ Union (Union Nacional and that it was not in the best interest of the
de Trabajadores, or UNT) in Mexico City UNT to get involved in this affair. As a
to ask for their assistance and support. The result of the company’s stated determina-
meeting unanimously adopted a resolution tion, and of the new situation presented by
pledging their support, and appointed UNT the repression of the strike, Marino advised
Secretary of Organization Jose Luis Hernan- the company attorney that the UNT would
dez and UNT political staff person Rafael not intervene. The decision by the UNT to
Marino as the responsible persons. Hernan- withdraw from the struggle at Kukdong was
dez and Marino advised the Kukdong based on an analysis of the political situ-
workers’ commission that the workers ation: the company is well connected politi-
should maintain their strike, which even cally, and determined in its opposition,
though technically illegal was the only therefore there is no way to win, and the
manner of pressuring the company. political cost—to the UNT—would be too
During that day, Kukdong management, high. This approach reflects the continuing
at the urging of their labor attorney and the influence of the “statist” or “corporativist”
FROC-Â�CROC General Secretary, Rene traditions of Mexico’s labor movement.
Sanchez Juarez, filed criminal complaints In practice they had all but abandoned
against the five worker leaders for “kidnap- organizing unorganized workers, and when
ping” and “usurpation of private property.” faced with the typical employer–state repres-
The Puebla governor and the Secretary for sion of spontaneous worker struggles,
Economic Development were informed, and responded with legal and political action,
agreed that “order must be restored” even if denouncing the repression in the press,
it required the use of the state police anti-� meeting with state government and federal
riot battalion (the granaderos or anti-� labor authorities, filing complaints at the
motines). That night approximately 300 ILO or with the US National Administrative
strikers were brutally attacked by riot police Office of the North American Agreement on
with clubs and forcibly evicted from the Labor Cooperation, etc. The UNT, five
factory grounds. The riot police were seen years after it was founded, still had no
being directed by the FROC-�CROC leader research capacity, no industrial strategy, and
Rene Sanchez Juarez, who pointed out the no professional organizing staff.
five union leaders for especially brutal treat- The workers of Kukdong and their allies
ment. Seventeen workers were hospitalized in the CAT and in USAS made a different
as a result of the police attack, including one assessment of the situation. Their assess-
with a concussion and another with broken ment was based primarily on an analysis of
ribs. the company and the workers, and second-
USAS had been carefully following the arily on an analysis of the political context.
developments in Atlixco through daily com- First, the Kukdong company had invested
munications with the CAT activists by over US$30 million in this facility, and
means of the Internet, and had decided to could not simply close or move it without
send Evelyn Zepeda, a Salvadoran-�American tremendous cost, losing most of its invest-
student, who headed the “International ment and a complete season of work. This
Solidarity Committee,” to Puebla when the would probably mean the company would
strike broke out. have to give up its strategic plan to produce
As we later learned, Rafael Marino made in Mexico for the US market. Second, the
contact with the Kukdong company lawyer clients of Kukdong, Nike and Reebok, are
on the Saturday after the strike was the largest retailers of this kind of product,
repressed, and was told that the company and no production company that aspires to
was determined to resist the workers’ compete in this market can afford to damage
demand to replace the FROC-�CROC with or sever relations with these retailers.
their own union. The attorney told Marino Third, these retailers have codes of
that they had the full support of the Puebla conduct, as do the universities that license
state government and of COPARMEX2, their names to the retailers. The students of
290 |╇╇ J. Hermanson

USAS have forced the establishment of the the Secretary of Labor, who affirmed that
WRC, which was prepared to investigate the “this is outside our jurisdiction” and “we
violations at Kukdong and to pressure the have no interest in defending the FROC-�
universities and companies to enforce their CROC.”
codes. The students were also prepared to Second, the analysis of the power struc-
demonstrate against the universities and the ture and political-�economic situation of the
retailers in support of the Kukdong workers. state of Puebla seemed to indicate that the
Fourth, the Kukdong workers were united Kukdong company had tremendous power
in their desire to have their own union and in relation to the state government. The
to win reinstatement of their leaders. At the employment crisis was clearly the most
time of the strike, over 650 out of 850 explosive issue facing the Puebla govern-
workers supported the movement. ment, and the maquiladora was their
Fifth, the situation in the US, Canada, answer. Most of the maquiladoras that have
and other consumer countries was propi- recently located in Puebla are Korean
tious for the building of a movement to owned, and of these Kukdong is by far the
support the Kukdong workers’ struggle, largest and most influential. The Puebla
because of the “anti-Â�sweatshop” or “corpor- state government could hardly afford to
ate responsibility” movement, and the offend the Korean investor community, and
growing critique of corporate globalization. that meant they could not afford to offend
There were many unions and NGOs ready Kukdong. If Kukdong’s owner could be con-
to support the workers’ struggle with a high vinced that the company’s interest was in
profile brand name, Nike. The assessment getting rid of the FROC-�CROC and accept-
was, in short, that the company was vulner- ing the workers’ independent union, it was
able to a campaign of pressure in the mar- unlikely that the state government would
ketplace, that the workers were capable of stand in the way.
building a strong organization on the The conclusion of this assessment was
ground in Mexico, and that there were that the struggle could be won by using
significant allies in Mexico and in other bottom-�up organizing of the workers to
countries that could be a powerful force in build a strong organization, gain the “moral
the campaign. high ground,” and prevent “pacification,”
The political context was considered to by using exposure of Kukdong’s abuses and
be somewhat unfavorable, in that the violations to put pressure on the universities
FROC-�CROC was a pillar of the PRI in a and the retailers. These institutions would
state that was a PRI stronghold. The move- pressure Kukdong; and finally, by present-
ment would thus confront the determined ing Kukdong with the choice between
opposition of the state government and its accepting an independent union, seen as an
civil society instruments. However, since the authentic, honest, and reasonable represent-
election of the first opposition president in ative of the workers, or by staying with the
over 70 years, the federal government is no FROC-�CROC, facing a stalemate in which
longer in the hands of the PRI. With the the company would lose its customers and
election of Vicente Fox of the opposition possibly be forced to close. The objective
PAN party, the Mexican state is no longer would be to get the company to decide to
monolithic, and the corporativist system has “get rid of the FROC-Â�CROC,” and to get
been somewhat weakened and its decay and the company (and its customers, Nike and
decline accelerated. Because of this, it Reebok) to press the state government to
seemed unlikely that the federal government allow an independent union solution. This
of Vicente Fox would intervene on behalf of presupposed the non-�intervention of the
the FROC-�CROC, one of the main sup- federal government.
porters of Fox’s PRI opposition. That this Perhaps the most important single step in
assessment was correct was later demon- building the confidence of the workers in
strated by events, and further confirmed in their ability to win was the reinstatement of
an interview with the personal secretary of three of the fired worker leaders. Within
 Global Corporations, Global Campaigns╇╇ | 291

days of the police attack, students at 25 ladora industry in Puebla. The Board
campuses in the US had demonstrated in rejected the application, citing the resigna-
protest. The return of the leaders was one of tion of several of the persons who had
the key demands of the protests. The pro- signed the application, and the fact that the
tests led to articles in the New York Times leaders, who had also signed the applica-
and the Financial Times, as well as website tion, were employed by individual contracts.
postings about the strike. Emails began to This was not unexpected, as it had been dis-
pour into the corporate offices of Nike and covered that the FROC-�CROC had paid
Reebok, organized by USAS. This led Nike some of the applicants a large sum of money
and Reebok to send company representa- to withdraw from the union, and the local
tives to Kukdong almost immediately, and Labor Board was in the control of the PRI
to begin to pressure Kukdong for a resolu- and the FROC-Â�CROC. The FROC-Â�CROC’s
tion of the dispute. strategy was to use the state government’s
The WRC also began an investigation, support to block the recognition of the inde-
putting together a delegation of interna- pendent union.
tional labor law experts, university adminis- But Kukdong management was now con-
trators, and religious representatives. They vinced that they had to accept the independ-
arrived on the scene within a week of the ent union, and had to find a way to “get
police attack on the strikers, and released a rid” of the FROC-Â�CROC. Nike was pres-
preliminary report on the violations and suring Kukdong to permit the workers to
abuses within two weeks of their visit. Their vote on which union they wanted, and the
quick and forceful intervention must be seen workers were confident that such a vote
as a key to the success of the campaign. would be won by SITEKIM. But the state
What finally won the reinstatement of the would not grant legal registration to
leaders was the growing pressure from all SITEKIM, and without it the union could
sides, including the workers themselves, not legally represent the workers. Further-
USAS, the WRC, Nike and Reebok, the Fair more, the state government was opposed to
Labor Association (FLA), and the inter- holding a secret-�ballot election to allow the
vention of a Korean NGO, the Korea House workers to choose their representative,
of International Solidarity (KHIS). KHIS fearful of setting a precedent that would
played a critical role by mediating and cause an avalanche of workers seeking to
bridging the “culture gap” between the rid themselves of corrupt unions like the
Korean management and Mexican workers. FROC-�CROC. Kukdong management began
The KHIS representatives were lawyers and to meet with the independent union leaders,
academics. They explained to management and to discuss with them what kind of rela-
how the return of the leaders was required tionship they would have if the FROC-�
by law and by the codes of conduct of their CROC could be convinced to give up their
customers. The reinstatements had to be contract. At the same time, the company
seen not as an admission of guilt by the forced the FROC-�CROC to give up their
company, but as an “olive branch” to try space in the factory office, arguing that this
and put the dispute behind them and get was necessary to comply with Nike’s
back to work. In fact the reinstatement of demands.
the workers would prove that Kukdong was In the end, Kukdong reached agreement
an ethical company, committed to generous with the FROC-�CROC, the government,
treatment of their workers. and the independent union on a solution:
In March the independent union the Kukdong company would be dissolved,
SITEKIM (“Independent Union of Workers and a new company, MexMode, would be
of Kukdong International Mexico”) was formed. The FROC-Â�CROC contract would
formed, and an application for legal regis- be invalidated, and a new independent
tration filed with the Puebla Local Board of union, now called SITEMEX (Independent
Conciliation and Arbitration, the agency Union of Workers of MexMode) would be
that regulates labor relations in the maqui- formed. SITEMEX would be granted its
292 |╇╇ J. Hermanson

legal registration by the state Board once the by an independent union and then to negoti-
company had reached agreement on a new ate a collective bargaining agreement.
contract. Thus even before the new union Work stoppages and other forms of
was officially registered, and legally able to protest are quite common in the Mexican
sign a contract with management, Kukdong maquiladoras. What is different in the
(now MexMode) management began nego- Kukdong case, and is different in other cases
tiations with the independent union leaders in Mexico, in the Dominican Republic,
and their CAT advisors for a collective bar- Honduras, and El Salvador, is that these
gaining agreement. Management and worker rebellions are beginning to be linked
workers reached agreement on a first con- up with national and international support
tract. The next day, the independent union networks, and repression and firings are no
SITEMEX received its legal registration, and longer able to easily quash these struggles.
the contract was filed and officially accepted There are different ways in which this
by the Puebla labor authorities. linkage is taking place. Sometimes the local
The first contract at MexMode had a struggle is truly spontaneous, and only after
nominal 10% wage increase, in recognition it has erupted is the connection made to
of the huge losses the company had suffered national and international support groups.
during the 9-month struggle, and as a show Sometimes the struggle is initiated by a local
of good faith by the new union. It had organization, usually a union, which then
innovative language concerning workers’ seeks help nationally and internationally.
rights, and a clause prohibiting managers But more and more frequently, local organi-
from “yelling at or demeaning in any way zations are already part of a national and
the workers,” and mandating apologies to international support network, and the
the workers by managers who violate this struggles are initiated in a planned and stra-
prohibition. The contract had an unusually tegic fashion, with local, national, and inter-
short 6-month term, in order to permit a national support organizations all taking
new negotiation in March 2002, when the part in the development of strategy and
company would have resumed full operation tactics. This is the natural and “organic”
and be beginning their peak season. On growth of links between local, national, and
April 1, 2002, when the new contract was international organizations that have parti-
signed and went into effect, workers cipated in struggles “accidentally” in the
received an “attendance bonus” which past, and have begun to look for ways to
resulted in a 38% increase in earnings, target strategically and to prepare cam-
making them among the highest paid paigns, in order to be more effective. This is
apparel workers in the region. Since then, one response, by workers and their allies, to
the contract has been renegotiated several corporate globalization. We can expect that
times, most recently in April 2011, when the this response will continue, and will result
workers won a 5% wage increase. in the formation and growth of powerful,
SITEMEX and the workers of the former diverse, and flexible networks on an ever-�
Kukdong factory are the first of the more greater scale, building the power of the
than one million workers in Mexico’s over workers of all countries and their allies to
3,000 maquiladoras to win representation unite and win more and bigger victories.
 CHAPTER 34

The International Roots of Microenterprise Development

Nancy Jurik

Conventional banking institutions do not make come from? The answer that I typically
loans to the poor, especially to rural women. The received to this question was that U.S.
bankers I met laughed at me.
(Yunus, 1997)
MDPs were inspired by successful programs
in developing countries. In other words, the
After the bank’s eighteen years in business, one northern industrialized world had imported
could estimate that conservatively half a million them from the southern hemisphere; a
families were able to throw off a life of destitution unique turn of events given that develop-
and begin living with a modicum of honor and ment programs have usually moved in the
dignity as a result of intervention from the
Grameen Bank.
opposite geographical direction. Only one
(Counts, 1996) U.S. provider told me that she started her
program before she had even heard of the
The development community is riding the micro- famous Grameen Bank.
credit band-�wagon given that it is consistent with When I took a more in-�depth look at
the dominant paradigm of self-�help, decentraliza- microenterprise development history, I
tion .â•›.â•›. and given that structural adjustment pro-
grams have forced the poor into self-�employment.
found that this South-�to-North importation
(McMichael, 2000) thesis was not the whole story. The circum-
stances that led to the formation and spread
of MDPs were far more complex: they
A major source of the excitement surround- entailed the importation of ideas from
ing microenterprise development has been North to South as well as from South to
the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The state- North. Tracking the history and sources of
ment by Mohammed Yunus, the bank’s MDP innovations locates microenterprise
founder, describes his struggle to offer development squarely within the context of
microcredit in the 1970s. The second state- the conditions and policies of the new
ment captures the popular acclaim sur- economy. An examination of the emergence
rounding the bank and the hopes for future and practice of southern MDPs reveals not
microenterprise development. Many U.S. only program successes, but also funda�
Microenterprise Development Programs mental contradictions in microenterprise
(MDPs) were modeled after famous south- development.
ern programs such as the Grameen. Despite
praise for these programs, MDPs also have
serious critics; the third statement expresses CONTEXT OF MICROENTERPRISE
the concern that MDPs direct too much DEVELOPMENT
attention toward individual self-�help and
distract from structural economic conditions MDPs were developed to extend business
that promote and perpetuate poverty. credit and training to the “poorest of the
This chapter addresses one of my first poor” in Africa, Bangladesh, and Latin
questions as a microenterprise development America (Microcredit Summit, 1997;
volunteer: Where did all these U.S. programs Rogaly, 1996). The decades of the 1970s
294 |╇╇ N. Jurik

and 1980s were times of worldwide eco- the expansion of private banking would
nomic recession and government fiscal eventually counter the ill effects of shrinking
shortfalls. In the 1980s and 1990s, modern state expenditures and loss of jobs.
MDPs became recognized as viable mechan- However, continuing declines in agriculture
isms for dealing with some of the human and the resulting migration to urban areas
economic tragedies of the crises. MDP strat- outstripped the formal employment oppor-
egies were consistent with the neoliberal tunities there.
policy agendas of minimal government and The jobs that became available in these
market-�based solutions that also came to areas failed to offer either improved working
predominate during this period. These pro- conditions or economic security. Trade lib-
grams were to address the growing prob- eralization requirements demanded that
lems of poverty and unemployment that government minimize labor, environmental
continue to characterize life in the new regulations, local industry protections, and
economy. other barriers to international trade. These
From the 1970s on, southern nations rules limited worker pay and safety protec-
were faced with increasing debts to industri- tions and promoted barriers to collective
alized countries that they could not repay. organizing. Many new work opportunities
During the 1980s and 1990s, international entailed more informal subcontracting work
financial concerns and global financial regu- arrangements rather than permanent
latory agencies—such as the International employment. The constant global search for
Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank— cheaper labor and the increased mobility of
pressured the governments of southern work sites meant that even those limited
nations to sharply curtail spending, ease employment opportunities created by inter-
international trade regulations, and privatize national trade might vanish at any time.
nationally owned banking institutions and Although southern nations always main-
industries (McMichael, 2000). These tained a large informal sector, structural
requirements were consistent with a neolib- adjustment policies and the increasing
eral economic ideology of smaller govern- decentralization of production produced a
ment and the elimination of trade population explosion of informal workers.
restrictions. This neoliberal agenda, typic- Individuals engaged in the informal subcon-
ally referred to as a structural adjustment tracting of formal sector activities (e.g., in
policy, entailed massive layoffs of state garment manufacturing) made up a large
workers and the curtailing of social invest- sector of this group, but many also turned
ment spending for education, health care, to more autonomous informal entrepreneur-
and the like. The resulting withdrawal of ial ventures (Portes & Sassen-�Koob, 1987;
many southern hemisphere governments McMichael, 2000).
from the public sector has encouraged an Concerned about growing poverty and
increased reliance on nongovernmental shrinking government resources, develop-
organizations (NGOs) and community-� ment specialists began to advocate the
based services for the poor (Desai, 2002). extension of credit to stimulate growth
Even before recent globalization and among small informal enterprises. They
structural adjustment regimes, decades of hoped that such assistance would stabilize
export-�oriented production had precipitated impoverished communities, and encourage
declines in small�scale family-�level agricul- bottom-�up economic development without
ture oriented toward local consumption expensive state-�managed help and employ-
needs. Available credit and agricultural ment programs (Wahid, 1994; Yunus,
support programs were oriented to larger-� 1997).
scale agribusiness farms. Impoverished rural For-�profit financial systems failed to
populations migrated to the cities in search deliver basic savings and credit to low-�
of employment. Proponents of structural income customers, small farms, and other
adjustment policies predicted that the liber- small businesses, especially to women entre-
alization of trade and financial markets and preneurs (Light & Pham, 1998). Banking
 Microenterprise Development╇╇ | 295

services were inconvenient and costly due to EARLY MICROFINANCE

hefty service charges, minimum balance ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS
requirements, and restricted withdrawal pol-
icies. Small consumer and business loans Although the past two decades have seen a
(e.g., less than $25,000) were rarely offered rapid growth in microfinance and microen-
because traditional banks claimed that these terprise development services, such efforts
loans were too costly to administer (Yunus, are not entirely new. Many modern MDPs
1997). Individuals without sufficient collat- resemble microlending and credit coopera-
eral or with weak credit histories seldom tives developed in 19th century Europe for
received loans (Otero & Rhyne, 1994). small farmers, entrepreneurs, and traders
Thus, the poor typically relied on more (Hollis & Sweetman, 1998). These pro-
costly informal financial services such as grams included direct loans, credit coopera-
loan sharks. tives, specialized rural development banks,
Microfinance programs operated by non- and regulations that required banks to lend
profit NGOs promised to fill the gap in a portion of their loan portfolio to small
financial services to the poor. Microfinance farmers, either directly or indirectly through
proponents argued that the failure of the development banks (Adams & Von Pischke,
commercial banks to serve poverty-�level 1992). The loans made by development
clients prevented the poor from accumulat- lending programs from the 1950s through
ing assets. They associated the lack of assets the 1980s were often subsidized by govern-
with chronic poverty and sedimentation of ment agencies or other NGOs. These loans
disadvantage. Microfinance services offered were regarded as failures because many
flexible checking, savings, and lending ended in default and often ended up in the
options tailored to poor clientele. These hands of prosperous rather than poor
services allowed smaller minimum required farmers (Jonakin & Enriquez, 1999).
balances, minimal service charges, and flexi- Defaults were blamed on generous subsidies
ble withdrawal options. Loans were typic- provided to lending organizations, subsidies
ally for smaller amounts, offered more that led them to operate in an inefficient and
flexible repayment options, and minimized unbusinesslike manner (Morduch, 1999).
collateral requirements. Some programs Two early forms of microfinance organi-
were partially or completely owned by indi- zations remain popular around the world.
vidual clients or by their communities. First, the most informal and perhaps longest
With their focus on training and lending lasting microfinance organization form is
to very small businesses, MDPs can best be the rotating savings and credit association
considered a subset of microfinance organi- (ROSCA). ROSCAs are widespread in the
zations. However, some microfinance pro- southern hemisphere and popular among
grams include MDP components and some some immigrant groups in industrialized
MDPs include savings and consumer-�lending nations. ROSCA members contribute a
services. Unlike many modern MDPs, espe- regular amount each week or month, and
cially those emerging in the United States, group members take turns borrowing the
early microfinance organizations were more money at no interest. Because they are
focused on lending and savings activities known and trusted by each other, ROSCA
than on business training, technical assist- members also provide social support for one
ance, or collective empowerment functions. another in consumption and business pur-
Thus, microenterprise development activities suits. Their informality and resource
are distinctive but still related to other requirements mean that ROSCAs serve
microfinance and development services. people with dependable incomes and social
Several innovations associated with modern ties; they are unlikely to serve the very poor
MDPs were actually inspired by the prac- or destitute.
tices of earlier microfinance groups. A second traditional form of low-�cost
lending and savings services is the credit
union. Credit unions are cooperative
296 |╇╇ N. Jurik

financial institutions that began in southern During the 1970s, researchers and policy-
hemisphere countries in the 1950s and are makers effectively challenged the traditional
popular in industrialized nations. They development discourses of centralization
provide savings and credit services to their and state-�managed interventions. These
members. Membership has traditionally challenges were fueled by reported ineffi-
been defined in terms of some affiliation ciencies and failures of the top-�down, or
shared by all members (e.g., employment or state-�controlled, development initiatives.
geography). There are no external share- Although some challenges came from leftist-�
holders; the members are the owners of the oriented groups, these attacks on
institution, and each member has a vote in government-�provided development services
the organization. The policymaking leader- were compatible with neoliberal policies
ship is drawn from members. that aimed to shrink the size of government
Although both ROSCAs and credit and rely on market-�based production of all
unions have been significant in offering goods and services. Over the past two
savings and lending services to those who decades, the promotion of self-�employment
might not otherwise have access, they tend has become the dominant model for assist-
to serve the poor who are better off. The ing women in the southern hemisphere
ROSCA form is limited in its scale and lon- (Poster & Salime, 2002).
gevity of services. Although far less limited Microenterprise development is
in scale and longevity, credit unions have applauded as a southern hemisphere inven-
not played a large role in microenterprise tion that was later copied by programs in
lending because their lending practices tend northern hemisphere countries. However,
to be conservative and they do not offer such characterizations lose sight of the
training and technical assistance. Neverthe- extent to which northern hemisphere-�
less, the modern MDP movement has built dominated governmental and nongovern-
on the experiences of these past microfi- mental organizations shaped the form and
nance programs to nurture a grassroots popularity of many of these programs.
dimension that enhances its popularity as a Organizations such as the Ford Foundation,
poverty-�alleviation and economic develop- United Nations Development Program, and,
ment strategy. more recently, the World Bank have been
instrumental in defining the standards and
funding parameters for southern MDPs
MODERN MDPs AS A STRATEGY FOR (McMichael, 2000).
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Microenterprise development is an import- INNOVATIVE MICROENTERPRISE

ant component in the reframing of interna- DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM METHODS
tional development discourse (McMichael,
2000). Throughout much of the 20th The historical economic context just
century, development policies were focused described is important for understanding the
on large-�scale, centrally planned ventures process of microenterprise development.
that usually served the better off people in Modern MDPs developed innovative
southern countries. Many programs pro- methods for extending credit to the poor.
vided goods and services, especially modern Some of these innovations were modifications
technology, to advance the development of of predecessor programs described above.
poor countries. Historically, men received Modern innovations attempt to remedy prob-
the direct benefits of development programs, lems that plagued past economic develop-
and women’s productive roles were largely ment and microfinance programs.
ignored. Programs slowly integrated women
into development concerns, but they were 1. Focus on Women Clients. In the past
still viewed as secondary (Escobar, 1995; two decades, most MDPs in southern
Parpart, 1995). countries have targeted women, and
 Microenterprise Development╇╇ | 297

anywhere from 50–100% of their clients 3. Step Lending. Another program innova-
are women. Women are disadvantaged tion is graduated or step lending. Indi-
economically because of their limited viduals starting new businesses or those
access to education, formal jobs, and with poor credit and a lack of collateral
resources such as land and credit, and in may build up to larger loans by estab-
many nations women are deprived of lishing a good repayment history on
fundamental economic, political, and small loans. Savings requirements may
human rights (see Desai, 2002). More- be a component of the step-�lending
over, most victims of poverty are chil- process. This innovation allows MDPs
dren who reside in mother-�headed to minimize their losses on high-�risk
households, a situation that is of even loans. It also allows entrepreneurs time
greater concern because a growing per- to develop their businesses and establish
centage of households are female a pattern of savings before assuming
headed. Working women in southern larger loans.
nations are disproportionately located 4. Local Relevance. MDPs try to be
in self-�employment activities in informal responsive to their local situation. This
sectors. A number of studies suggest innovation is a direct response to large-�
that women invest more of their income scale economic development programs
in their families—for food, school, and of the past that were designed by and
shelter—than do men (Amin, Becker, & often for some other population and
Bayes, 1998; Auwal & Singhal, 1992), simply transplanted to a locality without
and some studies report that women concern for the uniqueness of that
repay their loans more reliably than setting (Visvanthan, Duggan, Nisonoff,
men (Pitt & Khandker, 1998; Blumberg, & Wiergersma, 1997). Many MDPs are
2001). locally based NGOs. NGO forms have
2. Peer Lending Model. The peer lending been praised as a type of third-�way
model is a method of microenterprise alternative to private- and state-�sector
development that adapts elements of the solutions to social and economic
ROSCA model. As with ROSCAs, problems.
group cooperation and support are 5. Collective Organization and Empower-
integral to success. In peer lending, 3–10 ment. Although the sheer provision of
micro-�entrepreneurs join together to microfinance services and microenter-
receive a loan or related services such as prise development to the poor is viewed
business training, social services, and as a path to the economic and social
organization building. Group members empowerment of individuals, many
collectively guarantee loan repayment, MDPs in southern countries adopt far
and access to subsequent loans is more comprehensive agendas. They
dependent on successful repayment by include extensive educational, health-�
all members. Loans are determined by care, or community economic develop-
borrower need, loan size, purpose, and ment projects such as water or irrigation
terms. The peer group serves as a mech- systems. Several programs are client
anism for loan administration, social owned and controlled, and some
support, community building, informa- actively organize clients at the occupa-
tion exchange, and pressure for loan tional or community levels (e.g., into
repayment. It is credited with increasing unions or collective buying and market-
the repayment rate of very poor indi- ing groups). Collective organizing is
viduals with little or no collateral and responsive to the demands for local
weak credit histories (Berenbach & relevance because programs that are
Guzman, 1994). Peer lending is also locally controlled are more likely to be
praised for building networks, that is locally relevant.
social capital, among the poor (Wool- 6. The Village Bank Model. Village banks
cock, 1998). are community-�managed credit and
298 |╇╇ N. Jurik

savings associations. The village bank SOUTHERN MDP SUCCESSES

model may include any or all of the
program innovations previously The positive evaluations of pioneering
described—peer lending, a focus on MDPs encouraged the spread of these
women clients, stepped lending, and program innovations to other southern
community organization. The financial regions and to northern hemisphere coun-
operation of village banks begins when tries (cf. Gibbs, 1990). Evaluations reported
sponsoring agencies lend seed capital to significant successes in the areas of (1)
newly established village banks, which poverty alleviation through self-�subsistence,
then lend to their members. All members (2) economic development, (3) individual
sign the loan agreement as a collective empowerment, and (4) collective empower-
guarantee. At the end of 16 weeks, the ment through community organization.
bank repays the sponsoring agency with Many programs also reported successes in
interest. When members repay their first achieving or moving toward program
loan on time, they can get a second sustainability.
loan, the amount of which is determined In terms of poverty alleviation and eco-
by the savings a member has accumu- nomic development, many researchers asso-
lated through weekly contributions ciate MDPs with increased participant
during the first loan period. Members’ incomes and increased numbers of jobs in
savings stay in the village bank and are regions where programs operate. Some
used to finance new loans or collective researchers emphasize the role of MDPs in
income-�generating activities. No interest empowering clients as individuals. Participa-
is paid on savings; instead, members tion in peer-�lending groups is associated
receive a share of profits from the village with increases in confidence and self-�esteem.
bank’s relending activities and other Microenterprise development also may indi-
investments. rectly promote empowerment through inclu-
7. Bridge Lending. Recently, some MDPs sion in the economic system, improved
have developed mechanisms to aid the health, education, greater input into house-
transformation of larger microenter- hold decision-�making, and less dependency
prises into small businesses through on wealthy landlords or loan sharks. MDPs
training and longer-�term, larger loans. claim significant success in the realm of col-
Bridge lending responds to microenter- lective empowerment (i.e., community
prises that are too large for most MDP organizing) (Desai, 2002). Some MDPs
loans but too small to meet minimum emphasize their potential to be self-�sufficient
loan amounts or collateral requirements programs. Others argue that microfinance is
in traditional banks. becoming more commercialized in the
southern hemisphere, most notably in Latin
American countries. Consistent with a neo-
European Programs
liberal emphasis on market-�based solutions
Although the inspiration for microenterprise to social problems, a number of proponents
development is typically associated with the argue that commercialization is an essential
poverty and economic crises of southern and viable step for MDP institutionalization
hemisphere nations, some European pro- and growth.
grams have also served to inform the micro-
enterprise field. However, in contrast to
CRITICISMS OF MICROENTERPRISE
southern nation MDPs, these programs have
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
focused more narrowly on assistance to the
unemployed.
Evaluations: Methodological
Concerns
Although positive evaluations support MDP
success claims and funding requests, such
 Microenterprise Development╇╇ | 299

reports are not without critics. The debates their program impact, and (2) their pro-
about MDP evaluations also provide grams can be sustained by smaller amounts
insights into the dilemmas surrounding dif- of outside funds.
fusion and further development in the MDP The hegemony of market standards com-
organizational field. bined with complex interweaving of links
Many evaluations rely only on indirect among government, nonprofit, and for-�
measures of program success to avoid costly profit organizations heighten the ambiguity
client follow-�ups. Proxies include the of responsibilities and accountability for
number of clients served, number of loans social services. Intensive social and eco-
made, and rates of loan repayment as nomic support are important for reaching
success indicators. More direct measures of poor clients, but these services greatly
success would include increases in client increase program operating costs. Increased
incomes, number of clients’ business costs, in turn, undermine MDP sustainabil-
employees, and value of business assets after ity and self-�sufficiency. Sustainability desires
program involvement (Berger, 1989). The may converge with demands for successful
duration of client follow-�ups and the repre- program outcomes to pressure staff to
sentativeness of follow-�up samples are also screen out higher-�risk borrowers.
important issues, as is the lack of control
groups.
Issues Around Women
Although the MDP focus on women has
Reaching and Helping the Very Poor
been highly praised for empowering women
Some argue that MDPs legitimate structural economically and socially, critics argue that
adjustment policies that increase unemploy- emphasizing women clients to the exclusion
ment and restrict state responsibilities for of men can heighten women’s burden as
social investment in the poor (Desai, 2002). providers for the family and discourage
They challenge claims that individuals can men’s responsibility. Moreover, directing
lift themselves out of poverty with hard attention to individual women as entrepre-
work and a little MDP credit or training neurs distracts from the structural sources
(Rogaly, 1996). Critics question the capabil- of gender inequality. Some case studies chal-
ity of most microenterprises to provide a lenge claims that localized programs auto-
livable income for families. Some MDP matically lead to collective empowerment.
loans may be used to meet daily consump-
tion. Many argue that in the absence of
Constraints on Local Empowerment
structural economic changes to promote a
positive regulatory and economic environ- Centralized controls and bureaucratic regu-
ment for microenterprises, MDPs may lations may limit program responsiveness to
increase indebtedness among the poor (cf. the concrete needs of clients. Some research-
Berger, 1989). ers report that peer groups for lenders can be
Critics argue that despite expressed aims, extremely oppressive for borrowers who are
MDPs fail to reach a sufficient number of unable to repay their loans when they are
poor people and aid more nonpoor clients watched and shunned in the community. In
(cf. Gulli, 1998). Although it might increase the face of this increased community surveil-
the number of clients served, commercializa- lance and sanction, some borrowers return
tion might also reduce outreach to the poor to village loan sharks in order to make
or certainly minimize the support services microloan payments (Fernando, 1997).
that can be offered at a profit. Along such
lines, some experts argue that MDPs should
aim for sustainability rather than self-� CONCLUSION
sufficiency. Sustainability means that pro-
grams are cost-�effective in that (1) their The history of southern hemisphere MDPs
operating costs are clearly outweighed by reveals innovations, accomplishments, and
300 |╇╇ N. Jurik

dilemmas. Although U.S. programs are por- growing national and international stand-
trayed as an outgrowth of successful south- ards. Despite these tensions, reports of
ern hemisphere MDPs, the relationship was southern program successes provided an
not that simple. Modern MDPs are embed- important niche or point of reference for the
ded in a complex context of economic crises diffusion of MDPs into the United States
and change and of accompanying neoliberal during the 1980s and 1990s.
ideologies and policies. Although some
MDPs were developed by indigenous leaders
of the countries in which they were begun, REFERENCES
northern ideologies and organizations sig-
nificantly influence the form and scope of Adams, D. W. & Von Pishke, J. D. (1992). Microenter-
southern MDPs. prise credit programs: Deja vu. World Development,
Programs also vary considerably; some 20(10), 1463–1470.
have developed holistic and activist agendas Amin, R., Becker, S., & Bayes, A. (1998). NGO-�
promoted microcredit programs and women’s
whereas others have focused more narrowly empowerment in Bangladesh: Quant and qual evid-
on self-Â�employment lending. Efforts to move ence. Journal of Developing Areas, 32(2), 221–236.
toward commercialization, favored by Auwal, M. A. & Singhal, A. (1992). The diffusion of
USAID, the World Bank, and others, are the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Knowledge, 14(1),
7–28.
most consistent with neoliberal market-�
Berenbach, S. & Guzman, D. (1994). The solidarity
centered ideologies. Although these trends group experience worldwide. In M. Otero & E.
may greatly expand service outputs, they Rhyne (Eds.), The new world of microenterprise
threaten to narrow the services available to finance: Building healthy financial institutions for the
the poor, and most certainly to limit poor (pp. 119–139). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian
Press.
program scope so that it excludes collective
Berger, M. (1989). Giving women credit: The strength
empowerment-�oriented agendas. and limitations of credit as a tool for alleviating
Some proponents argue that MDPs actu- poverty. World Development, 17(7), 1017–1030.
ally offer a more humane third way residing Blumberg, R. L. (2001). “We are family”: Gender,
between free market ideologies and the tra- microenterprise, family work, and well-�being in
Ecuador and the Dominican Republic with compara-
ditional liberal reliance on government (Sch-
tive data from Guatemala, Swaziland, and Guinea-�
reiner & Morduch, 2002). This third way Bissau. History of the Family, 6(2), 271–299.
calls for a greater participation from civic Counts, A. (1996). Give us credit: How Muhammad
society, including NGOs, as well as local- Yunus’s micro-Â�lending revolution is empowering
ized nonprofit organizations in the provision women from Bangladesh to Chicago. New York:
Random House.
of human services. Regardless of the prefer-
Desai, M. (2002). Transnational solidarity: Women’s
ence for neoliberal or third-�way ideology, agency, structural adjustment, and globalization. In
both encourage the privatization of public N. Naples & M. Desai (Eds.), Women’s activism and
services and the evaluation of even publicly globalization (pp. 15–33). New York: Routledge.
and NGO-�provided services in terms of their Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The
making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton,
consistency with businesslike operations
NJ: Princeton University Press.
standards. Fernando, J. (1997). Non-�governmental organizations,
The context of the new economy pro- micro-�credit, and empowerment of women. Annals
vided tremendous opportunities for MDP of the American Academy of Political and Social Sci-
growth and popularization, but these oppor- ences, 554(1), 150–77.
Gibbs, N. (1990, November 5). Boosting cottage capit-
tunities also posed dilemmas. Contradic-
alism. Newsweek, p.€36.
tions arose for southern MDPs in the Gulli, H. (1998). Microfinance and poverty: Question-
following areas: alleviating versus legitimat- ing the conventional wisdom. Washington, DC:
ing neoliberal policies, program outreach Inter-�American Development Bank, Sustainable
versus program sustainability, empowering Development Department.
Hollis, A. & Sweetman, A. (1998). Microcredit: What
versus overburdening clients as individuals,
can we learn from the past? World Development,
encouraging collective empowerment versus 26(10), 1875–1891.
increasing community surveillance, and Jonakin, J. & Enriquez, L. (1999). The non-�traditional
facilitating local control in the face of financial sector in Nicaragua: A response to rural
 Microenterprise Development╇╇ | 301

credit market exclusion. Development Policy Review, in western market economies. American Journal of
17(2), 141–169. Sociology, 93(1), 30–61.
Light, I. & Pham, M. (1998). Beyond credit-�worthy: Poster, W. & Salime, Z. (2002). The limits of micro-
Microcredit and informal credit in the U.S. Journal credit: Transnational feminism and USAID activities
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 35–51. in the United States and Morocco. In N. Naples &
McMichael, P. (2000). Development and social change: M. Desai (Eds.), Women’s activism and globalization
A global perspective (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: (pp. 189–219). New York: Routledge.
Pine Forge. Rogaly, B. (1996). Micro-Â�finance evangelism, “destitute
Microcredit Summit. (1997). Declaration and plan of women,” and the hard selling of a new anti-Â�poverty
action. Washington, DC: Microcredit Summit. formula. Development in Practice, 6(2), 100–112.
Retrieved from www.microcreditsummit.org/decla- Schreiner, M. & Morduch, J. (2002). Opportunities
ration.htm. and challenges for microfinance in the United States.
Morduch, J. (1999). The microfinance promise. Journal In J. H. Carr & Z. T. Tong (Eds.), Replicating
of Economic Literature, 37, 1569–1614. microfinance in the United States (pp. 19–64). Wash-
Otero, M. & Rhyne, E. (1994). Financial services for ington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
microenterprises: Principles and institutions. In M. Visvanthan, N., Duggan, L., Nisonoff, L., & Wierger-
Otero & E. Rhyne (Eds.), The new world of micro- sma, N. (Eds.). (1997). The women, gender and
enterprise finance: Building healthy financial institu- development reader. London: ZED Books Ltd.
tions for the poor (pp. 11–26). West Hartford, CT: Yunus, M. (1997). The Grameen Bank story: Micro-
Kumarian Press. lending for economic development. Dollars and
Parpart, J. L. (1995). Post-Â�modernism, gender and Sense, 212, 27–29.
development. In J. Crush (Ed.), Power of develop- Wahid, A. N. N. (1994). The Grameen Bank and
ment (pp. 253–265). London: Routledge. poverty alleviation in Bangladesh. American Journal
Pitt, M. & Khandker, S. (1998). The impact of group-Â� of Economics and Sociology, 53(1), 1–15.
based credit programs on poor households in Bang- Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic
ladesh: Does the gender of participants matter? development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and
Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 958–996. policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2),
Portes, A. & Sassen-Â�Koob, S. (1987). Making it under- 151–208.
ground: Comparative material on the informal sector
 PART V

Theoretical Conceptions and

Debates
 CHAPTER 35

Introduction to Part V
James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

This final part of the book addresses some concerning the potential capacity of com-
of the key theoretical issues involved in munities to provide collective goods and the
community development concerning the requirement of support from higher levels of
organization and character of the basic political and economic organization. Com-
building blocks of community development: munity development institutions, policies,
people, social organization, and property. and practices attempt to redress inequalities
The part starts with an examination of and absences in what community supply.
“What Community Supplies” that argues The next two chapters go more deeply into
for its enduring functional importance in the nature of the unequal distribution or
our lives. The next two chapters provide general absence of the benefits of a good
theoretical tools for analyzing the unequal community. They both push the minimalist
distribution of the values that community definition of what community supplies
supplies among communities differently sit- toward a vision of what a good community
uated in the world economy and among dif- would be like. Sen elegantly critiques the
ferent social groups within communities. dominant economic paradigm in interna-
These inequalities provide the justification tional community development, and often in
for community development. Therefore community development within developed
these fundamental sets of issues are ones nations as well. He asserts that the good
that community development practitioners community would provide each person with
and students must come to terms with. The the conditions for developing certain basic
point of this part is not to provide definitive human capacities. He notes that if the
answers to the problems posed by these proper distribution of economic resources
issues, but rather to enable more thoughtful led to such conditions, then the use of one
and productive engagement with these prob- framework or another would be of little
lems. Solutions to the issues raised here are import. However, he argues that is not the
not to be found in either the abstract or a case both because of difficulties in measur-
generalized template. Instead, working ing actual inequality of resources but as
through these issues and problems is both importantly because conditions like freedom
context specific and an ongoing and imper- of choice or freedom to develop are not
fect process. subject to the economic metric. He invokes
Robert J. Sampson’s chapter introduces the case of gender inequality to illustrate his
this part, lays out the state of the debate argument. The next chapter by Young con-
about community within sociology, and tinues this theme in a broad, sweeping essay
defines community as place based and still a that analyzes oppression as a set of pro�
significant unit of social organization. He cesses that occur in different types of social,
identifies several key functions of place-� political, and economic relationships. It
based communities and the conditions that explicitly rejects the notion of a hierarchy of
support high levels of achievement of these oppression (in which some forms of oppres-
functions. The chapter ends with cautions sion are more oppressive than others), and
306 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

instead argues that groups—and oppression enjoyment of human capacities. They end
is a process felt by groups rather than just with a thoughtful and useful discussion of
individuals—are oppressed in different specific policies and political alliances that
ways. could decrease the unequal life chances of
The next two chapters examine oppres- white and black Americans.
sion and difference in more particular The next group of chapters address com-
ways—that is, through the lenses of race munity development in the United States.
and gender in American cities. Garber’s Housing is a vital part of community devel-
chapter on gender and community asks the opment practice. Because community is the
questions of what theories and practices of realm of social reproduction, and housing
community mean for women in North plays such a central role in reproduction, it
America. Women are a definitive part of is vital that we have a thorough understand-
communities in the United States. And by ing of housing as an abstract idea, and the
this we mean two things. First, women play policies that play such an important role in
a disproportionate role in community organ- shaping the housing stock in American com-
izing and community development work munities. Davis’ chapter asks some very fun-
(something also discussed in Chapter 22 by damental questions about the extent to
Stall and Stoecker). Second, and related to which property is a unitary thing—or even if
that, if community is the realm in which it is a thing at all. Instead, he argues that
social reproduction occurs, then it must be property is a set of six different interests that
recognized that social reproduction has long coalesce around the two basic interests of
been gendered, in the social division of accommodation and accumulation. While he
labor, as “women’s work.” This, of course, doesn’t say so explicitly here, the implication
is directly related to the disproportionate is the kinds of tenurial relations people can
role women play in community work. But have vis-Â�à-vis property are therefore not
when the two halves come together it means limited to owner and renter, and instead can
that women simultaneously find their most encompass a range of different forms which
open and accessible political space (com- can combine the different rights and interests
pared to other forms of political engage- of property in different ways.
ment) in the arena of community Finally, the part ends with a pair of chap-
involvement, but they can also be simultan- ters that ask perhaps the most fundamental
eously “kept in their place” (so to speak) in questions of all, and they are: How much
that engagement. It is these issues that can we improve things at the community
Garber works through and disentangles in scale? Are these the most productive forms
her chapter. Squires and Kubrin take a dif- of intervention we can make to try to trans-
ferent tack in examining race in relation to form and improve life in American com-
community development by linking racism munities? These questions were asked in
to the literal landscape that community Chapter 1’s introduction, and will be
development seeks to improve. Given the touched upon again in Chapter 44’s conclu-
importance of race and racism in structuring sion. But these two chapters provide a much
American cities, it is almost remarkable that more thorough analysis of the issues
the observations in the Squires and Kubrin involved. Stoecker’s famous essay challenges
chapter get so often overlooked by com- the whole institutional framework of the
munity development practitioners who are CDC. He argues that by internalizing
trying to improve the conditions of life in the€ fundamentally antagonistic relations
American cities. They show how the unequal between community and capital, CDCs have
treatment of different groups of people is forever compromised themselves and their
written into the physical fabric of com- ability to either improve conditions for the
munities as the residue of white privilege communities they work in, and are part of,
and racism. Thus places themselves do the or mobilize that community to demand the
work of oppression by providing the kind of larger-�scale changes needed to
unequal conditions for the development and fundamentally improve lives for poor
 Introduction to Part V╇╇ | 307

communities throughout the United States. these limits. It is for this reason that we end
The part ends with the chapter from the part on theories and debates with this
Kubisch et al. who are a bit more optimistic chapter. For while we share the legitimate
than Stoecker. Their chapter takes up the concerns of Stoecker and Sites et al., and we
issues addressed in Chapter 4 by Sites and have more than a little ambivalence about
his colleagues and attempt to provide provi- the potential and limits of community devel-
sional solutions. They recognize the prob- opment, we also think it’s important to find
lems inherent in community building efforts ways to analyze and practice community
(and community-�focused interventions more development that recognize and try to miti-
generally), but also try to find ways beyond gate its limitations and contradictions.
 CHAPTER 36

What Community Supplies

Robert J. Sampson

Community seems to be the modern elixir community is in order. The loss is expressed
for much of what ails American society. most frequently in terms of the decline of
Indeed, as we reflect on the wrenching social civic life and the deterioration of local
changes that have shaped our recent past, neighborhoods.
calls for a return to community values are But if community has come to mean
everywhere. From politicians to private everything good, as a concept it loses its
foundations to real estate developers to analytical bite and therefore means nothing.
criminal justice officials to communitarians, What exactly do we mean by community?
the appeal of community is ubiquitous. Does the term refer to geographic locales,
Consider just a few examples of the such as neighborhoods? Or to common
efforts to mobilize action under the rubric of membership in some association or group?
community. Among private foundations Does it mean shared values and deep com-
many programs have settled on community mitments, and if so to what? What in fact
as a conceptual umbrella to coordinate new does community supply that makes it so in
initiatives. Meanwhile the growing commun- demand? Not only are the answers unclear,
ity development corporation (CDC) move- the current appropriation of community
ment has long singled out community as a rhetoric elides any references to the dark
meaningful unit of social intervention to side of communal life. One might ask, what
improve the lives of the poor. In the criminal do we stand to lose by a return to commu-
justice system the move to community-Â�based nity—what does community deny? Perhaps
strategies has included increased community more important, does the current drumbeat
policing, community-�based prosecution pol- of allusions to community values bespeak a
icies, and community corrections. Even real mythical past, raising the paradox of return-
estate developers are beginning to take heed ing to nowhere?
of modern discontent with urban sprawl and The thesis of this chapter is that com-
suburban anonymity. They are proffering munity does matter, albeit not in the simple
new visions of living arrangements that way that current yearning suggests. Com-
promote neighborliness, local interaction, munities are an important arena for realiz-
and common physical space with architec- ing common values and maintaining
tural integrity, all in an attempt to restore effective social controls. As such, they
some semblance of community. And in intel- provide important public goods, or what
lectual discussions, the rise of communitari- many have termed “social capital,” that
anism as a serious movement is centered on bear on patterns of social organization and
community responsibility and civic engage- human well-�being. There is hope in this con-
ment as the structure supporting social ception, for it reveals ways to harness social
justice and the good society. change to reflect the nature of transformed
Whatever the source, there has emerged a (not lost) communities. Especially in low-�
widespread idea that something has been income, socially disadvantaged neighbor-
lost in American society and that a return to hoods, dimensions of social capital may
 What Community Supplies╇╇ | 309

work to buffer the forces of sociodemo- expressed by early sociologists such as

graphic changes that have battered the idea Tönnies, Durkheim, Simmel, and Weber.
of community. But the concept is not an Wirth (1938) later expanded these concerns
unqualified good, and thus one must also by positing that size, density, heterogeneity,
come to grips with such potential adverse and anonymity were socially disintegrative
consequences as local corruption and the features that characterized rapidly changing
social exclusion of outsiders. cities. He contended that these defining ele-
To tackle these matters, this chapter ments constrained social relations to be
begins by reviewing some of the defining impersonal and superficial and that this
themes of community and neighborhood, estrangement undermined family life and the
placing present concerns within the frame- intimate bonds of local community.
work of intellectual history. Although not Wellman (1979) summarizes this classical
apparent from recent debates, there is a long tradition in urban sociology under the label
history of research and theory on urbanism “Community Lost,” invoking the idea that
and community in the United States. the social ties of modern urbanites have
I next highlight the social dimensions by become impersonal, transitory, and seg-
which communities in the United States are mented, hastening the eclipse of community
stratified ecologically. Neighborhoods vary and feeding the process of social disorgani-
a great deal in terms of racial isolation zation. Community Lost is thus a salient
and€ the concentration of socioeconomic theme that has a venerable history in 20th
resources, and social dislocations such as century America.
crime and poor health come bundled in geo- Research, however, suggests that Wirth’s
graphical space. thesis is naive and the pronouncement of the
I then turn to the heart of the topic: what loss of community premature. Ethnographic
community supplies and how structural research in the 1950s and 1960s discovered
forces in the larger society shape the internal thriving urban communities and ethnic
dynamics of communities. Specifically, I enclaves where kinship and friendship flour-
explicate a theory of community social ished. Especially in poor urban neighbor-
organization and the public-�good aspects of hoods, the evidence of dense social networks
social capital such as informal social control and local identification remained strong (see
mechanisms, network ties to extra-�local Gans, 1962; Jacobs, 1961; Stack, 1974).
power, mutual trust, capacity for efficacious Even quantitative studies began to chal-
action, and organizational resources that lenge the hegemony of Community Lost. In
communities can in theory provide. Just as an important 1975 survey replication in a
important, I delineate what research has Rochester, New York, neighborhood of a
revealed about the ways structural forces study conducted there in 1950, Hunter
(for example, inequality and stability) (1975) found a decrease in the use of shop-
promote or inhibit these public goods. ping, entertainment, and other facilities but
no change in informal neighboring and local
interaction. Indeed, the local sense of com-
COMMUNITY: LOST, FOUND, AND munity had increased, leading him to con-
LIBERATED clude that “the hypothesized consequences
of an ecological and functional increase in
The “loss of community” is by no means a scale have not resulted in a social and
new concern. The basis of the classic urban cultural-Â�symbolic loss of community.” Sum-
paradigm in sociology is related to the marizing these findings, ethnographic and
massive social changes of the late 19th and quantitative alike, Wellman (1979) declared
early 20th centuries. Concern over the pre- a mid-Â�century era of “Community Saved.”
sumed decline of traditional forms of per- As suburbanization and technological
sonal association in small towns and change have increased in the past two
neighborhoods under the advance of urbani- decades, scholarship has begun to reach a
zation and industrialization was widely compromise in the Community Lost and
310 |╇╇ R. J. Sampson

Community Saved arguments. The research they have in the past on local neighbor-
of theorists on social networks has shown hoods for psychological support, cultural
that, contrary to the assumptions of a and religious nourishment, and economic
decline in primary relations and to the Com- needs and transactions. They can shop,
munity Saved image of dense parochial ties, work, go to church, and make friends
modern urbanites have created non-�spatial throughout geographical space and, increas-
communities—viable social relations dis- ingly, cyber space. This alone suggests that
persed in space (Tilly, 1973). Modern urban interventions in the local community are
dwellers, for example, might not know (or unlikely to succeed if they attempt to pene-
want to know) their neighbors on an inti- trate the private world of personal relations.
mate basis, but they are likely to have inter- I contend that we do not need communit-
personal networks spread throughout the ies so much to satisfy our private and per-
city, state, and even country. Wellman refers sonal needs, which are best met elsewhere,
to this expanded concept of community as nor even to meet our sustenance needs,
“Community Liberated,” or what might be which for better or worse appear to be irre-
thought of as community beyond propin- trievably dispersed in space. Rather, local
quity. This does not mean local relations are community remains essential as a site for the
unimportant, but only that they are no realization of common values in support of
longer controlling for many areas of social social goods, including public safety, norms
life. of civility and mutual trust, efficacious vol-
Fischer (1982) has presented a similar untary associations, and collective socializa-
vision of what urbanism has wrought and tion of the young.
what it means to think of communities as The local community remains important
liberated. Clarity is accomplished by empha- for another reason—economic resources and
sizing the distinction between the public and social-�structural differentiation in general
private spheres of social life. In the urban are very much spatially shaped in the United
world of strangers a person typically has the States. Income, education, housing stock—
capacity to know people categorically, to the bedrock of physical and human capi-
place them by appearance (age, ethnicity, tal—are distributed unevenly across
lifestyle) in one of many urban subcultures. geographical space, often in conjunction
But this is a situational not a psychological with ascribed characteristics such as racial
style, and it says nothing about attitudes composition. The continuing and in some
and action in the private sphere. City dwell- cases increasing significance of such ecolo-
ers have not lost the capacity for deep, long-� gical differentiation is fundamental to our
lasting relationships; rather they have gained understanding of community.
the capacity for surface, fleeting relation- Before addressing ecological differentia-
ships that are restricted. Consequently, tion, however, I must first digress to con-
urbanism’s effects are specified: estrange- sider the operational definitions of
ment occurs in the public sphere—less help- community and neighborhood in modern
fulness, more conflict—but not in the private society. The complexity of the phenomenon
sphere—personal relationships and psycho- is staggering; Hillery (1984) reviews close to
logical well-�being. 100 definitions of neighborhoods. The tradi-
It is unfortunate that the present nostal- tional definition of a neighborhood, as used
gia for community has emerged almost by Park, Burgess, and other members of the
oblivious to a research cycle of Community early Chicago School, refers to an ecological
Lost, Saved, and Liberated. The evidence subsection of a larger community, a collec-
supports the argument for Community Lib- tion of both people and institutions occupy-
erated, showing that community has been ing a spatially defined area that is
transformed rather than lost. I use this conditioned by a set of ecological, cultural,
framework to understand what community and political forces. In an almost utopian
supplies in mass society. The evidence is way, Park defined neighborhood as “a local-
now clear that urban dwellers rely less than ity with sentiments, traditions, and a history
 What Community Supplies╇╇ | 311

of its own” (1916, p.€ 95). He also claimed resulted in an increased concentration of the
that the neighborhood was the basis of most disadvantaged segments of the urban
social and political organization, albeit not black population, especially poor, female-�
in a formal sense. headed families with children. At the
Park’s definition overstates the cultural national level in 1990, fully 25% of poor
and political distinctiveness of residential blacks lived in concentrated poverty neigh-
enclaves, but there are aspects of it worth borhoods compared with only 3% of poor
preserving. Most important is the recogni- whites (Jargowsky, 1997, p.€ 41). The con-
tion first that neighborhoods are an ecolo- sequences of these distributions are pro-
gical unit and second that they are nested found because they mean that relationships
within successively larger communities. between race and individual outcomes are
There is no one neighborhood, but many systematically confounded with important
neighborhoods that vary in size and com- differences in community contexts.
plexity depending on the social phenomenon The concentration of poverty and jobless-
of interest and the ecological structure of the ness has been fueled by macroeconomic
larger community. This idea of embedded- changes related to the deindustrialization of
ness is why Choldin (1984) argues for the central cities where low-�income minorities
term subcommunity, emphasizing that the are disproportionately located. These
local neighborhood is integrally linked to, changes include a shift from goods-�
and dependent on, a larger whole. For these producing to service-�producing industries,
reasons, one can think of residential neigh- the increasing polarization of the labor
borhoods as what Suttles (1972, p.€59) calls market into low-�wage and high-�wage
a “mosaic of overlapping boundaries” or workers, and the relocation of manufactur-
what Reiss (1996) calls an “imbricated ing away from the inner cities. The related
structure.” exodus of middle- and upper-Â�income black
families from the inner city has also, accord-
ing to Wilson, removed an important social
ECOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION AND buffer that could potentially deflect the full
COMMUNITY STRATIFICATION impact of prolonged joblessness and indus-
trial transformation. Wilson (1996) argues
A wealth of research has studied the ecolo- that income mixing within communities was
gical differentiation of American cities. more characteristic of ghetto neighborhoods
Research traditions rooted in “social area in the 1940s and 1950s and that inequality
analysis” and “factorial ecology” have among communities today has become more
established structural characteristics that pronounced as a result of the increasing
vary among neighborhoods, chiefly along spatial separation of middle- and upper-�
the dimensions of socioeconomic stratifica- income blacks from lower-�income blacks.
tion (poverty, occupational attainment), Focusing on racial segregation, Massey
family structure, residential stability (home- and Denton (1993) describe how, in a segre-
ownership, tenure), race or ethnicity, and gated environment, economic shocks that
urbanization (density). push more people into the ranks of low-�
This research has demonstrated that income earners not only bring about an
many social indicators coalesce in physical increase in the poverty rate for the group as
space. Current research is attempting to a whole but also cause an increase in the
investigate how macro forces lead to the geographic concentration of poverty. This
clustering of social and economic factors in geographic intensification occurs because
urban areas. The best-�known result is Wil- the additional poverty created by macroeco-
son’s (1987) theory of “concentration nomic conditions is spread unevenly over a
effects” that arise from living in a neighbor- metropolitan area. The greater the segrega-
hood that is overwhelmingly impoverished. tion, “the smaller the number of neighbor-
Wilson argues that the social transformation hoods absorbing the shock, and the more
of inner-�city areas in recent decades has severe the resulting concentration of
312 |╇╇ R. J. Sampson

poverty” (Massey, 1990, p.€ 337). At the THEORY OF COMMUNITY SOCIAL

other end of the income distribution, the ORGANIZATION
growing geographic concentration of (pre-
dominantly white) affluence suggests a At the most general level, community social
society increasingly bifurcated by wealth. organization may be thought of as the
Although for different reasons, both Wilson ability of a community structure to realize
and Massey contend that race-�linked social the common values of its residents and
change is a structural force that is reflected maintain effective social controls. Social
in local environments. control should not be equated with repres-
Recognition of the spatial clustering of sion or forced conformity. Rather, it refers
social problems actually has a long history. to the capacity of a social unit to regulate
In the 1920s Shaw and McKay (1969 itself according to desired principles, to
[1942]) discovered that the same Chicago realize collective, as opposed to forced,
neighborhoods characterized by poverty, goals. This conception is similar to Tilly’s
residential instability, and high rates of (1973) definition of collective action: the
crime and delinquency were also plagued by application of a community’s pooled
high rates of infant mortality, low birth resources to common ends. There seems to
weight, tuberculosis, physical abuse, and be a consensus among Americans on the
other factors detrimental to child develop- virtues of neighborhoods characterized by
ment. This general empirical finding has economic sufficiency, good schools, ade-
emerged repeatedly. Clearly, there is a con- quate housing, and a clean, healthy environ-
nection between the healthy development of ment. The capacity to achieve such common
children and community structure. goals is linked to informal relationships
In short, research on ecological differenti- established for other purposes and more
ation has established some facts. First, there formal efforts to achieve social regulation
is considerable race-�linked economic through institutional means (see Korn-
in�equality among neighborhoods and com- hauser, 1978, p.€24).
munities, evidenced by the clustering of The present framework of social control
indicators of both advantaged and disad- does not rest on homogeneity, whether cul-
vantaged socioeconomic status and racial tural or socio-�demographic. Diverse popula-
isolation: Second, social problems come tions can and do agree on wanting safe
bundled at the neighborhood level, includ- streets. And social conflicts can and do rend
ing but not limited to crime, social disorder, communities along the lines of economic
and poor child health. Third, the ecological resources, race, political empowerment, and
concentration of poverty, racial isolation, the role of criminal justice agents in defining
and social dislocations appears to have and controlling drug use, gangs, panhan-
increased significantly along with the con- dling, and police misconduct. Conflict
centration of affluence, especially during the usually coalesces around the distribution of
1980s and 1990s. resources and power, not the content of core
Despite increased urbanization and a values. As Selznick (1992, pp.€367, 369) has
complex imbricated structure, neighbor- written, “communities are characterized by
hoods and residential subcommunities structural differentiation as well as by
remain persistent in American society. As shared consciousness.” The goal of com-
any real estate agent or homeowner will munity is thus unity in diversity, or the
attest, location does matter. It remains for a reconciliation of partial and general perspec-
theory of community to specify the social tives on the common good.
mechanisms by which structural dimensions This sociological conception of social
of community, especially the concentration control addresses the long-�standing criticism
of urban poverty, racial segregation, and that theories of community social organiza-
residential stability, matter. It is to this issue tion de-�emphasize social conflict. Recogniz-
I now turn. ing that collective efforts to achieve common
goals are variable and coexist with conflict,
 What Community Supplies╇╇ | 313

I thus use the term “differential social to take from this view is that community
organization.” In other words, I accept that composition, the aggregation of individual
communities lack homogeneity as I define characteristics, matters primarily as it bears
them and focus on the variable forms of on network structure.
organization, formal and informal. Further- The systemic or network analysis of
more, my definition embraces geography social control is theoretically compatible
rather than solidarity or identity as the with more recent formulations of what has
major criterion identifying a community. been termed social capital. Coleman (1988,
Following Tilly (1973, p.€212), I “choose to p.€98) defines social capital by its functions:
make territoriality define communities and it is created when the structure of relations
to leave the extent of solidarity problem- among persons facilitates action, “making
atic.” When formulated in this way, the possible the achievement of certain ends that
dimensions of community social organiza- in its absence would not be possible.” Social
tion are analytically separable not only from capital is a social good embodied in the rela-
racial segregation, concentrated poverty, tions among persons and positions. In other
instability, and other exogenous sources of words, social capital is lodged not in indi-
variation but from the social goods that may viduals but in the structure of social organ-
result. ization. Putnam (1993, p.€ 36) has defined
social capital in a similar fashion as “fea-
tures of social organization, such as net-
Networks, Social Capital, and Collective
works, norms, and trust, that facilitate
Efficacy
coordination and cooperation for mutual
The social-Â�control way of thinking about benefit.”
community is grounded in what Kasarda It follows that communities high in social
and Janowitz (1974, p.€ 329) call the “sys- capital are better able to realize common
temic” model, in which the local community values and maintain effective social controls.
is viewed as a complex system of friendship Consider the case of childrearing, which is
and kinship networks, and of formal and analyzed typically from the perspective of
informal associational ties rooted in family families. Neighborhoods characterized by
life, ongoing socialization processes, and extensive obligations, expectations, and
local institutions. Important systemic dimen- interlocking social networks connecting
sions of community social organization are adults are best able to facilitate the informal
the prevalence, interdependence, and over- social control of children. Such close local
lapping nature of social networks, local par- networks provide the child with social
ticipation in formal and voluntary capital of a collective nature, as reflected in
organizations, and the span of collective the idea that “it takes a whole village to
attention that the community directs toward raise a child.”
local problems. Social networks alone, however, are not
Thus conceived, the systemic model of sufficient to understand local communities.
social capital borrows insights gleaned from After all, networks are differentially
the social network paradigm in sociology. invoked; and in fact dense, tight-�knit net-
As a theoretical project, network analysis works may actually impede social organiza-
rejects the attempt to explain social process tion if they are isolated or weakly linked to
in terms of individual cognition or categori- collective expectations for action.
cal attributes such as poverty or ethnicity. Private ties notwithstanding, then, it is
What counts more are the social relations the linkage of mutual trust and the willing-
among persons and the structural connec- ness to intervene for the common good that
tions among positions. Applied to the local defines the neighborhood context of what
community, network analysis investigates Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997)
the constraining and enabling dimensions of term collective efficacy. Just as individuals
patterned relationships among social actors vary in their capacity for effective action, so
in an ecological system. The important point too do neighborhoods vary in their capacity
314 |╇╇ R. J. Sampson

to achieve common goals. It follows that the widely across communities and that these
collective efficacy of residents is a critical variations are positively related to residen-
feature of urban neighborhoods, regardless tial stability in a community. Stability is typ-
of the demographic composition of the ically measured by average length of
population. residence and the prevalence of homeowner-
ship. Community stability is independently
associated with collective attachment to
Institutions and Public Control
community and rates of participation in
The present integration of a social capital social and leisure activities. Furthermore,
and systemic network model of community community residential stability has signific-
social organization should not be read as ant contextual effects on an individual’s
ignoring institutions or the political environ- local friendships and participation in local
ment of which local communities are a part. social activities even after accounting for
The institutional component of the systemic factors such as age, social class, and life
model is the neighborhood organizations cycle (Sampson, 1988). Consistent with the
and their linkages with other organizations, predictions of the systemic model, these
within and outside the community. Neigh- findings suggest that residential stability
borhood organizations are the structural promotes a variety of social networks and
embodiment of community solidarity. For local associations, thereby increasing the
example, Kornhauser (1978, p.€ 79) argues social capital of local communities.
that when the horizontal links among insti- Neighborhood variations in informal
tutions in a community are weak, the capa� social control and institutional vitality are
city to defend local interests is weakened. also systematically linked to patterns of
Moreover, institutional strength is not resource deprivation and racial segregation,
necessarily isomorphic with neighborhood especially the concentration of poverty, job-
cohesion. Many communities exhibit intense lessness, and family disruption. Wilson
private ties among friends and kin yet still (1996) has described the corroding effects
lack the institutional capacity to achieve on neighborhood social organization of con-
social control. centrated joblessness and the social isolation
Vertical integration is potentially even of the urban poor. He argues that in areas
more important. Bursik and Grasmick of economic distress where men are margin-
(1993) emphasize the importance of public alized from the labor market and often
control, defined as the capacity of local family life as well, the incentives for partici-
community organizations to obtain police pation in the social aspects of community
and fire services, block grants, and other life are reduced.
extra-�local resources that help sustain neigh- Similarly, Brooks-�Gunn, Duncan, Kleba-
borhood social stability and local control. nov, and Sealand (1993) reported that for
many child and adolescent outcomes, such
as low IQ, dropping out of high school,
LINKING STRUCTURAL problem behaviors, and out-�of-wedlock
DIFFERENTIATION AND SOCIAL births, the absence of affluent neighbors was
ORGANIZATION more important than the presence of low-�
income neighbors. In particular, high eco-
The preceding discussion underscores the nomic status proved to be more important
reality that community social capital does not than the poverty status, racial composition,
emerge from a vacuum. It is embedded in or the family structure of neighborhoods.
structural contexts and a political economy Aber (1992) found that neighborhood socio-
of place. Structural differentiation and extra-� economic status and joblessness interacted
local political economy shape the dimensions to predict adolescent outcomes: it was in
of neighborhood social organization. conditions of high jobless rates that the
Research shows that local friendship ties absence of affluent neighbors served to
and the density of acquaintanceship vary depress academic achievement scores.
 What Community Supplies╇╇ | 315

Studies have explored the mechanisms of officials and businesses. The decline and
community social organization more destabilization of many central-�city neigh-
directly, especially how they are shaped by borhoods, for instance, has been facilitated
ecological differentiation. Elliott et al. not only by individual preferences as mani-
(1996) examined survey data from neigh- fested in voluntary migration patterns, but
borhoods in Chicago and Denver, which government decisions on public housing,
revealed that a measure of informal control incentives for suburban growth in the form
was significantly related to adolescent out- of tax breaks for developers and private
comes in both places—positively to school mortgage assistance, highway construction
achievement and conventional friendships, and urban renewal, economic disinvestment
for instance, and negatively to delinquency. in central cities, and zoning restrictions on
A similar finding was reported in Sampson’s land use.
(1997) analysis of a community survey in Consider public housing and the legacy
Chicago designed to measure the willingness of urban renewal. Bursik (1989) has shown
of neighbors to intervene in skipping school, that the construction of new public housing
spray-�painting graffiti, and like public acts projects in Chicago in the 1970s was associ-
of deviance by children. Variations in the ated with increased rates of population turn-
informal social control of children across 80 over, which predicted increases in crime
neighborhoods were positively related to independent of the area’s population com-
residential stability and negatively related to position. Skogan (1990) has noted that
concentrated poverty. In fact, informal urban renewal and forced migration con-
social control accounted for more than half tributed to the wholesale uprooting of many
of the relationship between residential urban communities, and especially that
stability and lower rates of delinquency. freeway networks driven through the center
Although limited, the cumulative results of of many cities in the 1960s destroyed viable,
recent research support the idea that neigh- low-�income neighborhoods. Across the
borhoods characterized by mistrust, sparse nation, fully 20% of all central-�city housing
acquaintanceship networks among residents, units occupied by blacks were lost in the
attenuated social control of public spaces, 1960s because of urban redevelopment. This
and a weak institutional base coupled with displacement does not even include that
little participation in local voluntary associ- brought about by evictions, rent increases,
ations face an increased risk of crime, social and other routine market forces.
disorder, and troublesome youth behavior. Equally disturbing, Wilson (1987) docu-
Perhaps more important, these dimensions of ments the often disastrous consequences of
community social capital or collective effi- municipal decisions to concentrate minori-
cacy are systematically structured (although ties and the poor in public housing. Opposi-
not determined) by differences in wealth, tion from organized community groups to
jobs, family status, and residential tenure. building public housing in their neighbor-
Once again, however, one must be careful hoods, de facto federal policy to tolerate
not to view structural patterns as arising extensive segregation against blacks in
solely from processes indigenous to neighbor- urban housing markets, and the decision by
hoods. To understand neighborhood vari� local governments to neglect code enforce-
ations and ultimately to design community ment and the rehabilitation of existing resi-
interventions, one must also take into dential units have all contributed to
account urban political economy. segregated housing projects that have
become ghettos for many poor minority
members.
Political Economy
The responsibilities of private develop-
Empirical research on the political economy ment and business do not emerge unscathed,
of American cities has shown that structural either. The idea of cities as growth machines
differentiation is shaped directly and indi- (Logan & Molotch, 1987) reflects the mar-
rectly by the spatial decisions of public riage of private markets and enthusiastic
316 |╇╇ R. J. Sampson

governments to pursue aggressive develop- munities supply from the perspective of a

ment, often at the expense of previously theory of social capital and collective
stable communities with strong patterns of efficacy.
local social organization. Tax breaks for It is appropriate to close, however, with
suburban development and federally sup- some words of caution on the limits of com-
ported housing mortgages have been espe- munity. Achieving common goals in an
cially prominent in the hollowing out of increasingly diverse society is no easy task
many urban centers. Historically, real estate and has proven a problem for communitar-
agents have aided racial segregation and ian thinking in an age of individual rights.
neighborhood instability by acting as panic In the pursuit of informal social control and
peddlers in an effort to induce or accelerate collective goods, there is always the danger
the pace of neighborhood change. Joining that freedoms will be restricted unnecessar-
them have been banks that redlined mort- ily, that people will face unwanted and even
gage applications and promoted economic unjust scrutiny. For example, surveillance of
disinvestment in the inner city. “suspicious” persons in socially controlled
Zoning, a seemingly innocuous adminis- communities can easily become translated
trative practice, has undermined the social into the wholesale interrogation of racial
aspects of traditional urban life. By design, minorities (see Skogan, 1990). Suppose
zoning is intended to create separate geo- further that a community comes together
graphical spaces, and it has done so by with high social capital and cohesion to
cutting up neighborhoods into artificial seg- block the residential entry of a racial group.
ments, which disrupts patterns of social Put more bluntly, what if racism is a shared
interaction and human activities. Indeed, the value among residents of certain neighbor-
eerie lack of people walking and interacting hoods? Such exclusion happens too often,
on the streets of many suburban develop- prompting Suttles (1972) to warn of the
ments attests to zoning’s dehumanization of dark side of “defended neighborhoods.”
the environment. Consider also the historical connection
Whether through the purposeful segrega- between official corruption and local solid-
tion of low-�income public housing, highway arity. Whyte (1943, p.€126) was one of the
construction, urban renewal, government first to document the ironic consequences of
subsidized development by the private dense, multiple relationships in cohesive
sector, zoning, redlining, blockbusting, or communities for law enforcement. “The
something so simple yet powerfully sym- policeman who takes a strictly legalistic
bolic as gated communities with no side- view of his duties cuts himself off from the
walks, it is no longer possible to think of personal relations necessary to enable him
neighborhoods as natural areas created by to serve as a mediator of disputes in his
the aggregation of individual preferences area.” By contrast, “the policeman who
alone. Clearly, government, business, and develops close ties with local people is
the political economy matter to an under- unable to act against them with the vigor
standing of what communities can and prescribed by the law.” It follows that police
cannot supply. corruption is an ever present danger under
conditions of high social capital even as it
aids in dispute resolution and informal
CONCLUSION social control because of interlocking social
ties. It was the nature of such corruption
Urbanization and modernity notwithstand- that originally led to decentralized policing
ing, local communities and residential neigh- and an emergency-�based patrol response in
borhoods remain a prominent feature of which officers were randomly assigned
American society. In this chapter I have pro- across neighborhoods. The nationwide move
posed a community-�level framework to to embrace community policing has perhaps
explain why. I have explored the meaning, not recognized the risks inherent in the com-
sources, and consequences of what com- munity side of the equation.
 What Community Supplies╇╇ | 317

Obviously, Americans would not do well efforts is beyond the scope of this chapter,
to think of racism, norms of social exclu- but that should not detract from the impor-
sion, and instruments of corruption as desir- tance of restorative moves at the political
able forms of social capital, and we must and macro-�social level. Recognizing that
balance community with a normative con- community social action matters, in other
ception of social justice. It is for this reason words, does not absolve society of the
that I have focused on widely expressed responsibility for seeking equality of oppor-
desires regarding community—especially tunities at the neighborhood as well as the
social order and public safety. My strategy individual level.
relies on a vision of urban America based
on€ shared values for a safe and healthy
environment, not on policies that divide REFERENCES
by€ race and class. Nonetheless, pursuit of
community goals must proceed cautiously Aber, L. (1992). Adolescent pathways project. Paper
prepared for the Committee for Research on the
and with respect for individual rights, Urban Underclass, Social Science Research Council,
diversity, and limits on state power. Russell Sage Foundation.
Fortunately, legal justice and community Brooks-�Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., &
are€not the antinomy common wisdom sug- Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence
child and adolescent behavior? American Journal of
gests. Constitutional law has long been con-
Sociology, 99(2), 353–395.
cerned with balancing individual rights Bursik, R. J. (1989). Political decision-�making and eco-
against the need to promote the health and logical models of delinquency: Conflict and consen-
safety of communities. The very idea of sus. In S. Messner, M. Krohn, & A. Liska (Eds.),
police power suggests the tension, long Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and
crime (pp.€ 105–117). Albany: State University of
recognized by the Supreme Court, between
New York at Albany Press.
individual rights and the pursuit of social Bursik, R. & Grasmick, H. (1993). Neighborhoods and
order. Bringing law and social justice back crime: The dimensions of effective community
into discussions of community development control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
is a welcome and necessary move in the Choldin, H. (1984). Subcommunities: Neighborhoods
attempt to unite diversity in the name of and suburbs in ecological perspective. In M. Micklin
& H. Choldin (Eds.), Sociological human ecology
community. (pp. 237–276). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Finally, I caution against falling into the Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of
trap of local determinism. Part of the appeal human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
of community is the image of local residents S95–S120.
Elliott, D., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R. J.,
working collectively to solve their own
Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects of
problems. A defining part of American tra- neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent develop-
dition (nostalgia?) is to hold individuals as ment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-
well as communities responsible for their quency, 33(4), 389–426.
own fate. Like Saul Alinsky, I too have Fischer, C. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal
networks in town and city. Chicago: University of
embraced the American ideal of residents
Chicago Press.
joining forces to build community and Gans, H. (1962). The urban villagers. New York: The
maintain social order. This is not the only Free Press.
or even the most important story, however. Hillery, G. A. (1984). Definitions of community: Areas
As I have been at pains to emphasize, what of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20(2), 111–123.
happens within neighborhoods is in large Hunter, A. (1975). The loss of community: An empiri-
cal test through replication. American Sociological
part shaped by extra-Â�local social forces and Review, 40(5), 537–553.
the political economy. In addition to encour- Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American
aging communities to mobilize via self-�help cities. New York: Random House.
strategies of informal social control, it is Jargowsky, P. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos,
barrios, and the American city. New York: Russell
incumbent on government to mount aggres-
Sage Foundation.
sive strategies to address the social and eco- Kasarda, J. & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attach-
logical changes that have battered inner-�city ment in mass society. American Sociological Review,
communities. The specific nature of such 39(3), 328–339.
318 |╇╇ R. J. Sampson

Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. theory and the promise of community. Berkeley:
Logan, J. & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The University of California Press.
political economy of place. Berkeley: University of Shaw, C. & McKay, H. (1942 [1969]) Juvenile delin-
California Press. quency and urban areas (2nd ed.). Berkeley: Univer-
Massey, D. S. (1990). American apartheid: Segregation sity of Chicago Press.
and the making of the underclass. American Journal Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and
of Sociology, 96(2), 338–339. the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. Ber-
Massey, D. S. & Denton, N. (1993). American apart- keley: University of California Press.
heid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. a black community. New York: Harper & Row.
Park, R. (1916). The city: Suggestions for the investiga- Suttles, G. (1972). The social construction of com-
tions of human behavior in the urban environment. munities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
American Journal of Sociology, 20(5), 577–612. Tilly, C. (1973). Do communities act? Sociological
Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social Inquiry, 43(3–4), 209–240.
capital and community life. American Prospect, 13 Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The
(Spring), 35–42. intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal
Reiss, A. J. Jr. (1996). Personal communication. of Sociology, 84(5), 1201–1231.
Sampson, R. J. (1988). Community attachment in mass Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society: The social
society: A multilevel systemic model. American Soci- structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of
ological Review, 53(5), 766–769. Chicago Press.
Sampson, R. J. (1997). Collective regulation of adoles- Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The
cent misbehavior: Validation results from eighty inner city, the underclass, and public policy.
Chicago neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Research, 12(2), 227–244. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). world of the new urban poor. New York: Alfred J.
Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel Knopf.
study€ of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American
918–924. Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.
 CHAPTER 37

Development as Capability Expansion

Amartya Sen

INTRODUCTION able. The problem relates to the level at

which this aim should be taken as a goal. Is
In his Grundlegung zur Metaphysik de it just an intermediate goal, the importance
Sitten, Immanuel Kant argues for the neces­ of which is contingent on what it ultimately
sity of seeing human beings as ends in them­ contributes to human lives? Or is it the
selves, rather than as means to other ends: object of the entire exercise? It is in the
“So act as to treat humanity, whether in acceptance—usually implicitly—of the latter
thine own person or in that of any other, in view that the ends–means confusion
every case as an end withal, never as means becomes significant—indeed blatant.
only.” This principle has importance in The problem might have been of no great
many contexts—even in analyzing poverty, practical interest if the achievement of eco­
progress, and planning. Human beings are nomic prosperity were tightly linked—in
the agents, beneficiaries, and adjudicators of something like a one-Â�to-one correspond­
progress, but they also happen to be— ence—with that of enriching the lives of the
directly or indirectly—the primary means of people. If that were the case, then the
all production. This dual role of human pursuit of economic prosperity as an end in
beings provides a rich ground for confusion itself, while wrong in principle, might have
of ends and means in planning and policy­ been, in effect, indistinguishable from pur­
making. Indeed, it can—and. frequently suing it only as a means to the end of enrich­
does—take the form of focusing on produc­ ing human lives. But that tight relation does
tion and prosperity as the essence of not obtain. Countries with high GNP per
progress, treating people as the means capita can nevertheless have astonishingly
through which that productive progress is low achievements in the quality of life, with
brought about (rather than seeing the lives the bulk of the population being subject to
of people as the ultimate concern and treat­ premature mortality, escapable morbidity,
ing production and prosperity merely as overwhelming illiteracy, and so on.
means to those lives). Just to illustrate an aspect of the problem,
The widely prevalent concentration on the GNP per capita of six countries is given
the expansion of real income and on eco­ in Table 37.1 along with each country’s
nomic growth as the characteristics of suc­ respective level of life expectancy at birth.
cessful development can be precisely an There are, therefore, really two distinct
aspect of the mistake against which Kant issues here. First, economic prosperity is no
had warned. This problem is particularly more than one of the means to enriching the
pivotal in the assessment and planning of lives of people. It is a foundational confu­
economic development. The problem does sion to give it the status of an end. Second,
not, of course, lie in the fact that the pursuit even as a means, merely enhancing average
of economic prosperity is typically taken to economic opulence can be quite inefficient
be a major goal of planning and policymak­ in the pursuit of the really valuable ends. In
ing. This need not be, in itself, unreason­ making sure that development planning and
320 |╇╇ A. Sen

Table 37.1╇ Economic prosperity and life expectancy, 1985

Country Life expectancy

GNP per capita At birth

China 310 69
Sri Lanka 380 70
Brazil 1,640 65
South Africa 2,010 55
Mexico 2,080 67
Oman 6,730 54

Source: World Bank (1988, Table 1).

general policymaking do not suffer from of political economy is clearly related to

costly confusions of ends and means, we seeing the success of human life in terms of
have to face the issue of identification of fulfilling the needed human activities.
ends, in terms of which the effectiveness of
the means can be systematically assessed.
This chapter is concerned with discussing COMMODITIES, FUNCTIONINGS, AND
the nature and implications of that general CAPABILITY
task.
If life is seen as a set of “doings and beings”
that are valuable, the exercise of assessing
THE CAPABILITY APPROACH: the quality of life takes the form of evaluat­
CONCEPTUAL ROOTS ing these functionings and the capability to
function. This valuational exercise cannot
The particular line of reasoning that will be be done by focusing simply on communities
pursued here is based on evaluating social or incomes that help those doings and
change in terms of the richness of human beings, as in commodity-�based accounting
life resulting from it. But the quality of of the quality of life (involving a confusion
human life is itself a matter of great com­ of means and ends). “The life of money-Â�
plexity. The approach that will be used here, making,” as Aristotle put it, “is one under­
which is sometimes called the “capability taken under compulsion, and wealth is
approach,” sees human life as a set of evidently not the good we are seeking; for it
“doings and beings”—we may call them is merely useful and for the sake of some­
“functionings”—and it relates the evalu­ thing else (1980, p. 7).” The task is that of
ation of the quality of life to the assessment evaluating the importance of the various
of the capability to function. It is an functionings in human life, going beyond
approach that I have tried to explore in what Marx (1844) called, in a different but
some detail, both conceptually and in terms related context, “commodity fetishism.”
of its empirical implications. The roots of The functionings themselves have to be
the approach go back at least to Adam examined, and the capability of the person
Smith and Karl Marx, and indeed to to achieve them has to be appropriately
Aristotle. valued.
Among the classical political economists, In the view that is being pursued here, the
both Adam Smith and Karl Marx explicitly constituent elements of life are seen as a
discussed the importance of functionings combination of various different function­
and the capability to function as determi­ ings. This amounts to seeing a person in an
nants of well-Â�being. “active” rather than a “passive” form (but
Indeed, an important part of Marx’s pro­ neither the various states of being nor even
gramme of reformulation of the foundations the “doings” need necessarily be “athletic”
 Development as Capability Expansion╇╇ | 321

ones). The included items may vary from fulfillment. This subjectivist perspective has
such elementary functionings as escaping been extensively used, but it can be very
morbidity and mortality, being adequately misleading, since it may fail to reflect a per­
nourished, undertaking usual movements, son’s real deprivation.
etc., to many complex functionings such as A thoroughly deprived person, leading a
achieving self-�respect, taking part in the life very reduced life, might not appear to be
of the community, and appearing in public badly off in terms of the mental metric of
without shame (the last a functioning that utility, if the hardship is accepted with no-�
was illuminatingly discussed by Adam Smith grumbling resignation. In situations of long-�
(1776) as an achievement that is valued in standing deprivation, the victims do not go
all societies, but the precise commodity on weeping all the time, and very often
requirement of which, he pointed out, varies make great efforts to take pleasure in small
from society to society). The claim is that mercies and to cut down personal desires to
the functionings are constitutive of a per­ modest—“realistic”—proportions. The per­
son’s being, and an evaluation of a person’s son’s deprivation, then, may not at all show
well-Â�being has to take the form of an assess­ up in the metrics of pleasure, desire fulfill­
ment of these constituent elements. ment etc., even though he or she may be
The primitive notion in the approach is quite unable to be adequately nourished,
that of functionings—seen as constitutive decently clothed, minimally educated, and
elements of living: a functioning is an so on.
achievement of a person, what he or she This issue, apart from its foundational
manages to do or to be, and any such func­ relevance, may have some immediate
tioning reflects, as it were, a part of the state bearing on practical public policy. Smugness
of that person. The capability of a person is about continued deprivation and vulnerabil­
a derived notion. It reflects the various com­ ity is often made to look justified on grounds
binations of functionings (doings and of lack of strong public demand and force­
beings) he or she can achieve. It takes a fully expressed desire for removing these
certain view of living as a combination of impediments.
various “doings and beings.” Capability
reflects a person’s freedom to choose
between different ways of living. The under­ AMBIGUITIES, PRECISION, AND
lying motivation—the focusing on free­ RELEVANCE
dom—is well captured by Marx’s claim that
what we need is “replacing the domination There are many ambiguities in the concep­
of circumstances and chance over indi­ tual framework of the capability approach.
viduals by the domination of individuals Indeed, the nature of human life and the
over chance and circumstances” (Marx & content of human freedom are themselves
Engels, 1846, p. 190). far from unproblematic concepts. It is not
my purpose to brush these difficult ques­
tions under the carpet. In so far as there are
UTILITARIAN CALCULUS VERSUS genuine ambiguities in the underlying
OBJECTIVE DEPRIVATION objects of value, these will be reflected in
corresponding ambiguities in the characteri­
The capability approach can be contrasted zation of capability. The need for this relates
not merely with commodity-�based systems to a methodological point, which I have
of evaluation, but also with the utility-Â�based tried to defend elsewhere, that if an under­
assessment. The utilitarian notion of value, lying idea has an essential ambiguity, a
which is invoked explicitly or by implication precise formulation of that idea must try to
in much of welfare economics, sees value, capture that ambiguity rather than attempt
ultimately, only in individual utility, which to lose it. Even when precisely capturing an
is defined in terms of some mental con­ ambiguity proves to be a difficult exercise,
dition, such as pleasure, happiness, desire that is not an argument for forgetting the
322 |╇╇ A. Sen

complex nature of the concept and seeking a comprehensively ignored in the theory of
spuriously narrow exactness. In social inves­ welfare economics, which has tended to
tigation and measurement, it is undoubtedly treat these contributions as essentially ad
more important to be vaguely right than to hoc suggestions. This treatment is partly the
be precisely wrong. result of the concern of welfare theory that
It should be noted also that there is proposals should not just appeal to intui­
always an element of real choice in the tions but also be structured and founded. It
description of functionings, since the format also reflects the intellectual standing that
of “doings” and “beings” permits additional such traditional approaches as utilitarian
“achievements” to be defined and included. evaluation enjoy in welfare theory, and
Frequently, the same doings and beings can which serves as a barrier to accepting depar­
be seen from different perspectives, with tures even when they seem attractive.
varying emphases. Also, some functionings The “basic needs” literature has, in fact,
may be easy to describe, but of no great tended to suffer a little from uncertainties
interest in the relevant context. There is no about how basic needs should be specified.
escape from the problem of evaluation in The original formulations often took the
selecting a class of functionings as import­ form of defining basic needs in terms of
ant and others as not so. The evaluative needs for certain minimal amounts of essen­
exercise cannot be fully addressed without tial commodities such as food, clothing, and
explicitly facing questions concerning what shelter. If this type of formulation is used,
are the valuable achievements and freedoms, then the literature remains imprisoned in the
and which are not. mold of commodity centered evaluation,
In the context of some types of welfare and can in fact be accused of adopting a
analysis, for example, in dealing with form of “commodity fetishism.” The objects
extreme poverty in developing economies, of value can scarcely be the holdings of
we may be able to go a long distance in commodities. Judged even as means, the
terms of a relatively small number of cen­ usefulness of the commodity-Â�perspective it
trally important functionings and the corre­ severely compromised by the variability of
sponding capabilities, such as the ability to the conversion of commodities into capabil­
be well nourished and well sheltered, the ities. For example, the requirement of food
capability of escaping avoidable morbidity and of nutrients for the capability of being
and premature mortality, and so forth. In well nourished may greatly vary from
other contexts, including more general prob­ person to person, depending on metabolic
lems of assessing economic and social devel­ rates, body size, gender, pregnancy, age, cli­
opment, the list may have to be much longer matic conditions, parasitic ailments, and so
and much more diverse. The task of specifi­ on. The evaluation of commodity holdings
cation must relate to the underlying motiva­ or of incomes (with which to purchase com­
tion of the exercise as well as dealing with modities) can be at best a proxy for the
the social values involved. things that really matter, but unfortunately
it does not seem to be a particularly good
proxy in most cases.
QUALITY OF LIFE, BASIC NEEDS, AND
CAPABILITY
RAWLS, PRIMARY GOODS, AND
There is an extensive literature in develop­ FREEDOMS
ment economics concerned with valuing the
quality of life, the fulfillment of basic needs, The concern with commodities and means
and related matters. That literature has been of achievement, with which the motivation
quite influential in recent years in drawing of the capability approach is being con­
attention to neglected aspects of economic trasted, happens to be, in fact, influential in
and social development. It is, however, fair the literature of modern moral philosophy
to say that these writings have been typically as well. For example, in John Rawls’ (1971)
 Development as Capability Expansion╇╇ | 323

outstanding book on justice the concentra­ problem of variability of primary goods

tion is on the holdings of “primary goods” needed for different persons pursuing their
of different people in making interpersonal respective ends. Hence, a similar criticism
comparisons. His theory of justice, particu­ applies to Rawlsian accounting procedure as
larly the “difference principle,” is dependent applies to parts of the basic-Â�needs literature
on this procedure for interpersonal compari­ for their concentration on means (such as
sons. This procedure has the feature of being commodities) as opposed to achievements
partly commodity based, since the list of or the freedom to achieve.
primary goods includes “income and
wealth,” in addition to “the basic liberties,”
“powers and prerogatives of offices and FREEDOM, CAPABILITY, AND DATA
positions of responsibility,” “social bases of LIMITATIONS
self-Â�respect,” and so on.
Indeed, the entire list of “primary goods” The capability set represents a person’s
of Rawls is concerned with means rather freedom to achieve various functioning com­
than ends; they deal with things that help to binations. If freedom is intrinsically import­
achieve what we want to achieve, rather ant, then the alternative combinations
than either with achievement as such or even available for choice are all relevant for
with the freedom to achieve. Being nourished judging a person’s advantage, even though
is not part of the list, but having the income he or she will eventually choose only an
to buy food certainly is. Similarly, the social alternative. In this view, the choice itself is a
bases of self-Â�respect belong to the list in a valuable feature of a person’s life.
way self-�respect as such does not. On the other hand, if freedom is seen as
Rawls is much concerned that the fact being only instrumentally important, then
that different people have different ends the interest in the capability set lies only in
must not be lost in the evaluative process, the fact that it offers the person opportun­
and people should have the freedom to ities to achieve various valuable states. Only
pursue their respective ends. This concern is the achieved states are in themselves valu­
indeed important, and the capability able, not the opportunities, which are valued
approach is also much involved with valuing only as means to the end of reaching valua­
freedom as such. In fact, it can be argued ble states.
that the capability approach gives a better The contrast between the intrinsic and
account of the freedoms actually enjoyed by the instrumental views of freedom is quite a
different people than can be obtained from deep one. Both views can be accommodated
looking merely at the holdings of primary within one capability approach. With the
goods. Primary goods are means to instrumental view, the capability one is
freedoms, whereas capabilities are expres­ valued only for the sake of the best altern­
sions of freedoms themselves. ative available for choice (or the actual
The motivations underlying the Rawlsian alternative chosen). This way of evaluating
theory and the capability approach are a capability set by the value of one distin­
similar, but the accountings are different. guished element in it can be called “elemen­
The problem with the Rawlsian accounting tary evaluation.” If, on the other hand,
lies in the fact that, even for the same ends, freedom is intrinsically valued, then elemen­
people’s ability to convert primary goods tary evaluation will be inadequate, since the
into achievements, differs, so that an inter­ opportunity to choose other alternatives is
personal comparison based on the holdings of significance of its own. To bring out the
of primary goods cannot, in general, also distinction, it may be noted that if all other
reflect the ranking of their respective real than the chosen alternative were to become
freedoms to pursue any given—or vari­ unavailable, then there would be a real loss
able—ends. The variability in the conversion in the case of the intrinsic view, but not in
rates between persons for given ends is a the instrumental, since the alternative
problem that is embedded in the wider chosen is still available.
324 |╇╇ A. Sen

In terms of practical application, the availability, keeping track of functionings

intrinsic view is much harder to reflect than (including vital ones such as being well
the instrumental view, since our direct nourished and avoiding escapable morbidity
observations relate to what was chosen and or premature mortality) is typically no
achieved. The estimation of what could have harder—often much easier—than getting
been chosen is, by its very nature, more data on commodity use (especially divisions
problematic (involving, in particular, within the family), not to mention utilities.
assumptions about the constraints actually The capability approach can, thus, be
faced by the person). The limits of practical used at various levels of sophistication, and
calculations are set by data restrictions, and how far we can go would depend much on
this can be particularly hard on the repre­ the practical consideration of what data we
sentation of capability sets in full, as can get and what we cannot. In so far as
opposed to judging the capability sets by the freedom is seen to be intrinsically important,
observed functioning achievements. the observation of the chosen functioning
There is no real loss involved in using the bundle cannot be in itself an adequate guide
capability approach in this reduced form if for the evaluative exercise, even though the
the instrumental view of freedom is taken, freedom to choose a better bundle rather
but there is loss if the intrinsic view is than a worse one can be seen to be, in some
accepted. For the latter, a presentation of accounting, an advantage even from the per­
the capability set as such is important. spective of freedom.
In fact, neither the instrumental view not The point can be illustrated with a par­
the intrinsic view is likely to be fully ade­ ticular example. An expansion of longevity
quate. Certainly, freedom is a means to is seen, by common agreement, as an
achievement, whether or not it is also enhancement of the quality of life (though,
intrinsically important, so that the instru­ strictly speaking, I suppose one can think of
mental view must be inter alia present in it as an enhancement of the quantity of life).
any use of the capability approach. Also, This is so partly because living longer is an
even if we find in general the instrumental achievement that is valued. It is also partly
view to be fairly adequate, there would so because other achievements, such as
clearly be cases in which it is extremely avoiding morbidity, tend to go with longev­
limited. For example, the person who fasts, ity (and thus longevity serves also as a proxy
that is, starves out of choice, can hardly be for some achievements that too are intrins­
seen as being similarly deprived as a person ically valued). But greater longevity can also
who has no option but to starve because of be seen as an enhancement of the freedom
penury. Even though their observed func­ to live long. We often take this for granted
tionings may be the same, at least in the on the solid ground that given the option,
crude representation of functionings, their people value living longer, and thus the
predicaments are not the same. observed achievement of living longer
As a matter of fact, the informational reflects a greater freedom than was enjoyed.
base of functionings is still a much finer The interpretative question arises at this
basis of evaluation of the quality of life and precise point. Why is it evidence of greater
economic progress than various alternatives freedom as such that a person ends up living
more commonly recommended, such as longer rather than shorter? Why can it not
individual utilities or commodity holdings. be just a preferred achievement, but involv­
The commodity fetishism of the former and ing no difference in terms of freedom? One
the subjectivist metric of the latter make answer is to say that one always does have
them deeply problematic. Thus, the concen­ the option of killing oneself, and thus an
tration on achieved functionings has merits expansion of longevity expands one’s
over the feasible rivals (even though it may options. But there is a further issue here.
not be based on as much information as Consider a case in which, for some reason
would be needed to attract intrinsic impor­ (either legal or psychological or whatever),
tance to freedom). And in terms of data one cannot really kill oneself (despite the
 Development as Capability Expansion╇╇ | 325

presence in the world of poisons, knives, tall when our ultimate concern may be with ine­
buildings, and other useful objects). Would quality of living standard and quality of life.
we then say that the person does not have Particularly in the context of the continua­
more freedom by virtue of being free to live tion and stubbornness of social divisions,
longer though not shorter? It can be argued information on inter-�class inequalities in
that if the person values, prefers, and wishes wealth and property ownership is especially
to choose living longer, then the change in crucial. But this recognition does not reduce
question is in fact an expansion of the per­ the importance of bringing in indicators of
son’s freedom, since the valuation of quality of life to assess the actual inter-Â�class
freedom cannot be dissociated from the inequalities of well-�being and freedom.
assessment of the actual options in terms of One field in which inequalities are
the person’s evaluative judgments. particularly hard to assess is that of gender
The idea of freedom takes us beyond difference. There is a great deal of general
achievements, but that does not entail that evidence to indicate that women often have
the assessment of freedom must be inde­ a much worse deal than men do, and that
pendent of that of achievements. The girls are often much more deprived than
freedom to live the kind of life one would boys. These differences may be reflected in
take to live has importance that the freedom many subtle as well as crude ways, and in
to live the kind of life one would hate to various forms they can be observed in dif­
have does not. Thus, the temptation to see ferent parts of the world—among both rich
more freedom in greater longevity is justifia­ and poor countries. However, it is not easy
ble from several points of view, including to determine what is the best indicator of
noting the option of ending one’s life and advantage in terms of which of these gender
being sensitive to the evaluative structure of inequalities are to be examined. There is, to
achievements, which directly affect the be sure, no need to look for one specific
metric of freedom. The bottom line of all metric only, and the need for plurality of
this is to recognize that the use of the cap­ indicators is as strong here as in any other
ability approach even in the reduced form of field. But there is still an issue of the choice
concentrating on the achieved functionings of approach to well-�being and advantage in
(longevity, absence of morbidity, avoidance the assessment of inequalities between
of undernourishment, etc.) may give more women and men.
role to the value of freedom than might have The approach of utility-�based evaluation
been initially apparent. is particularly limiting in this context, since
the unequal deals that obtain, particularly
within the family, are often made “accepta­
INEQUALITY, CLASS, AND GENDER ble” by certain social notions of “normal”
arrangements, and this may affect the per­
The assessment of inequality depends on the ceptions of women as well as men of the
chosen indicator of individual advantage. comparative levels of well-Â�being they respec­
The usual inequality measures that can be tively enjoy. For example, in the context of
found in empirical economic literatures tend some developing countries such as India, the
to concentrate on inequalities of incomes or point has been made that rural women may
wealth. These are valuable contributions. have no clear perception of being deprived
On the other hand, in so far as income and of things that men have, and may not be in
wealth do not give adequate account of fact any more unhappy than men are. This
quality of life, there is a case for basing the may or may not be the case, but even if it
evaluation of inequality on information were so, it can be argued that the mental
more closely related to living standards. metric of utility may be particularly inap­
Indeed, the two informational bases are propriate for judging inequality in this
not alternatives. Inequality of wealth may context. The presence of objective depriva­
tell us things about the generation and per­ tion in the form of greater undernourish­
sistence of inequalities of other types, even ment, more frequent morbidity, lower
326 |╇╇ A. Sen

literacy, etc., cannot be rendered irrelevant literacy rates is often shockingly low in dif­
just by the quiet and ungrumbling accept­ ferent parts of the world. The combined
ance of women of their deprived conditions. effects of low literacy rates in general (a
In rejecting utility-�based evaluations, it deprivation of a basic capability across
may be tempting to go in the direction of genders) and gender inequalities in literacy
actual commodities (enjoyed by women and rates (unequal deprivation of this basic
men, respectively) to check inequalities capability for women) tend to be quite dis­
between them. There is here the problem, astrous denials for women. It appears that
already discussed earlier in this chapter, that even leaving out many countries for which
commodity-Â�based evaluations are inade­ no reliable data exist, in a great many coun­
quate because commodities are merely tries in the world, the female literary rate is
means to well-�being and freedom and do still below 50%. In fact, it is below even
not reflect the nature of the lives that the 30% for as many as 26 countries, below
people involved can lead. But, in addition, 20% for 16, and below 10% in at least five.
there is the further problem, that it is hard— In general, the perspective of functionings
sometimes impossible—to get confirmation and capabilities provides a plausible
on how the commodities belonging to the approach to examining inter-Â�gender inequal­
family are divided between men and women, ities. It does not suffer from the type of sub­
and between boys and girls. jectivism that makes utility-�based accounting
For example, studies on the division of particularly obtuse in dealing with
food within the family tend to be deeply entrenched inequalities. Nor does it suffer
problematic since the observation needed to from the over-�concentration on means that
see who is eating how much is hard to carry commodity-�based accounting undoubtedly
out with any degree of reliability. On the does, and in fact it has better informational
other hand, it is possible to compare signs sources in studying inequalities within the
of undernourishment of boys and girls, to family than is provided by guesswork on
check their respective morbidity rates etc., commodity distribution (e.g., who is eating
and these functioning differences are both how much?). The case of inter-�gender
easier to observe and of greater intrinsic inequalities is, of course, only one illustra­
relevance. tion of the advantages that the capability
There are indeed inequalities between approach has. But it happens to be an illus­
men and women in terms of functionings, tration that is particularly important on its
and in the context of developing countries own as well, given the pervasive and stub­
the contrast may be sharp then in basic born nature of inequalities between women
matters of life and death, health, illness, and men in different parts of the world.
education, and illiteracy. For example
despite the fact when men and women are
treated reasonably equally in terms of food CONCLUSION
and health care (as they tend to be in the
richer countries, even though gender biases The assessment of achievement and advant­
may remain in other—less elementary— age of members of the society is a central
fields), women seem to have a greater ability part of development analysis. In this
to survive than men, in the bulk of the chapter, I have tried to discuss how the
developing economies, men outnumber capability approach may be used to substan­
women by large margins. tiate the evaluative concerns of human
Being able to survive is of course only development. The focus on human achieve­
one capability (though undoubtedly a very ment and freedom, and on the need for
basic one), and other comparisons can be reflective—rather than mechanical—evalua­
made with information on health, morbid­ tion, is an adaptation of an old tradition
ity, etc. The ability to read and write is also that can be fruitfully used in providing a
another important capability, and here it conceptual basis for analyzing the tasks of
can be seen that the ratio of female to male human development in the contemporary
 Development as Capability Expansion╇╇ | 327

world. The foundational importance of world. Informed and intelligent evaluation

human capabilities provides a firm basis for both of the lives we are forced to lead and
evaluating living standards and the quality of the lives we would be able to choose to
of life, and also points to a general format lead through bringing about social changes
in terms of which problems of efficiency and is the first step in confronting that challenge.
equality can both be discussed. It is a task that we must face.
The concentration on distinct capabilities
entails, by its very nature, a pluralist
approach. Indeed, it points to the necessity REFERENCES
of seeing development as a combination of
distinct processes, rather than as the expan­ Aristotle. (1980). The nicomachean ethics (book I,
section 527) (trans. D. Ross). World’s classics.
sion of some apparently homogeneous mag­
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
nitude such as real income or utility. The Kant, I. (1909 [1785]). Grundlegung Section II (trans.).
things that people value doing or being can In T. K. Abbot (Ed.), Fundamental principles of the
be quite diverse, and the valuable capabil­ metaphysics of morals, in Kant’s critique of practical
ities vary from such elementary freedoms as reason and other works on the theory of ethics (6th
ed., p. 47). London: Longmans.
being free from hunger and undernourish­
Marx, K. (1977 [1844]). Economic and philosophic
ment to such complex abilities as achieving manuscripts of 1844 (English trans.). Moscow:
self-�respect and social participation. The Moscow Progressive Publishers.
challenge of human development demands Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1977 [1846]). The German ide-
attention being paid to a variety of sectoral ology (trans. D. McLellan) Karl Marx: Selected writ-
concerns and a combination of social and ings. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, p.€190.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford, UK:
economic processes. Clarendon Press; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer­
One of the most important tasks of an sity Press, pp.€60–65.
evaluative system is to do justice to our Smith, A. (1976 [1776]). An inquiry into the nature
deeply held human values. To broaden the and causes of the Wealth of Nations (Vol. 1, book
V, section II). Republished, R. H. Campbell and A.
limited lives into which the majority of
S. Skinner (Eds.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press,
human beings are willy-Â�nilly imprisoned by pp.€869–872.
force of circumstances is the major challenge World Bank. (1988). World Development Report
of human development in the contemporary 1987. New York: Oxford University Press.
 CHAPTER 38

Five Faces of Oppression

Iris Marion Young

I have proposed an enabling conception of and to provide normative argument to

justice. Justice should refer not only to dis- clarify the wrongs the term names.
tribution, but also to the institutional con- Obviously the above-�named groups are
ditions necessary for the development and not oppressed to the same extent or in the
exercise of individual capacities and collect- same ways. In the most general sense, all
ive communication and cooperation. Under oppressed people suffer some inhibition of
this conception of justice, injustice refers their ability to develop and exercise their
primarily to two forms of disabling con- capacities and express their needs, thoughts,
straints, oppression and domination. While and feelings. In that abstract sense all
these constraints include distributive pat- oppressed people face a common condition.
terns, they also involve matters which Beyond that, in any more specific sense, it is
cannot easily be assimilated to the logic of not possible to define a single set of criteria
distribution: decision-�making procedures, that describe the condition of oppression of
division of labor, and culture. the above groups. Consequently, attempts
For contemporary emancipatory social by theorists and activists to discover a
movements oppression is a central category common description or the essential causes
of political discourse. Entering the political of the oppression of all these groups have
discourse in which oppression is a central frequently led to fruitless disputes about
category involves adopting a general mode whose oppression is more fundamental.
of analyzing and evaluating social structures The contexts in which members of these
and practices, which is incommensurate groups use the term oppression to describe
with the language of liberal individualism the injustices of their situation suggest that
that dominates political discourse in the oppression names in fact a family of con-
United States. A major political project for cepts and conditions, which I divide into five
those of us who identify with at least one of categories: exploitation, marginalization,
these movements must thus be to persuade powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and
people that the discourse of oppression violence. Each may entail or cause distribu-
makes sense of much of our social experi- tive injustices, but all involve issues of
ence. Yet we have no clear account of the justice beyond distribution. One reason that
meaning of oppression. many people would not use the term oppres-
In an effort to offer such a definition I sion to describe injustice in our society is
aim to systematize the meaning of the that they do not understand the term in the
concept of oppression as used by such same way as do new social movements. In
diverse political movements as women, its traditional usage, oppression means the
blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans and other exercise of tyranny by a ruling group. Thus
Spanish-�speaking Americans, American many Americans would agree with radicals
Indians, Jews, lesbians, gay men, Arabs, in applying the term oppression to the situ-
Asians, old people, working class people, ation of black South Africans under apart-
and the physically and mentally disabled, heid. Oppression also traditionally carries a
 Five Faces of Oppression╇╇ | 329

strong connotation of conquest and colonial EXPLOITATION

domination.
New left social movements of the 1960s The central function of Marx’s theory of
and 1970s, however, shifted the meaning of exploitation is to explain how class struc-
the concept of oppression. In its new usage, ture can exist in the absence of legally and
oppression designates the disadvantage and normatively sanctioned class distinctions. In
injustice some people experience not because precapitalist societies domination is overt
a tyrannical power coerces them, but and accomplished through directly political
because of the everyday practices of our means. Both in slave society and in feudal
society. Thus, oppression also refers to sys- society the right to appropriate the product
temic constraints on groups that are not of the labor of others partly defines class
necessarily the result of the intentions of a privilege, and these societies legitimate class
tyrant. Oppression in this sense is structural distinctions with ideologies of natural super�
and refers to the vast and deep injustices iority and inferiority. Capitalist society, on
some folks suffer as a consequence of often the other hand, removes traditional juridi-
unconscious assumptions and reactions of cally enforced class distinctions and pro-
well-�meaning people in ordinary interac- motes a belief in the legal freedom of
tions, media and cultural stereotypes, and persons. Workers freely contract with
structural features of bureaucratic hierar- employers and receive a wage; no formal
chies and market mechanisms—in short, the mechanisms of law or custom force them to
normal processes of everyday life. We work for that employer or any employer.
cannot eliminate this structural oppression Thus the mystery of capitalism arises: when
by getting rid of the rulers or making some everyone is formally free, how can there be
new laws, because oppressions are systemat- class domination? Why do class distinctions
ically reproduced in major economic, polit- persist between the wealthy, who own the
ical, and cultural institutions. means of production, and the mass of
The concept of oppression has been people, who work for them? The theory of
current among radicals since the 1960s exploitation answers this question.
partly in reaction to Marxist attempts to Profit, the basis of capitalist power and
reduce the injustices of racism and sexism, wealth, is a mystery if we assume that in the
for example, to the effects of class domina- market goods exchange at their values. The
tion or bourgeois ideology. From often labor theory of value dispels this mystery.
heated discussions a consensus is emerging Every commodity’s value is a function of the
that many different groups must be said to labor time necessary for its production.
be oppressed in our society, and that no Labor power is the one commodity which in
single form of oppression can be assigned the process of being consumed produces
causal or moral primacy (see Gottlieb, new value. Profit comes from the difference
1987). The same discussion has also led to between the value of the labor performed
the recognition that group differences cut and the value of the capacity to labor which
across individual lives in a multiplicity of the capitalist purchases. Profit is possible
ways that can entail privilege and oppres- only because the owner of capital appropri-
sion for the same person in different ates any realized surplus value.
respects. Only a plural explication of the The injustice of capitalist society consists
concept of oppression can adequately in the fact that some people exercise their
capture these insights. capacities under the control, according to
Accordingly, I offer below an explication the purposes, and for the benefit of other
of five faces of oppression as a useful set of people. Through private ownership of the
categories and distinctions which I believe is means of production, and through markets
comprehensive, in the sense that it covers all that allocate labor and the ability to buy
the groups said by new left social move- goods, capitalism systematically transfers
ments to be oppressed and all the ways they the powers of some persons to others,
are oppressed. thereby augmenting the power of the latter.
330 |╇╇ I. M. Young

Not only are powers transferred from Gender exploitation has two aspects, trans-
workers to capitalists, but also the powers fer of the fruits of material labor to men and
of workers diminish by more than the transfer of nurturing and sexual energies to
amount of transfer, because workers suffer men.
material deprivation and a loss of control, Women provide men and children with
and hence are deprived of important ele- emotional care and provide men with sexual
ments of self-�respect. Justice, then, requires satisfaction, and as a group receive relatively
eliminating the institutional forms that little of either from men (Brittan &
enable and enforce this process of transfer- Maynard, 1984, pp.€ 142–148). The gender
ence and replacing them with institutional socialization of women makes us tend to be
forms that enable all to develop and use more attentive to interactive dynamics than
their capacities in a way that does not men, and makes women good at providing
inhibit, but rather can enhance, similar empathy and support for people’s feelings
development and use in others. and at smoothing over interactive tensions.
The central insight expressed in the Both men and women look to women as
concept of exploitation, then, is that this nurturers of their personal lives, and women
oppression occurs through a steady process frequently complain that when they look to
of the transfer of the results of the labor of men for emotional support they do not
one social group to benefit another. Exploi- receive it (Easton, 1978). The norms of het-
tation enacts a structural relation between erosexuality, moreover, are oriented around
social groups. Social rules about what work male pleasure, and consequently many
is, who does what for whom, how work is women receive little satisfaction from their
compensated, and the social process by sexual interaction with men (Gottlieb,
which the results of work are appropriated 1984).
operate to enact relations of power and In 20th century capitalist economies the
inequality. These relations are produced and workplaces that women have been entering
reproduced through a systematic process in in increasing numbers serve as another
which the energies of the have-�nots are con- important site of gender exploitation. Alex-
tinuously expended to maintain and ander (1987) argues that typically feminine
augment the power, status, and wealth of jobs involve gender-�based tasks requiring
the haves. sexual labor, nurturing, caring for others’
The Marxist concept of class leaves bodies, or smoothing over workplace ten-
important phenomena of sexual and racial sions. In these ways women’s energies are
oppression unexplained. Does this mean expended in jobs that enhance the status of,
that sexual and racial oppression are non-� please, or comfort others, usually men; and
exploitative, and that we should reserve these gender-�based labors of waitresses,
wholly distinct categories for these oppres- clerical workers, nurses, and other caretak-
sions? Or can the concept of exploitation be ers often go unnoticed and under-�
broadened to include other ways in which compensated.
the labor and energy expenditure of one To summarize, women are exploited in
group benefits another, and reproduces a the Marxist sense to the degree that they are
relation of domination between them? wage workers. Some have argued that
Feminists have had little difficulty women’s domestic labor also represents a
showing that women’s oppression consists form of capitalist class exploitation insofar
partly in a systematic and unreciprocated as it is labor covered by the wages a family
transfer of powers from women to men. receives. As a group, however, women
Women’s oppression consists not merely in undergo specific forms of gender exploita-
an inequality of status, power, and wealth tion in which their energies and power are
resulting from men excluding them from expended, often unnoticed and unacknowl-
privileged activities. The freedom, power, edged, usually to benefit men by releasing
status, and self-�realization of men is possible them for more important and creative work,
precisely because women work for them. enhancing their status or the environment
 Five Faces of Oppression╇╇ | 331

around them, or providing them with sexual are people the system of labor cannot or will
or emotional service. not use. Not only in Third World capitalist
Are there, then, racially specific forms of countries, but also in most Western capital-
exploitation? There is no doubt that racial- ist societies, there is a growing underclass of
ized groups in the United States, especially people permanently confined to lives of
blacks and Latinos, are oppressed through social marginality, most of whom are
capitalist super-Â�exploitation resulting from a racially marked—blacks or Indians in Latin
segmented labor market that tends to America, and blacks, East Indians, Eastern
reserve skilled, high-�paying, unionized jobs Europeans, or North Africans in Europe.
for whites. Marginalization is by no means the fate
Is it possible to conceptualize a form of only of racially marked groups, however. In
exploitation that is racially specific on the United States a shamefully large propor-
analogy with the gender-�specific forms just tion of the population is marginal: old
discussed? I suggest that the category of people, and increasingly people who are not
menial labor might supply a means for such very old but get laid off from their jobs and
conceptualization. In its derivation “menial” cannot find new work; young people, espe-
designates the labor of servants. Wherever cially black or Latino, who cannot find first
there is racism, there is the assumption, or second jobs; many single mothers and
more or less enforced, that members of the their children; other people involuntarily
oppressed racial groups are or ought to be unemployed; many mentally and physically
servants of those, or some of those, in the disabled people; American Indians, espe-
privileged group. In most white racist soci� cially those on reservations.
eties this means that many white people Marginalization is perhaps the most dan-
have dark- or yellow-�skinned domestic serv- gerous form of oppression. A whole cat-
ants, and in the United States today there egory of people is expelled from useful
remains significant racial structuring of participation in social life and thus poten-
private household service. But in the United tially subjected to severe material depriva-
States today much service labor has gone tion and even extermination. Advanced
public: anyone who goes to a good hotel or capitalist societies often recognize this depri-
a good restaurant can have servants. In our vation and at least partially address it
society there remains strong cultural pres- through welfare policies. Material depriva-
sure to fill servant jobs—bellhop, porter, tion, which can be addressed by redistribu-
chambermaid, busboy, and so on—with tive social policies, is not, however, the
black and Latino workers. These jobs entail extent of the harm caused by marginaliza-
a transfer of energies whereby the servers tion. Two categories of injustice beyond dis-
enhance the status of the served. tribution are associated with marginality in
Menial labor usually refers not only to advanced capitalist societies. First, the pro-
service, however, but also to any servile, vision of welfare itself produces new injus-
unskilled, low-�paying work lacking in tice by depriving those dependent on it of
autonomy, in which a person is subject to rights and freedoms that others have.
taking orders from many people. Menial Second, even when material deprivation is
work tends to be auxiliary work, instrumen- somewhat mitigated by the welfare state,
tal to the work of others, where those others marginalization is unjust because it blocks
receive primary recognition for doing the the opportunity to exercise capacities in
job. socially defined and recognized ways.
Liberalism has traditionally asserted the
right of all rational autonomous agents to
MARGINALIZATION equal citizenship. Early bourgeois liberalism
explicitly excluded from citizenship all those
Increasingly in the United States racial whose reason was questionable or not fully
oppression occurs in the form of marginali- developed, and all those not independent
zation rather than exploitation. Marginals (Pateman, 1988; Bowles & Gintis, 1986).
332 |╇╇ I. M. Young

Thus poor people, women, the mad and the from women’s typical domestic care
feebleminded, and children were explicitly responsibilities and from the kinds of paid
excluded from citizenship, and many of work that many women do, tends to recog-
these were housed in institutions modeled nize dependence as a basic human condition
on the modern prison: poorhouses, insane (Hartsock, 1983). Whereas on the auton-
asylums, schools. omy model a just society would as much as
Today the exclusion of dependent persons possible give people the opportunity to be
from equal citizenship rights is only barely independent, the feminist model envisions
hidden beneath the surface. Because they justice as according respect and participa-
depend on bureaucratic institutions for tion in decision-�making to those who are
support or services, the old, the poor, and dependent as well as to those who are inde-
the mentally or physically disabled are pendent (Held, 1987). Dependency should
subject to patronizing, punitive, demeaning, not be a reason to be deprived of choice and
and arbitrary treatment by the policies and respect, and much of the oppression many
people associated with welfare bureaucra- marginals experience would be lessened if a
cies. Being a dependent in our society less individualistic model of rights prevailed.
implies being legitimately subject to the
often arbitrary and invasive authority of
social service providers and other public and POWERLESSNESS
private administrators, who enforce rules
with which the marginal must comply, and As I have indicated, the Marxist idea of
otherwise exercise power over the con- class is important because it helps reveal the
ditions of their lives. In meeting needs of the structure of exploitation: that some people
marginalized, often with the aid of social have their power and wealth because they
scientific disciplines, welfare agencies also profit from the labor of others. For this
construct the needs themselves. Dependency reason I reject the claim some make that a
in our society thus implies, as it has in all traditional class exploitation model fails to
liberal societies, a sufficient warrant to capture the structure of contemporary
suspend basic rights to privacy, respect, and society. It remains the case that the labor of
individual choice. most people in the society augments the
Although dependency produces con- power of relatively few.
ditions of injustice in our society, depend- While it is false to claim that a division
ency in itself need not be oppressive. One between capitalist and working classes no
cannot imagine a society in which some longer describes our society, it is also false to
people would not need to be dependent on say that class relations have remained unal-
others at least some of the time: children, tered since the 19th century. An adequate
sick people, women recovering from child- conception of oppression cannot ignore the
birth, old people who have become frail, experience of social division reflected in the
depressed or otherwise emotionally needy colloquial distinction between the “middle
persons, have the moral right to depend on class” and the “working class,” a division
others for subsistence and support. structured by the social division of labor
An important contribution of feminist between professionals and nonprofessionals.
moral theory has been to question the Professionals are privileged in relation to
deeply held assumption that moral agency nonprofessionals, by virtue of their position
and full citizenship require that a person be in the division of labor and the status it
autonomous and independent. Feminists carries. Nonprofessionals suffer a form of
have exposed this assumption as inappropri- oppression in addition to exploitation, which
ately individualistic and derived from a spe- I call powerlessness.
cifically male experience of social relations, This powerless status is perhaps best
which values competition and solitary described negatively: the powerless lack the
achievement (Gilligan, 1982). Female authority, status, and sense of self that pro-
experience of social relations, arising both fessionals tend to have. The oppression of
 Five Faces of Oppression╇╇ | 333

powerlessness brings into question the divi- respect is to be prepared to listen to what
sion of labor basic to all industrial societies: they have to say or to do what they request
the social division between those who plan because they have some authority, expertise,
and those who execute. The status privilege or influence. The norms of respectability in
of professionals has three aspects, the our society are associated specifically with
lack€ of which produces oppression for professional culture. Professional dress,
nonprofessionals. speech, tastes, demeanor, all connote
First, acquiring and practicing a profes- respectability. The privilege of this profes-
sion has an expansive, progressive character. sional respectability appears starkly in the
Being professional usually requires a college dynamics of racism and sexism. In daily
education and the acquisition of a special- interchange women and men of color must
ized knowledge that entails working with prove their respectability. At first they are
symbols and concepts. Professionals experi- often not treated by strangers with respect-
ence progress first in acquiring the expertise, ful distance or deference. Once people dis-
and then in the course of professional cover that this woman or that Puerto Rican
advancement and rise in status. The life of man is a college teacher or a business execu-
the nonprofessional by comparison is pow- tive, however, they often behave more
erless in the sense that it lacks this orienta- respectfully toward her or him. Working-�
tion toward the progressive development of class white men, on the other hand, are
capacities and avenues for recognition. often treated with respect until their
Second, while many professionals have working-�class status is revealed.
supervisors and cannot directly influence
many decisions or the actions of many
people, most nevertheless have considerable CULTURAL IMPERIALISM
day-�to-day work autonomy. Professionals
usually have some authority over others, Exploitation, marginalization, and power-
moreover—either over workers they super- lessness all refer to relations of power and
vise, or over auxiliaries, or over clients. oppression that occur by virtue of the social
Nonprofessionals, on the other hand, lack division of labor who works for whom, who
autonomy, and in both their working and does not work, and how the content of
their consumer/client lives often stand under work defines one’s institutional position rel-
the authority of professionals. ative to others. These kinds of oppression
Professionals and nonprofessionals are a matter of concrete power in relation to
belong to different cultures in the United others—of who benefits from whom, and
States. The two groups tend to live in segre- who is dispensable.
gated neighborhoods or even different Recent theorists of movements of group
towns, a process itself mediated by planners, liberation, notably feminist and black libera-
zoning officials, and real estate people. The tion theorists, have also given prominence
groups tend to have different tastes in food, to a rather different form of oppression,
decor, clothes, music, and vacations, and which following Lugones and Spelman
often different health and educational needs. (1983) I shall call cultural imperialism. Cul-
Members of each group socialize for the tural imperialism involves the universaliza-
most part with others in the same status tion of a dominant group’s experience and
group. While there is some inter-�group culture, and its establishment as the norm.
mobility between generations, for the most Often without noticing they do so, the dom-
part the children of professionals become inant groups project their own experience as
professionals and the children of nonprofes- representative of humanity as such. Cultural
sionals do not. products also express the dominant group’s
Thus, third, the privileges of the profes- perspective on and interpretation of events
sional extend beyond the workplace to a and elements in the society.
whole way of life. I call this way of life An encounter with other groups,
“respectability.” To treat people with however, can challenge the dominant
334 |╇╇ I. M. Young

group’s claim to universality. The difference specific experiences not shared by the domi-
of women from men, American Indians or nant group, and because culturally oppressed
Africans from Europeans, Jews from Chris- groups also are often socially segregated and
tians, homosexuals from heterosexuals, occupy specific positions in the social division
workers from professionals, becomes recon- of labor. Members of such groups express
structed largely as deviance and inferiority. their specific group experiences and interpre-
Since only the dominant group’s cultural tations of the world to one another, develop-
expressions receive wide dissemination, their ing and perpetuating their own culture.
cultural expressions become the normal, or Double consciousness, then, occurs because
the universal, and thereby the unremarkÂ� one finds one’s being defined by two cultures:
able, and others stereotyped as deviant. a dominant and a subordinate culture.
As remarkable, deviant beings, the cultur- Because they can affirm and recognize one
ally imperialized are stamped with an another as sharing similar experiences and
essence. The stereotypes confine them to a perspectives on social life, people in cultur-
nature which is often attached in some way ally imperialized groups can often maintain a
to their bodies, and which thus cannot easily sense of positive subjectivity.
be denied. These stereotypes so permeate the This, then, is the injustice of cultural
society that they are not noticed as contesta- imperialism: that the oppressed group’s own
ble. Just as everyone knows that the earth experience and interpretation of social life
goes around the sun, so everyone knows finds little expression that touches the domi-
that gay people are promiscuous, that nant culture, while that same culture
Indians are alcoholics, and that women are imposes on the oppressed group its experi-
good with children. White males, on the ence and interpretation of social life.
other hand, insofar as they escape group
marking, can be individuals.
Those living under cultural imperialism VIOLENCE
find themselves defined from the outside,
positioned, placed, by a network of domi- Finally, many groups suffer the oppression
nant meanings they experience as arising of systematic violence. Members of some
from elsewhere, from those with whom they groups live with the knowledge that they
do not identify and who do not identify must fear random, unprovoked attacks on
with them. Consequently, the dominant cul- their persons or property, which have no
ture’s stereotyped and inferiorized images of motive but to damage, humiliate, or destroy
the group must be internalized by group the person. In American society women,
members at least to the extent that they are blacks, Asians, Arabs, gay men, and lesbians
forced to react to behavior of others influ- live under such threats of violence, and in at
enced by those images. The culturally least some regions Jews, Puerto Ricans, Chi-
oppressed experience what W. E. B. Du Bois canos, and other Spanish-�speaking Ameri-
called “double consciousness” (1969 cans must fear such violence as well.
[1903]). Double consciousness arises when Physical violence against these groups is
the oppressed subject refuses to coincide shockingly frequent. Rape Crisis Center net-
with these devalued, objectified, stereotyped works estimate that more than one-�third of
visions of herself or himself: while the all American women experience an
subject desires recognition as human, attempted or successful sexual assault in
capable of activity, full of hope and possibil- their lifetimes. Violence against gay men and
ity, she receives from the dominant culture lesbians is not only common, but has been
only the judgment that she is different, increasing. While the frequency of physical
marked, or inferior. attack on members of these and other
The group defined by the dominant culture racially or sexually marked groups is very
as deviant, as a stereotyped Other, is cultur- disturbing, I also include in this category
ally different from the dominant group, less severe incidents of harassment, intimi-
because the status of Otherness creates dation, or ridicule simply for the purpose of
 Five Faces of Oppression╇╇ | 335

degrading, humiliating, or stigmatizing Often third parties find it unsurprising

group members. because it happens frequently and lies as a
Given the frequency of such violence in constant possibility at the horizon of the
our society, why are theories of justice social imagination. Even when they are
usually silent about it? I think the reason is caught, those who perpetrate acts of group-�
that theorists do not typically take such inci- directed violence or harassment often receive
dents of violence and harassment as matters light or no punishment. To that extent
of social injustice. No moral theorist would society renders their acts acceptable.
deny that such acts are very wrong. But An important aspect of random, systemic
unless all immoralities are injustices, they violence is its irrationality. Xenophobic viol-
might wonder, why should such acts be ence differs from the violence of states or
interpreted as symptoms of social injustice? ruling-�class repression. Repressive violence
What makes violence a phenomenon of has a rational, albeit evil, motive: rulers use it
social injustice, and not merely an individual as a coercive tool to maintain their power.
moral wrong, is its systemic character, its Many accounts of racist, sexist, or homopho-
existence as a social practice. Violence is bic violence attempt to explain its motivation
systemic because it is directed at members of as a desire to maintain group privilege or
a group simply because they are members of domination. I do not doubt that fear of viol-
that group. Any woman, for example, has a ence often functions to keep oppressed
reason to fear rape. Regardless of what a groups subordinate, but I do not think xeno-
black man has done to escape the oppres- phobic violence is rationally motivated in the
sions of marginality or powerlessness, he way that, for example, violence against strik-
lives knowing he is subject to attack or har- ers is. On the contrary, the violation of rape,
assment. The oppression of violence consists beating, killing, and harassment of women,
not only in direct victimization, but in the people of color, gays, and other marked
daily knowledge shared by all members of groups is motivated by fear or hatred of those
oppressed groups that they are liable to vio- groups. Sometimes the motive may be a
lation, solely on account of their group iden- simple will to power, to victimize those
tity. Just living under such a threat of attack marked as vulnerable by the very social fact
on oneself or family or friends deprives the that they are subject to violence. If so, this
oppressed of freedom and dignity, and need- motive is secondary in the sense that it
lessly expends their energy. depends on a social practice of group viol-
Violence is a social practice. It is a social ence. Violence causing fear or hatred of the
given that everyone knows happens and will other at least partly involves insecurities on
happen again. It is always at the horizon of the part of the violators; its irrationality sug-
social imagination, even for those who do gests that unconscious processes are at work.
not perpetrate it. According to the prevail- I offer a psychoanalytic account of the fear
ing social logic, some circumstances make and hatred of some groups as bound up with
such violence more “called for” than others. fears of identity loss. I think such uncon-
The idea of rape will occur to many men scious fears account at least partly for the
who pick up a hitch-�hiking woman; the idea oppression I have here called violence. It may
of hounding or teasing a gay man on their also partly account for cultural imperialism.
dorm floor will occur to many straight male Cultural imperialism, moreover, itself
college students. Often several persons inflict intersects with violence. The culturally
the violence together, especially in all-�male imperialized may reject the dominant mean-
groupings. Sometimes violators set out ings and attempt to assert their own subject-
looking for people to beat up, rape, or ivity, or the fact of their cultural difference
taunt. This rule-Â�bound, social, and often may put the lie to the dominant culture’s
premeditated character makes violence implicit claim to universality. The disso-
against groups a social practice. nance generated by such a challenge, to the
Group violence approaches legitimacy, hegemonic cultural meanings can also be a
moreover, in the sense that it is tolerated. source of irrational violence.
336 |╇╇ I. M. Young

Violence is a form of injustice that a dis- The presence of any of these five con-
tributive understanding of justice seems ill ditions is sufficient for calling a group
equipped to capture. This may be why con- oppressed. But different group oppressions
temporary discussions of justice rarely exhibit different combinations of these
mention it. I have argued that group-� forms, as do different individuals in the
directed violence is institutionalized and sys- groups. Nearly all, if not all, groups said by
temic. To the degree that institutions and contemporary social movements to be
social practices encourage, tolerate, or oppressed suffer cultural imperialism. The
enable the perpetration of violence against other oppressions they experience vary.
members of specific groups, those institu- Working-�class people are exploited and
tions and practices are unjust and should be powerless, for example, but if employed and
reformed. Such reform may require the white do not experience marginalization and
redistribution of resources or positions, but violence. Gay men, on the other hand,
in large part can come only through a experience severe cultural imperialism and
change in cultural images, stereotypes, and violence. Similarly, Jews and Arabs as
the mundane reproduction of relations of groups are victims of cultural imperialism
dominance and aversion in the gestures of and violence, though many members of
everyday life. these groups also suffer exploitation or
powerlessness. Old people are oppressed by
marginalization and cultural imperialism,
APPLYING THE CRITERIA and this is also true of disabled people. As a
group women are subject to gender-�based
I have arrived at the five faces of oppres- exploitation, powerlessness, cultural imperi-
sion—exploitation, marginalization, power- alism, and violence. Racism in the United
lessness, cultural imperialism, and States condemns many blacks and Latinos
violence—as the best way to avoid exclu- to marginalization, and puts many more at
sions of some oppressed groups and reduc- risk; members of these groups often suffer
tions of one form of oppression to another. all five forms of oppression.
They function as criteria for determining Why are particular groups oppressed in
whether individuals and groups are the way they are? Are there any causal con-
oppressed, rather than as a full theory of nections among the five forms of oppres-
oppression. I believe that these criteria are sion? Causal or explanatory questions such
objective. They provide a means of refuting as these are beyond the scope of this discus-
some people’s belief that their group is sion. While I think general social theory has
oppressed when it is not, as well as a means a place, causal explanation must always be
of persuading others that a group is particular and historical. Thus an explana-
oppressed when they doubt it. Each criterion tory account of why a particular group is
can be operationalized; each can be applied oppressed in the ways that it is must trace
through the assessment of observable behav- the history and current structure of particu-
ior, status relationships, distributions, texts, lar social relations.
and other cultural artifacts. I have no illu-
sions that such assessments can be value-�
neutral. But these criteria can nevertheless
REFERENCES
serve as means—of evaluating claims that a
group is oppressed, or adjudicating disputes Alexander, D. (1987). Gendered job traits and women’s
about whether or how a group is oppressed. occupations. PhD dissertation, Department of Eco-
One can compare the combinations of nomics, University of Massachusetts.
oppressions groups’ experience, or the intens- Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1986). Democracy and capit-
alism. New York: Basic Books.
ity of those oppressions. Thus with these cri-
Brittan, A. & Maynard, M. (1984). Sexism, racism and
teria one can plausibly claim that one group oppression. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
is more oppressed than another without Du Bois, W. E. B. (1969 [1903]). The souls of black
reducing all oppressions to a single scale. folk. New York: New American Library.
 Five Faces of Oppression╇╇ | 337

Easton, B. (1978). Feminism and the contemporary Hanen & K. Nielsen (Eds.). Science, morality and
family. Socialist Review, 39, May/June, 11–36. feminist theory (pp. 111–137). Calgary, Canada:
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a difference voice. Cambridge, University of Calgary Press.
MA: Harvard University Press. Lugones, M. & Spelman, E. (1983). Have we got a
Gottlieb, R. (1987). History and subjectivity. Philadel- theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism
phia: Temple University Press. and the demand for “the woman’s voice.” Women’s
Hartsock, N. (1983). Money, sex and power. New Studies International Forum, 6, 573–581.
York: Longman. Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Stanford, CA:
Held, V. (1987). A non-�contractual society. In M. Stanford University Press.
 CHAPTER 39

Defining Feminist Community

Place, Choice, and the Urban Politics of Difference

Judith Garber

THE “COMMUNITY THE FLIGHT FROM COMMUNITY

PROBLEM”
Feminist distress about communities of place
Community poses a problem for feminism is directed at democratic theory and practice
because too many political theories roman- in which a community with settled, embed-
ticize traditional community forms oriented ded values organizes political life. Most
toward place. Feminist critiques of this communitarians endorse smaller rather than
“community problem” have exposed the larger governments and direct citizen partic-
gender, class, and racial implications of ipation over representative schemes. The
various community concepts. As a result of most intellectually coherent and familiar
this inquiry, local communities of place— strain of communitarian theory is civic
the “family, neighborhood, school, and republicanism. A crop of philosophers con-
church web” (Friedman, 1989) prescribed in tinues to voice the essential civic republican
past and current communitarian theories— sentiment that politics and citizenship are
are counterposed against communities of predicated on “individual .â•›.â•›. fulfillment in
choice—friendships and identity groups con- relationships with others in a society organ-
sistent with diversity and feminist ideals ized through public dialogue” (Bellah,
(Friedman, 1989, pp. 286–287; Young, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985,
1990b, p. 172). I argue that this dualistic p. 218).
framework fails to capture the depth or Liberal feminists, like all liberals, worry
range of women’s community relationships, that the natural rights of individual women
and it misses the feminist potential of demo- are subsumed in strong-�community schemes
cratic places. One possible escape from the (Gutmann, 1985). Another danger is that
limits of this dichotomy are communities of women suffer under close-�knit, authorita-
purpose, where shared situations foster local tive, and homogeneous communities of
political action. Donning feminist analytical place, whether real or imagined. Too often,
lenses requires us to keep a critical distance such arrangements produce systematic
from traditional community notions, exclusions and oppressions; not the least of
because there are real dangers in a blind which is patriarchy.
devotion to place-�based social and political This second complaint about community
forms. However, critiques of community is integral to feminist theory sharing a
must appreciate how women approach the broadly deconstructionist perspective.
challenge of creating space for democratic, Deconstruction of social and political life
diverse communities in the places they involves recognizing contingency, subject-
inhabit. ivity, and dissonance. Thus, no unqualified
concept such as women is valid, and a
woman’s interests can be defined only from
her own experience of her social position
(Nicholson, 1990). In this literature, there is
 Defining Feminist Community╇╇ | 339

also a pervasive argument for shifting polit- in the denser central-�city settings where
ical imperatives away from their traditional women, and above all poor women, increas-
territorial and governmental referents ingly find themselves. And urban research
toward group interests articulated from the has demonstrated that there is a bond
standpoint of race, sex, and sexuality. between community and city for many
This line of argument is trenchant, women. This implies that feminist political
particularly in its skepticism about the thought is not driven by an expansive
appropriateness of attempting to reach enough view of community or a deep under-
the€ “common understandings” (Phelan, standing of cities.
1989, p.€ 156) communitarianism requires. Cities are pervasively gendered, to the
However, key feminist deconstructionist disadvantage of women at work, at home,
treatments of community suffer from a and in public spaces. These findings about
highly constricted conception of the central cities have not, however, been adequately
subject of their inquiry, taking as given what applied to the sexual inequalities embedded
is actually at issue. Feminists much too in the institutional relationships of govern-
readily would give up the ability to define ance, citizenship, and community.
community to the philosophers who have Thus we have two bodies of feminist
presented disappointing models of it. At the knowledge at hand: political theory and
same time, they contest the ideological urban analysis. Each incomplete, but they
appropriation of community by White men. have obvious sympathies. Together, they
Current feminist theory tends to present can help determine whether cities (in theory
women a stark choice between suffering bad and real life) must be cut loose from their
political and social arrangements and reject- traditional community moorings or if place-�
ing local community altogether. Valuing based community can be sufficiently
such communities is not widely acknow- redefined to meet feminist goals.
ledged to be a viable option.
The flight from defining place-�based com-
munity is a contradiction. A prominent COMMUNITY AS FRATERNITY
theme of deconstructionism is that politics
cannot proceed when conflict is denied in Community is steeped in fraternal imagery
favor of majority rule or consensus. Because and practices that are most damaging
this is a cautionary note well worth heeding, because they conjure up something that has
taking local community as given is particu- always been largely mythical. Small towns
larly unsettling. It appears that as long as and manicured suburbs can exact a high
women cannot insert themselves into the price from women and other outsider
dominant ideology, community is judged a groups. Because interlopers may breach the
fundamentally flawed idea rather than one consensual nature of public decision-�making
that has worked badly and could be rescued that is predicated on the sameness of the cit-
if conflicts over community, citizenship, izenry, they can justifiably be shunned or
justice, and so on were brought to the fore. silenced. Strangers might so threaten the
This is a theoretical issue, but critics of community’s perceived identity and eco-
communitarianism do not take care to nomic self-�interest that certain people are
understand how actual women regard com- denied entrance or driven out. Besides tech-
munity, overlooking a crucial fact: women niques to exclude subsidized and rental
participate daily in “ongoing ideological housing, people of color, group homes, or
conflict over the meaning of place” untraditional families, violence by neighbors
(Hummon, 1990, p.€28) in their struggles to and police is not unheard of.
make community their own. Local places More subtly, a set democratic process
often succeed at providing meaningful and preexisting norms aimed at fashioning
opportunities for women to express their political agreement are taken to be necessary
multifaceted desires for relationships in a for perpetuating the community. They are
public sphere. These relationships are alive not themselves usually open for discussion
340 |╇╇ J. Garber

or contestation. As in more intentional Local communities that satisfy the

forms of exclusion, the requirements of the primary conditions for feminist politics—
whole conspire against honoring basic diversity and equality—are therefore elusive.
objections to the community will, such as This realization evokes an uncomfortable
stating that there is unequal treatment of question: will feminist efforts to create polit-
women or that genuine consensus is impos� ical communities of place invariably founder
sible or fictitious. Liberals have always on the shoals of a misplaced or even perni-
insisted that the harmonious public sphere cious desire for “shared final ends” (Young,
oppresses individuals. It more readily 1990b, p.€ 238) in the civic sphere? One
silences people as members of groups—as answer is provided by deconstructionism,
women, young or elderly people, gays and which helps debunk the myth that anything
lesbians, people of color, or immigrants. in politics can be genuinely common across
Finally, there has historically been a gen- an entire jurisdiction.
dered division of political labor in local But feminist deconstruction of cities and
communities that gives the lie to certain communities comes at the price of depriving
classical justifications for communitarian- us of the recourse to political understand-
ism. Female local activism, through political ings—admittedly grindingly difficult—built
leadership, has tended to mirror women’s on conflict but that are true understandings
domestic concerns—housing, child care, nonetheless. Positing “difference” as the
welfare, safety, the environment. In a sense, primary descriptive and normative window
these activities amount to “public house- on local political life sets communities of
keeping” (Morgen, 1988, pp.€ 111–113), in choice or identity groups against communit-
which women organize to take up the slack ies of place.
left by “city fathers” but with fewer of the
political and economic resources conferred
by the state, particularly for women who are COMMUNITIES AND CITIES
not White and middle class. It is thus doubt-
ful whether communal democracy lives up On the street and in the academy, city is
to its advertised ability to bring the public interchangeable with community. Perhaps
and private spheres closer, create an engaged the most important effort within feminist
and empathetic citizenry, and promote theory to disengage them has been articu-
social obligations. lated by Iris Marion Young. Young (1990b)
argues that justice is hindered by commun-
ity and locality, but not necessarily by cities,
DIFFERENCE AND THE MYTH OF conceived properly. “As an alternative to
COMMON UNDERSTANDINGS the ideal of community” proffered by civic
republicanism she offers “an ideal of city life
Community need not be fraternal to be as a vision of social relations affirming
oppressive or exclusive, because women group difference” (p. 227). The vast poten-
differ by race, class, immigration status, lan- tial of cities to foster nonexclusive social dif-
guage, religion, sexuality, marital status, ferentiation, variety, eroticism, and publicity
age, and physical ability. The desolate (pp. 13, 238–240) is what constitutes “city-Â�
material conditions of so many urban ness” for her. It remains only “an unrealized
women’s lives concretely manifest these dif- social ideal” (p.€ 227), because cities have
ferences. Because women are not positioned cultivated the worst characteristics of both
equivalently with respect to structures of communitarianism and liberal capitalism.
power and privilege, proclamations about
the existence of a unified feminist civic
sphere are suspect. In this context, the bene- SIZE
fits of community cannot redound to all
women, and what constitutes community or As a general rule, the larger the city, the
benefits will itself be deeply controversial. better chance that diverse identities will be
 Defining Feminist Community╇╇ | 341

honored instead of being merged into com- slide into semantics, in part because the
munal norms or forced underground. Like neighbors hoped for by communitarians and
Jacobs (1961), Young believes that metrop- feared by difference theorists are both
olises counteract the conformist pressures caricatures.
within smaller communities. Young,
however, does not believe that city identity
is a positive political value. Urban places, POLITICAL ACTION
defined as spaces in which anything and
anyone goes, would be ideal if the compli- Both identity and anonymity are valued
cating factor of local governments and com- urban attributes, but they work at political
munities were eliminated. In their absence, cross-�purposes. Hence the political implica-
the politics of difference could flourish; this tions for cities of the distinction between an
major amendment to civic-�oriented political anti-�communitarian pluralism and a com-
theories is integral to her feminist vision. munity that requires pluralism are great.
For these reasons Young (1990b, Just as marginalized residents of cities are
pp.€ 252–255) proposes restructuring cities unlikely to gather their political strength
into regional units capable of regulating spontaneously, affirming group difference
diversity-�maintaining mechanisms that without striving for shared ground on at
municipalities and neighborhoods lack. least some issues is the ultimate estrange-
Neighborhood assemblies would be repre- ment of political empowerment and action.
sented regionally and “have autonomy over It is unsurprising that Young (1990a) defines
a certain range of decisions and activities .â•›.â•›. what remains of locality without political
only if [they] do not” harm, inhibit, or referents, envisioning cities as “vastly popu-
dictate the conditions of individual agency lated area[s] with large-�scale industry and
(pp. 250–251). places of mass assembly” (p. 317). Conjur-
But Young’s overall picture of city life is ing this sterile city helps illustrate that, polit-
flawed. We might reasonably conclude that ically, city and community are mutually
smaller units that invariably resolve them- dependent, and it feeds the suspicion that
selves into communities based on geo- banishing effective community from the
graphic, social, and/or cultural proximity local scene out of deference to irreconcilable
are prerequisites to successful metropolises. difference turns cities into branch plants of
Jacobs herself argued that cities must the central state. Community can make
encompass three sizes of “neighborhood” cities sites of political action, whereas deco-
units, each retaining certain powers of self-� rative neighborhood assemblies underneath
governance (1961, p. 117). Particularly at structures of “democratized regional plan-
the street scale, neighborhoods provide a ning” (p. 253) are unlikely to radicalize
measure of safety out of proportion to their anybody.
size (p. 119), which is no mean achievement.
Contrast this with Young (1990b, p.€ 237),
for whom the most prominent attribute of
PLACE AND CHOICE
the city is the cloak of anonymity it offers
those who would stand out as nonmembers
Jacobs (1961) presaged certain primal fears
of the monolithic community, a place where
about the communitarian ideal currently
neighbors who watch out for you would
expressed by feminist critical theorists, but
merely be nosy. Identity groups—based on
she did not shrink from community. She
attributes such as sex, race, or sexuality—
argued that:
could serve to bridge the gap between
anonymity and social connectedness that
for all the innate extroversion of city neigh-
virtually everyone needs for safety and borhoods, it fails to follow that city people
sanity, especially in the big city. But the can therefore get along magically without
subtler conceptual distinctions between neighborhoods .â•›.â•›. Let us assume that city
community and identity groups threaten to neighbors have nothing more fundamental in
342 |╇╇ J. Garber

common with each other than that they share may actually make local action more attrac-
a fragment of geography. Even so, if they fail tive and significant. Where the fortunes of
at managing that fragment decently, the frag- one’s neighbors and friends are seen as being
ment will fail .â•›.â•›. Neighborhoods in cities need connected—if they are connected—the
not supply for their people an artificial town
stakes of political action become very high.
or village life, and to aim at this is both silly
Viewed this way, the community problem is
and destructive. But neighborhoods in cities
do need to supply some means for civilized that there are too few of them.
self-�government. Second, people gravitate to particular
(p. 117) geographic locales in part for togetherness,
so one’s community of place and commun-
Notably, Jacobs uses neighborhood with ity of choice may coincide. Neighborhoods
precisely the same level of generality and and districts are not formed randomly but
substantive implications that people nor- are to some extent composed of self-�selected
mally connect with the term community but residents who may be choosing a comfort�
without the dichotomy between place and able identity fit or diversity. City dwellers,
choice that is a pillar of the feminist “differ- especially, often experience community pri-
ence” critique of communitarianism. At marily via the general type of plurality that
base, this dichotomy is false and misleading. Young advocates. This is not to deny that
First, communities are not merely con- great barriers to free selection of places
tainers holding people who share a unidi- exist, that some moves are involuntary, or
mensional identity. In neighborhoods and that not everyone desires or engages in com-
localities, identity and place necessarily munity. People often flee constricting com-
shape one another’s character, because terri- munities of origin and of happenstance as
torial communities are little more than the soon as possible. But these people go to
people who make them up, plus society’s places. Therefore, it exacerbates the com-
reaction to those people. The interaction munity problem to, in essence, reduce geo-
between place and people is one reason why graphic communities to “dependent
an impoverished African American com- children, elderly and others whose lives and
munity in rural Georgia is politically and well-Â�being are at great risk” (Friedman,
culturally miles away from an impoverished 1989, p.€290), immobile, and lacking altern-
African American community in urban St. atives. It “denies people their roots in com-
Louis, why the initial gay politics of AIDS munities” (Ackelsberg, 1988, p.€302).
was radically different in New York and San Third, occupying the same space supplies
Francisco, and also why places change. people with shared experiences, is a de facto
The intersection between women’s col- commonality, and may create political coop-
lective attention to place and their collective eration among unlike individuals. For
concern for a particular class, race, or ethni- instance, although gentrification exerts pres-
city fuels their political strength. Although sures on housing affordability and neighbor-
some women form coalitions across identity hood stability felt by poor and near poor
lines to secure joint benefits for the local “incumbent” female heads of households,
place in which they live, one’s sense of iden- female gentrifiers are economically more
tity might well encompass people far beyond “marginal” than men, and there is evidence
the neighborhood or city limits. Especially that women simply place a greater value on
for those with few privileges, nationalist urban amenities. Therefore, women may
identity is a counterweight to the dominant discover common political ground around
culture. Grassroots work in the urban arena place-�based issues, such as the quality of
cultivates political efficacy and identity con- schools and public transportation, and the
sciousness, and it forges links to larger social safety of streets and parks (Rose & Ville-
movements. Such “strateg[ies] of diverse but neuve, 1988, pp.€51–57).
pragmatic affiliations” (Gilkes, 1988, p.€55)
need not divert focus from the local com-
munity; instead, solidarity on several levels
 Defining Feminist Community╇╇ | 343

DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE theorists (Pateman, 1989, p.€220). The idea,

FRAMEWORKS not to be confused with any ideal, of com-
munity is a motivating force in far-�flung
In short, a place-�based versus an identity-� urban places, kept alive by women for
based conceptual framework community whom it is their only source of political
fails on descriptive and analytical grounds. empowerment.
In terms of simple description, the frame- Why do women gravitate so easily to
work is too rigid to describe all the com- communities of place, given the feminist
munities women inhabit and seek out. In criticisms? The answer is that, as an abstrac-
terms of analysis, a dualistic approach to tion, local community is deeply problematic;
community begs the question of how places in practice, it may actually serve women
and interests interact, which is perhaps the more often than we think. The benefits of
central issue in urban politics. creating some shared public life explains
The dichotomous conceptual framework why, when the formal political community
falls short as a normative hierarchy—iden- of the city betrays women, they create their
tity trumps place—because there is no con- own. Feminist political theory has, rightly,
vincing method of ranking community pointed out that shared public lives have
concepts on practical or moral grounds. profound limits. Even so, imperfect com-
None guarantees democracy and it is indeed munity appears to go farther toward
taxing to imagine a strong normative theory meeting some women’s needs than nothing
of politics or of cities in which the distinc- at all.
tion between abstract communities is a key Housing is the intersection of commun-
principle. For instance, there is really no ity, locality, and domesticity, and it best
reliable method for distinguishing an inner-Â� exemplifies women’s interests in linking
city neighborhood of poor mothers fighting place and politics. Women’s housing coop-
a toxic waste dump from a suburban com- eratives demonstrate that the prospect of
munity of White middle-�class mothers fight- building community from the ground up,
ing the same thing, unless perhaps the dump attracts “powerless” women to intensely
will be sited in one of those two neighbor- political endeavors. Wekerle’s (1988)
hoods. In the latter case the harms and account of Canadian co-�ops portrays models
benefits of urban life must be more equita- of community substantially like cities in
bly dispersed than at present, which requires their governing responsibilities but different
that communities of all sizes adhere to basic from patriarchal communities in process
rules about not poisoning people. But this and ultimate aims. Women joined the co-�ops
rule is not inherently related to place-�based not only for affordable shelter but also to
community, an issue with prominent spatial attain certain political ideals, mutual
elements. Space should not be “objectified support, and, according to a resident, “to
as a perpetrator of inequality” (Wilder, share responsibilities, rights, democracy” (p.
1993, p.€ 407), because it cannot be judged 108). Tenants make decisions about allocat-
independently of the exclusionary “institu- ing space between communal and private
tional processes [that] operate in space” uses, budgets, service delivery, membership,
p.€408). Although they surely interact, injus- policy making and enforcement, manage-
tice and compensatory justice (Young, ment, redistribution, and economic develop-
1990b) are not dimensions of territorial ment, in an urban setting. Similar findings
organization. have been reported from New York City’s
housing projects (Saegert, 1988, pp.€34–35),
and Chicago’s single room occupancy hotels
FEMINIST COMMUNITY IN PRACTICE (Hoch & Slayton, 1989).
In the “community aspects” of these
Feminists are the last assiduous practitioners housing arrangements, individual women
of the basic tenets of communitarian pol- discovered relatively safe places for them-
itics, an irony that has not escaped feminist selves. And this happened while engaging in
344 |╇╇ J. Garber

fundamentally urban tasks. Localities can not ignored or (falsely) overcome. Com-
ensure individual/group and community munities of purpose for mutual respons-
needs simultaneously if they do not aim for ibility and cooperation are integral to
unity or support the oppression of some feminism and democratic cities if political
women by other women under the guise of action is a goal.
community. The trick is figuring out how to Accepting that communities empower
balance these competing tendencies within some women and materially improve their
local social groupings. Grand theories help lives means accepting certain manifestations
us understand more about the oppression of the flawed communitarian vision. There
perpetuated by exclusion and political inat- is, however, a crucial difference between a
tention to the differing positions of people hegemonic community and the matrix of
who make up communities. A more communities that serve as the political and
grounded focus would acknowledge that it cultural anchors for many women (and
is a particularly awkward moment for fem- men) who dwell in urban and suburban
inists to dissociate the urban from the com- cities. In the first case, the republican notion
munity. In the United States, a search for of the public sphere threatens those who do
roads leading back to functional communit- not already have power. In the second case,
ies of place occupies residents of inner-�city a meaningful public sphere encourages alter-
neighborhoods and, particularly, the women nate political discourses that dissent from
who are their backbone. the majority and conflict with the dominant
community’s procedural and substantive
agreements. If the communities that “we”
COMMUNITIES OF PURPOSE attempt are understood as prerequisite to
conditions of equality and diversity, and not
Politics makes little sense if it is not con- as mirrors of some preconceived notion of
ceived as a joint effort—it is inescapably a these terms, then collective action and com-
community of purposes and sometimes also munities of purposes located in places make
of interests. Communitarianism remains good sense.
antithetical to feminism, however, as long as However, feminist theorists of communal
theorists continue to think that communities life must think as deeply and in as much
are composed of the “people,” who formu- detail about democratic process and institu-
late and voice consensual values and ideas. tional design as do communitarians. Process
Locally, as globally, conflicts over differ- sets the terms for participation by stating
ences degenerate into violence and repudiate how differences and histories of oppression
“the community” of interpersonally gener- must be accorded validity in setting com-
ated understanding. munity values. No wonder feminists con-
On the other hand, focusing criticism on cerned with radical democracy as well as
“the privileging of face-Â�to-face relations by deconstruction discuss community compel-
theorists of community” (Young, 1990a, lingly, for democracy demands attention to
p.€313) somewhat misses the point of cities. political action by equals and how this
Face-�to-face relations are part of urban life, might be achieved. Individuals identify with
like it or not. They may not be happy rela- a community because its own identity and
tions, but neither are they anonymous. political direction derive from them. Collect-
Caught between the rock of claustrophobic ive action toward social change is unthink�
local communities and the hard place of the able outside the context of relationships
elusiveness of achieving invisibility through between people who believe their well-�being
group identification, perhaps the best that is tied together, for politics is not a singular
can be hoped for is a wary truce; perhaps endeavor.
this is the basis for communities of purpose.
For the practical purposes of action and
self-�help, a commonality of places and situ-
ations permits differences to be recognized,
 Defining Feminist Community╇╇ | 345

CONTESTING COMMUNITY rists than to women in urban contexts. Even

supposing it is possible, genuinely, to
It is true that “American culture incorpor- accommodate the demands of more women
ates different, contrasting community ideol- to be citizens of open and humane cities, it
ogies” (Hummon, 1990, p.€ 169), but the remains to be demonstrated which com-
ideological clash has not been robust enough munities are the best vehicles for that trans-
to institutionalize in local state-Â�sponsored formation. The “community problem”
political processes the voices of marginalized awaits further examination.
groups. Until community discourse acknowl-
edges women’s versions that have been
excluded from defining the “official” com- REFERENCES
munity or relegated to housekeeping for city
politics, feminists will avoid communitarian Ackelsberg, M. (1988). Communities, resistance, and
women’s activism: Some implications for a demo-
theories for advocating political and social
cratic polity. In A. Bookman & S. Morgen (Eds.),
organization inhospitable to the differences Women and the politics of empowerment (pp.
that define people. 297–313). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
However, abandoning place-�based com- Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler,
munity is not the only possible feminist A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart:
stance. First, advancing the variety of social Individualism and commitment in American life.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
and economic issues that affect women Friedman, M. (1989). Feminism and modern friend-
entails political alliances extending beyond ship: Dislocating the community. Ethics, 99,
the group, neighborhood, city, or nation. 275–290.
Broader exercises of citizenship are likely to Gilkes, C. T. (1988). Building in many places: Multiple
occur only when organization and empow- commitments and ideologies in black women’s com-
munity work. In A. Bookman & S. Morgen (Eds.),
erment are first practiced on at least one Women and the politics of empowerment (pp.
level of community. Second, many of the 53–76). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
problems that female city dwellers experi- Gutmann, A. (1985). Communitarian critics of liberal-
ence as women—homelessness, violence ism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14, 308–322.
against and by children, sexual assault, lack Hoch, C. & Slayton, R. A. (1989). New homeless and
old: Community and the skid row hotel. Philadel-
of public transportation, economic ghet- phia: Temple University Press.
toization—are indeed locally located, if not Hummon, D. M. (1990). Commonplaces: Community
entirely locally produced. The intimate con- ideology and identity in American culture. Albany:
nections between the daily lives of women State University of New York Press.
and the life of the city suggest that political Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American
cities. New York: Random House.
activity by coalitions of women aimed spe- Morgen, S. (1988). “It’s the whole power of the city
cifically at defining inclusive, “good” com- against us!” The development of political conscious-
munities might result in localities that are ness in a women’s health care coalition. In A.
less marginalizing, hierarchical, and danger- Bookman & S. Morgen (Eds.), Women and the pol-
ous. Thus, informal and formal local com- itics of empowerment (pp. 97–115). Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
munities are potential sources of women’s Nicholson, L. J. (Ed.). (1990). Feminism/post-
empowerment and political change. modernism. New York: Routledge.
Conceptual wrangling will not resolve the Pateman, C. (1989). The disorder of women: Demo-
tensions around the continuing, but highly cracy, feminism, and political theory. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
problematic, relevance of place-�based com-
Phelan, S. (1989). Identity politics: Lesbian feminism
munity for many women. At the same time, and the limits of community. Philadelphia: Temple
abandoning the name community for fear of University Press.
invoking unsavory political arrangements Rose, D. & Villeneuve, P., with F. Colgan. (1988).
lurking beneath it will not relieve us of the Women workers and the inner city: Some implica-
tions of labor force restructuring in Montreal,
two basic “problems” that people do have
1971–81. In C. Andrew & B. Moore Milroy (Eds.),
different relationships with community and Life spaces: Gender, household, and employment
that the idea of local community is, appar- (pp. 31–64). Vancouver, Canada: University of
ently, much less appealing to feminist theo- British Columbia Press.
346 |╇╇ J. Garber

Saegert, S. (1988). The androgenous city: From critique Wilder, M. G. (1993). Institutional processes: Shaping
to practice. In W. Van Vliet (Ed.), Women, housing, place within disciplinary walls, a reply to Anne B.
and community (pp. 23–37). Aldershot, UK: Shlay. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15, 405–411.
Avebury. Young, I. M. (1990a). The ideal of the community and
Wekerle, G. (1988). Canadian women’s housing coop- the politics of difference. In L. J. Nicholson (Ed.),
eratives: Case studies in physical and social innova- Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 300–323). New York:
tion, In C. Andrew & B. Moore Milroy (Eds.), Life Routledge.
spaces: Gender, household, and employment (pp. Young, I. M. (1990b). Justice and the politics of differ-
102–140). Vancouver, Canada: University of British ence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Columbia Press.
 CHAPTER 40

Privileged Places
Race, Opportunity, and Uneven Development in Urban America

Gregory D. Squires and Charis E. Kubrin

When 10-year-�old Lafayette Rivers Privilege cannot be understood outside

described his hopes in Alex Kotlowitz’s the context of place. A central feature of
award-�winning book, There Are No Chil- place that has confounded efforts to under-
dren Here, he began, “If I grow up, I’d like stand and, where appropriate, alter the
to be a bus driver.” Rivers lived in a West opportunity structure of the nation’s urban
Side Chicago public housing complex. Chil- communities is the role of race. Racial com-
dren growing up in more privileged neigh- position of neighborhoods has long been at
borhoods often ponder what they will do the center of public policy and private prac-
when they grow up, but not if they will tice in the creation and destruction of com-
grow up. The fact that place and race exert munities and in determining access to the
such a profound impact on one’s future, or elements of the good life, however defined.
whether there even will be a future, violates Place and race continue to be defining
accepted notions of equal opportunity and characteristics of the opportunity structure
fair play. The legitimacy of virtually all of metropolitan areas. Disentangling the
institutions is challenged when privilege is impact of these two forces is difficult, if not
so unevenly distributed, and for reasons impossible. But where one lives and one’s
beyond the control of so many individuals. racial background are both social constructs
The costs are not borne by the Lafayette that significantly shape the privileges (or
Rivers of the world alone. They are inflicted lack thereof↜) that people enjoy.
upon every community whose security and The linkages among place, race, and priv-
well-�being are threatened. ilege are shaped by dominant social forces
Real estate mantra tells us that three that play out in response to public policy
factors determine the market value of a decisions and practices of powerful private
home: location, location, and location. The institutional actors. This perspective emerges
same could be said about the factors that from what has been referred to as “the new
determine the good life and people’s access urban sociology,” or “urban political
to it in metropolitan America. Place matters. economy,” which places class, race, and
Neighborhood counts. Access to decent relations of domination and subordination
housing, safe neighborhoods, good schools, at the center of analysis. In general, this
useful contacts, and other benefits is largely requires understanding how individual
influenced by the community in which one characteristics and choices (such as human
is born, raised, and resides. Individual initi- capital and household neighborhood prefer-
ative, intelligence, experience, and all the ences) and voluntary exchanges that occur
elements of human capital are obviously via competitive markets are both framed
important. But understanding the opportun- and complemented by structural constraints
ity structure in the United States today (such as exclusionary zoning and deindustri-
requires complementing what we know alization) in determining the distribution of
about individual characteristics with what valued goods and services. Specifically, this
we are learning about place. involves examining how land-�use practices,
348 |╇╇ G. D. Squires and C. E. Kubrin

urban policy, the dynamics of race and class, into them being able to move into better
and other social forces determine who gets neighborhoods. For example, in 1990, the
what and why. typical black household with an income
above $60,000 lived in a neighborhood
where the median income was $31,585,
RACE AND UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT compared with $46,760 for the typical
white household in this income bracket. By
Dominant features of metropolitan develop- 2000, these figures changed to $35,306 for
ment in the post-�World War II years are blacks and $51,459 for whites. The same
sprawl, concentrated poverty, and segrega- pattern holds for Hispanics. Further con-
tion (if not hypersegregation). Clearly, these founding the intersection of place and race
are not separate, mutually exclusive patterns is the fact that in 2000 poor blacks and His-
and processes. Rather, they are three critical panics were far more likely than poor whites
underpinnings of the uneven development of to live in poor neighborhoods. Whereas over
place and privilege. 18% of poor blacks and almost 14% of
Sprawl has crept into the vocabulary of poor Hispanics lived in such areas, less than
metropolitan development in recent years. 6% of poor whites did.
While there is no universal agreement on a Wealth disparities are far greater. While
definition of sprawl, there is at least a rough blacks earn about 60% of what whites earn,
consensus that it is a pattern of development their net wealth is approximately one-�tenth
associated with outward expansion, low-� that of whites. Substantial wealth disparities
density housing and commercial develop- persist even between whites and non-�whites
ment, fragmentation of planning among who have equivalent educational back-
multiple municipalities with large fiscal dis- grounds, comparable jobs, and similar
parities among them, auto-�dependent trans- incomes.
port, and segregated land-�use patterns. These wealth disparities also reflect, at
Racial disparities between cities and least in part, the fact that black middle-�class
suburbs, and racial segregation in general, neighborhoods are far more likely than
persist as dominant features of metropolitan white middle-�class communities to be
areas. Cities are disproportionately non-� located in close proximity to poor neighbor-
white, with over 52% of blacks and 21% of hoods, which residents frequently pass
whites residing in central-�city neighbor- through while commuting to work, going to
hoods; while suburbs are disproportionately the grocery store, and engaging in most
white, where 57% of whites but just 36% normal daily activities. Proximity to prob-
of blacks reside. Segregation, particularly lematic neighborhoods also affects the value
between blacks and whites, persists at high of homes and, therefore, further contributes
levels, and Hispanic/white segregation has to these economic disparities.
increased in recent years. The typical white Seventy percent of white families own
resident of metropolitan areas resides in a their homes; approximately half of black
neighborhood that is 80% white, 7% black, families do so. For blacks, home equity
8% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. A typical accounts for two-�thirds of their assets com-
black person lives in a neighborhood that is pared with two-�fifths for whites. A study of
33% white, 51% black, 11% Hispanic, and the 100 largest metropolitan areas found
3% Asian. And a typical Hispanic resident that black homeowners received 18% less
lives in a community that is 36% white, value for their investments in their homes
11% black, 45% Hispanic, and 6% Asian. than white homeowners. Biases, racial dis-
Racial segregation, in conjunction with crimination, and segregation in the nation’s
the concentration of poverty and growing housing and financial services markets have
economic inequality, results in growing iso- cost the current generation of blacks about
lation of poor minority households. If segre- $82 billion, with the disparity in home
gation is declining, albeit slightly, for blacks, equity averaging $20,000 for those holding
it does not appear that this has translated mortgages.
 Development in Urban America╇╇ | 349

SPATIAL AND RACIAL INEQUALITY that progress may have come to a halt or
perhaps may have even been reversed. In
Spatial and racial inequalities are directly 2000, 40% of black students attended
associated with access to virtually all prod- schools that were 90 to 100% black com-
ucts and services associated with the good pared with 32% of black students who
life—e.g., health, education, employment. attended such schools in 1988. The share of
Sprawl, concentrated poverty, and racial Hispanic students attending schools that
segregation tend to concentrate a host of were 90 to 100% minority grew from 23%
problems and privileges in different neigh- during the late 1960s to 37% in 2000. Con-
borhoods and among different racial groups. tinuing disparities result in fewer educa-
These “concentration effects” shape oppor- tional resources, less qualified teachers and
tunities and lifestyles throughout the life higher teacher turnover, and, ultimately,
cycle and across generations. Perhaps most lower educational achievement in low-�
problematic is the impact of uneven devel- income and minority communities.
opment on children like Lafayette Rivers, If there is one single factor that is most
and how the proverbial vicious cycle recre- critical for determining access to the good
ates itself over time. Research has demon- life, it might be employment. This is particu-
strated links between neighborhood larly true in the United States where indi-
characteristics (like poverty and inequality) viduals and households are far more
and teenage pregnancy, high school dropout dependent on their jobs to secure basic
rates, and delinquent behavior. Patterns of goods and services than is the case with vir-
privilege also emerge early in life, persist tually all other industrialized nations. The
throughout the life cycle, and recreate them- importance of place and race have long been
selves in subsequent generations. Infant recognized by spatial mismatch theorists
mortality rates, quality of schools, employ- who posit that lower-�income residents of
ment opportunities, life expectancy, and poorer communities generally reside in or
more are affected by where one is born, near central cities while job growth has been
lives, works, and plays. greater in outlying suburban communities.
Access to clean air and water, exposure Those most in need of employment, there-
to lead paint, high rates of stress and fore, find it not only more difficult to learn
obesity, poor diet, social isolation, and about available jobs but also more expen-
proximity to hospitals and other medical sive to get to those jobs when they find one.
facilities all vary by neighborhood and con- As of 2000, no racial group was more phys-
tribute to long-�established disparities in ically isolated from jobs than blacks. The
health and wellness. The affluent and pre- metropolitan areas with higher levels of
dominantly white D.C. suburb of Bethesda, black–white housing segregation were those
Maryland, has one pediatrician for every that exhibited higher levels of spatial mis-
400 children, while the poor and predomi- match between the residential location of
nantly black neighborhoods in the District’s blacks and the location of jobs. Compound-
southeast side have one pediatrician for ing these troubles are the “mental maps”
every 3,700 children. And while the hospital many employers draw, in which they
admission rate for asthma in the state of attribute various job-�related characteristics
New York is 1.8 per 1,000, it is three times (such as skills, experience, attitudes) to resi-
higher in the Mott Haven area of the South dents of certain neighborhoods. A job appli-
Bronx. cant’s address often has an independent
If education is to be “the great equalizer effect that makes it more difficult, particu-
of the conditions of men—the balance wheel larly for racial minorities from urban areas,
of the social machinery” as the Massachu- to secure employment. Moreover, recent
setts educator Horace Mann anticipated research by Devah Pager, assistant professor
over 150 years ago, that day has yet to of sociology at Princeton, has found that it
arrive. After two decades of progress in is easier for a white person with a felony
desegregating the nation’s schools, it appears conviction to get a job than a black person
350 |╇╇ G. D. Squires and C. E. Kubrin

with no felony convictions, even among locations. Even the most distressed neighbor-
applicants with otherwise comparable cre- hoods, including some notorious public
dentials or where blacks had slightly better housing complexes, often have a culture,
employment histories. Such divergent social organization, and other attributes that
employment experiences, of course, contrib- residents want to retain. Community, defined
ute directly to the income and wealth in many different ways, attracts and retains
disparities. residents of all types of neighborhoods.
In many cities, racial differences in But, again, these choices are made in a
poverty levels, employment opportunities, context shaped by a range of public policy
wages, education, housing, and health care, decisions and private institutional practices
among other things, are so strong that the over which most individuals have little
worst urban conditions in which whites control. Those decisions often have, by
reside are considerably better than the design, exclusionary implications that limit
average conditions of black communities. In opportunities, particularly for low-�income
“Toward a Theory of Race, Crime and households and people of color. The conflict
Urban Inequality,” from Crime and Inequal- and hassles that racial minorities face
ity, Robert Sampson and William Julius outside their communities lead some to
Wilson (1995) assert that in not one U.S. choose a segregated neighborhood for their
city with a population over 100,000 do home, even when they could afford to live
blacks live in ecological equality with whites elsewhere. Such decision-�making is framed
when it comes to the basic features of eco- and limited by a range of structural con-
nomic and family organization. A depress- straints. Individuals exercise choice, but
ing feature of these developments is that those choices do not reflect what is normally
many of these differences reflect policy understood as voluntary.
decisions which, if not designed expressly to If suburbanization and sprawl reflect the
create disparate outcomes, have contributed housing choices of residents, they are con-
to them nevertheless. strained choices. Many factors contributed
to the development of sprawling suburban
communities: the long-�term 30-year mort-
POLICY MATTERS gage featuring low down payment require-
ments; availability of federal insurance to
It has been argued that individuals or house- protect mortgage lenders; federal financing
holds make voluntary choices, based on to support a secondary market in mortgage
their financial capacity, in selecting their loans (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), which
communities when moving to those areas dramatically increases availability of mort-
offering the bundle of services for which gage money; tax deductibility of interest and
they are willing or able to pay. That is, they property tax payments; and proliferation of
“vote with their feet.” But many urban federally funded highways.
scholars have noted the role of public pol- The federal government’s underwriting
icies and institutionalized private practices rules for Federal Housing Administration
(such as tax policy, transport patterns, land-� and other federal mortgage insurance prod-
use planning) that serve as barriers to indi- ucts, and enforcement of racially restrictive
vidual choice in housing markets and as covenants by the courts, along with overt
contributors to spatial inequality in metro- redlining practices by mortgage lenders and
politan areas. racial steering by real estate agents, virtually
Most households select their neighbor- guaranteed the patterns of racial segregation
hoods on the basis of the services, jobs, cul- that were commonplace by the 1950s.
tural facilities, and other amenities that are Concentration of public housing in central-�
available within the constraints of their city high-�rise complexes reinforced the pat-
budgets. Critical for many households is a terns of economic and racial segregation
dense network of families, friends, and that persist today. Exclusionary zoning
various social ties that bind them to particular ordinances of most suburban municipalities
 Development in Urban America╇╇ | 351

that created minimum lot size and maximum who are working hard but not quite making
density requirements for housing develop- it reinforce traditional values of individual
ments (often prohibiting construction of initiative and the work ethic, thereby pro-
multifamily housing) complemented federal viding benefits to people who have earned
policy. them rather than to the so-�called undeserv-
Government policy has also encouraged ing poor. Given the socioeconomic charac-
the flight of businesses and jobs from cities teristics of racial minorities in general, it is
to surrounding suburban communities and further argued that such approaches will
beyond. Financial incentives including infra- disproportionately benefit these communit-
structure investments, tax abatements, and ies, nurturing integration and greater oppor-
depreciation allowances favoring new equip- tunity in a far less rancorous environment
ment over reinvestment in existing facilities than is created with debates over race-�
all have contributed to the deindustrializa- specific approaches. Given the “race fatigue”
tion and disinvestment of urban communit- among many whites (and underlying preju-
ies. Often such investments subsidize dices that persist), class-�based approaches
development that would have occurred are viewed as a much more feasible way to
without that assistance. As one observer address the problems of urban poverty that
noted, “Subsidizing economic development affect many groups, but particularly racial
in the suburbs is like paying teenagers to minorities.
think about sex.” The end result is often an In response, it is argued that while the
unintended subsidy of private economic quality of life for racial minorities has
activity by jurisdictions that compete in a improved over the years, such approaches
“race to the bottom” in efforts to attract simply do not recognize the extent to which
footloose firms and mobile capital, starving race and racism continue to shape the oppor-
traditional public services—like education— tunity structure in the United States. Color-Â�
for resources in the process. A downward blindness is often a euphemism for what
spiral is established that further undercuts amounts to a retreat on race and the preser-
the quality of life. vation of white privilege in its many forms.
In a world of scarce resources, class-�based
remedies dilute available support for com-
PLACE, PRIVILEGE, AND POLICY bating racial discrimination and segregation.
From this perspective, it is precisely the con-
One of the more unfortunate debates in troversy over race that the class-�based pro-
recent years has been over the question of ponents fear, which demonstrates the
whether race-�specific or universal remedies persistence of racism and the need for explic-
are more appropriate for addressing the itly anti-�racist remedies, including far more
issues of race and urban poverty. (An even aggressive enforcement of fair housing, equal
more unfortunate debate, of course, is with employment, and other civil rights laws. On
those who simply think we have done the other hand, race-�based remedies alone
enough, or perhaps too much, and that may not resolve all the problems associated
neither race nor class remedies are needed.) with race and urban poverty given the many
The primary attraction of the universal, non-�racial factors that contribute to racial
or class-�based, approaches, according to its disparity as indicated above.
proponents, is pragmatism. Recognizing the In reality, both approaches are required.
many common interests of poor and Class-�based policies (such as increasing the
working households of any color, it is minimum wage and earned income tax
argued that the most significant barriers credit, implementing living wage require-
confronting these groups can be addressed ments) and race-�based initiatives (more
with policy initiatives and other actions that comprehensive affirmative action and
do not ignite the hostility often associated related diversity requirements), are essential
with race-�based discussions and proposals. if the underlying patterns of privilege are to
Race-�neutral policies that assist all of those be altered.
352 |╇╇ G. D. Squires and C. E. Kubrin

UNCOMMON ALLIES in locations that are accessible by public

transportation, reducing traffic congestion,
Many constituencies that traditionally find infrastructure costs and other disamenities.
themselves at odds with each other can find Growing such development would yield
common ground on a range of policies greater efficiencies in public investment,
designed to combat sprawl, concentrated fewer environmental costs, and more job
poverty, and segregation. Identifying and opportunities.
nurturing such political coalitions is perhaps This list is hardly meant to be exhaustive.
the key political challenge. Coalitions that The point is simply to show that there are
cut across interest groups and racial groups some creative political alliances that can
are essential. Many land-�use planning, exercise a positive impact on some long-�
housing, and housing finance policy propos- standing, and seemingly intractable, prob-
als, for example, are generally articulated in lems. Sprawl, concentrated poverty, and
color-�blind terms. Fair-�share housing segregation have many identifiable causes.
requirements, tax-�based revenue sharing, The confluence of place, race, and privilege
and inclusionary zoning are universal in becomes less mysterious over time. At least
character, although they often have clear some approaches to reduce uneven develop-
racial implications. ment and its many costs are already availa-
Many suburban employers are unable to ble: land use planning tools like tax-�based
find the workers they need, in part because revenue sharing and the delineation of
of the high cost of housing in their local urban€ growth boundaries can be used
communities. Often there are local develop- more€ extensively to reduce sprawl and
ers who would like to build affordable some€ of the associated costs; community
housing and lenders who are willing to reinvestment initiatives, housing mobility
finance it, but local zoning prohibits such programs, and inclusionary zoning ordi-
construction. These interests could join with nances can be expanded to diminish further
anti-�poverty groups and affordable housing the concentration of poverty; and fair
advocates to challenge the traditional exclu- housing law enforcement can be strength-
sionary suburban zoning ordinances. Devel- ened to reduce racial segregation. If policy
opers, planners, and affordable housing is€ largely responsible for getting us
advocates came together in Wisconsin and where we are today, then policy can help us
secured passage of a state land-�use planning pursue a different path toward severing the
law that provided financial incentives to links among race, place and privilege
local municipalities who developed plans for tomorrow.
increasing the supply of affordable housing
units in their jurisdictions.
Similarly, school choice and fair housing NOTE
groups—two groups that rarely ally—might
recognize that severing the link between the This chapter is based on Gregory D. Squires’ and
Charis E. Kubrin’s recently published book, Privileged
neighborhood in which a family lives and
Places: Race, Residence, and the Structure of
the school that children must attend may Opportunity.
well reduce homebuyers’ concerns with
neighborhood racial composition. This
would reduce one barrier to both housing REFERENCES
and school segregation while giving students
more schooling options. Kotlowitz, A. (1992). There are no children here: The
In many cities, developers, lenders, com- story of two boys growing up in the other America.
munity development corporations, environ- New York: Anchor Books.
Sampson, R. J. & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a
mental groups, local governments, and
theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In J.
others are coming together to sponsor Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequal-
transit-Â�oriented development. Such develop- ity (pp. 37–56). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
ments create new jobs for working families Press.
 CHAPTER 41

Domestic Property Interests as a Seedbed for

Community Action1
John Emmeus Davis

“Do communities act?” Even as Charles shelter, or they have an interest in the
Tilly (1974) posed this provocative ques- exchange value of domestic property, utiliz-
tion, he was never really in doubt that col- ing residential land and buildings for finan-
lective action on a territorial basis can and cial gain. Some people have an interest in
does occur. After all, American cities were both. Accommodation and accumulation
just emerging from a period of political are actually clusters of interests, each
protest, popular mobilization, and social describing various benefits that people
conflict as intense as any they had known, derive from their relationship to domestic
most of it organized on the basis of residen- property. Three use interests are preeminent:
tial neighborhoods. “Of course communities security, amenity, and autonomy. On the
act,” answered Tilly, and embarked on a other side, three exchange interests are
search for when and why. preeminent: equity, liquidity, and legacy.
We are engaged here in a similar quest, These half-�dozen domestic property interests
attempting to explain collective action in the do not exhaust the field. Each could be sub-
place of residence. The Marxist theory of divided again and again to yield an ever-�
collective action argues that objective, rela- longer list. These six denote the principal
tional interests may be the basis for group lines of demarcation most frequently found
formation and inter-�group conflict. The neo- within the complex mosaic of competing
Â�Weberian theory of “housing classes” argues property interests that give rise to many of
that such interests inhere not only in a the groups and much of the conflict arising
group’s relationship to productive property, within the place of residence.
but also in a group’s relationship to
“domestic property”—land and buildings
that are used for housing.2 Combining these EQUITY
theoretical strands, we are led to the pro-
position that the cleavages and conflicts of Equity refers to the unencumbered value
residential neighborhoods may be explained, inherent in land and buildings. In a market
in part, by the different and competing economy, equity is the fair market value of
interests that people have in a neighbor- real property minus any debt that encum-
hood’s land and buildings. A better under- bers that property. It is the value that exists
standing of the conditions for collective free and clear once a mortgage, lien, or any
action on a territorial basis begins with a other liability has been paid off. Part of this
better understanding of the interests engen- value is created by the dollars and labor of
dered by domestic property.3 the individual owner, poured into the prop-
There are two basic types of domestic erty over a period of time. Another part,
property interests: accommodation and often the larger part, is less a product of the
accumulation. People have an interest in the owner’s investment than a gratuitous wind-
use value of domestic property, utilizing res- fall bestowed by the surrounding society.
idential land and buildings for personal This “social increment” is a function of
354 |╇╇ J. E. Davis

numerous factors, including the public’s therefore, linking every property to those
investment in services, facilities, and infra- around it, and frequently a source of social
structure, the region’s growth, and the rela- conflict as well, pitting one interest group
tive scarcity of land and housing. It is also a against another.
function of the general amenity of a parcel’s
setting. As Cox (1981, p. 434) has noted, “a
variety of property-�value studies .╛.╛. find that LIQUIDITY
such resources as school quality, public
safety, quiet, and even views of Pacific On the most basic level, liquidity is synony-
sunsets are indeed reflected in house values.” mous with “ease of sale,” the facility with
Whether created by the property’s owner or which equity can be converted into cash.
by the surrounding society, equity accrues Liquidity is more than marketability,
to individual parcels of property and however, because domestic property may
belongs to whoever happens to be the prop- also produce a stream of income without
erty’s owner. Equity is commonly defined as being sold. Residential land and buildings
“the owner’s interest.” may generate income from monthly rents.
Domestic property can be regarded as a They may be used for collateral, permitting
kind of financial repository where a combi- the owner to raise cash for personal use or
nation of personally created and publicly profitable investment. Equity may be
created wealth is embedded in residential unlocked from a parcel of property through
land and buildings. Unlike savings in a local a “reverse equity mortgage,” creating an
bank, however, the financial stake that a annuity for a homeowner who continues to
person has in domestic property is neither inhabit the house. Domestic property may
protected nor predictable. Equity in land also function as a tax shelter, reducing the
and buildings is not a private, autonomous owner’s tax liability on income derived from
transaction between owner and owned, other sources.
where a dollar in is always a dollar out. Liquidity is clearly related to equity. Gen-
Equity, instead, is a relational advantage, erally, the higher the equity, the greater a
contingent upon the decisions and behavior property’s income potential; the lower the
of many actors. Much of what gives value equity, the lower its income potential. Any-
to domestic property is social, not thing that affects the equity in a parcel of
individual. domestic property will usually affect the
Equity is also precarious, since many of income that can be realized from that parcel.
the conditions that contribute to a property’s But liquidity also has a life of its own. There
value can also take it away, should circum- are factors that affect liquidity rather differ-
stances change. Even the equity which an ently than they affect equity. Favorable tax
individual creates through his or her own breaks or governmental rent subsidies, for
investment can be wiped out by changes in example, can generate a stream of income
the maintenance or amenity of proximate that is much higher than a neighborhood’s
parcels of domestic property, by changes in severely depressed property values might
the level of private or public investment in otherwise allow. Conversely, a property
the surrounding neighborhood, or by with a high value may become unrentable
changes in the regional economy. because of high vacancy rates in the local
Since equity may be harmed as well as rental market, the low amenity of the sur-
enhanced by the actions of others, it is not rounding neighborhood, or the low status of
only a precarious advantage, but often a the surrounding neighbors. Laws such as
contentious one as well. The financial rent control, anti-�conversion ordinances,
benefit that one group of people expects to and zoning may also limit the income that
enjoy from domestic property can be threat- can be derived from rental property that is
ened by a competing use that another group otherwise quite valuable.
intends for proximate parcels of property. Aside from the fact that equity and
Equity is both a product of social relations, liquidity can vary independently, they
 Domestic Property Interests and Community╇╇ | 355

should be treated as separate property inter- differently from equity and liquidity. Legacy
ests for the simple reason that domestic involves a person (or group) in a set of rela-
property is regularly used in two very differ- tionships and bestows an orientation toward
ent ways. It can be used to accumulate action that is different from the relational
wealth through appreciating property values ties and action orientation engendered by
(equity), a benefit usually realized upon the equity or liquidity.
property’s sale. Or it can be used to gener-
ate income (liquidity), a benefit usually real-
ized throughout the property’s tenure. The SECURITY
different uses reflect different ways that
people exploit the financial potential of land With security, we turn from interests of
and housing. They represent different bene- exchange to those of use. If exchange
fits that people derive from domestic depends on domestic property being “worth
property. something,” use depends on the property
being safely and predictably “with
someone.” It depends on someone having a
LEGACY secure hold over whatever housing he or she
occupies. Even more basic than security of
Domestic property is an inheritable estate, tenure, but closely related, is physical safety.
often the single most valuable possession Domestic property shelters one from the
that is passed from one generation to weather, shields one from the lawless, and,
another. Since inherited property may also if there is a garden, nourishes one as well.
be used for personal shelter by one’s heirs, Security as safety is a function, in part, of
there is some reason to consider legacy as the condition, repair, and design of the
much of a “use interest” as an “exchange property itself. In this respect, security and
interest.” Indeed, many homeowners who amenity (another use interest) go hand-Â�in-
bequeath domestic property to their children hand. Security is also a function, however,
do so in the hope that one of their children of the social climate from which the occu-
will actually occupy the dwelling. pants of domestic property seek shelter.
Such a legacy of use, however, is not as Safety does not stop at a person’s front
common in the United States as it once might door. A milieu in which assault or theft is
have been, or as common as it tends to be in common jeopardizes the physical safety of
other countries. More typical are those cases the occupants of even the most structurally
in which the bequeathed property is quickly sound dwelling. The security of domestic
sold and the proceeds divided among several property and the security of the surrounding
heirs, or the property is immediately rented neighborhood are interrelated.
out, providing heirs with an annual income. Equally dependent on this interrelation-
It is the exchange value of domestic prop- ship of property and place is security of
erty, not its use value, which is often the tenure. Although largely a function of the
greater interest of those who bequeath the legal arrangements under which a property
property and, even more frequently, of those is owned, occupied, and used, the “right to
who receive the property. stay put” is affected by other factors as
Although closely related to equity and well.4 Cycles of private investment and dis-
liquidity, there are three reasons to differen- investment, for instance, not only raise or
tiate legacy from these other accumulative lower the exchange value of domestic prop-
interests: there is the potential for one’s erty; they often exert displacement pressures
heirs to inhabit the property, where its use on renters and homeowners alike. Abandon-
value temporarily trumps its exchange value; ment and redlining on one side of the cycle,
the futurity of the interest casts the prop- and gentrification, condominium conver-
erty’s profitability in a different light; and sions, and office building development on
some social factors, such as public policies the other, can threaten whatever residential
governing taxes and estates, affect legacy security a population may have.
356 |╇╇ J. E. Davis

Public investment—or disinvestment— Amenity, like security, has a large social

can also jeopardize security. The sort of component. The quality of one’s personal
massive removal of thousands of low-� living space is inseparable from the safety,
income residents that occurred under urban health, beauty, and ambiance of the com-
renewal is less common today, but munal living space—that is, one’s neighbor-
government-�initiated displacement still hood. The availability of essential services
occurs, directly or indirectly. As Hartman and the proximity of jobs, stores, schools,
(1984, p. 303) has pointed out, “a great and recreational facilities are also a part of
deal of ostensibly private-�sector displace- neighborhood amenity.
ment is supported by or the indirect result Amenity encompasses, therefore, both the
of government policies, programs or individual and the social, private space and
actions.” Low-Â�interest loans for downtown public space. It is contingent, in both realms,
redevelopment, tax policies that encourage upon a host of factors and actors, especially
luxury renovation of historic buildings, the political decisions of public officials in
landlord–tenant laws that permit easy evic- allocating facilities and services and the eco-
tion, or credit laws that permit easy fore- nomic decisions of private investors in
closure are only a few of the factors that making loans, buying property, and devel-
may adversely affect residential security. oping commercial and residential buildings.
Security, like the other interests of Closer to home, amenity is contingent upon
domestic property, is a social product of the whatever one’s neighbors are doing with
neighborhood and society in which a prop- their property and whatever is happening in
erty is embedded. Security is a relational the neighborhood as a whole. The quality of
advantage, made precarious by its contin- one’s personal living space and the quality
gency upon many social factors. Further- of the communal living space tend to rise or
more, to the extent that a person’s security fall together.
can be undermined or threatened by other
actors, near and far, as they avidly pursue
their own economic or political interests, AUTONOMY
security is not only a precarious advantage,
but frequently a contentious one as well. Autonomy refers both to the degree of
control that one is able to exercise over
domestic property and to the degree of indi-
AMENITY viduation that such property impresses
upon its occupants. Autonomy as control is
Amenity refers to the quantity and quality essentially a matter of one’s ability to use,
of one’s living space. At its most basic level, shape, and develop one’s housing independ-
amenity is a matter of sound housing in ently of the dictates of another. Autonomy
good repair. It is what housing activists and as individuation refers to the contribution
public health officials have long sought to that domestic property makes to personal
achieve via health, safety, and building privacy, power, and identity. The home-
codes. Amenity has many gradations, place functions for many persons as a
however, and quickly rises beyond basic “realm of personal control in a world where
health and safety. It includes a broad range he or she generally feels impotent” (Rakoff,
of quantitative and qualitative variations in 1977, p. 101). It is a private, separate
the size, design, decoration, and energy effi- sphere, providing some insulation against
ciency of a residential building, as well as the self-�images imposed by the larger
variations in the acreage, topography, and society. Domestic property may also func-
other physical attributes of residential land. tion as a status symbol, raising or lowering
All of these make a parcel of domestic prop- personal esteem in the eyes of one’s neigh-
erty more or less comfortable, pleasant, and bors. As Logan (1978, p. 407) has pointed
appealing. All are part of a property’s out, “a home is not just where you live; it is
amenity. a location in a well-�developed status
 Domestic Property Interests and Community╇╇ | 357

ecology.” Autonomy and identity are tightly tations that one’s neighbors may have con-
intertwined. cerning the “proper” maintenance, design,
On a more macro level, the autonomy of improvement, and use of domestic property.
domestic property has been associated with As for non-�owners, whatever privacy or
the political independence of individuals and control they possess will depend largely on
the “home rule” of local areas. The notion the legal language of their lease, but the con-
that personal control over domestic prop- ditions of their occupancy are also a social
erty provides a basis for an independent, product of landlord–tenant law and housing
self-�governing citizenry is a recurrent theme quality standards governing rental property.
of political theory. Especially in America The control that one is able to exercise
there was early acceptance of the view that over a parcel of property is contingent, in
men of property possessed a moderation of short, upon numerous social factors. Auton-
desire, a freedom of thought, and an inde- omy is a relational advantage, a precarious
pendence of political judgment lacking in product of the social environment in which
those who owned no land. Only landowners a property is embedded. Furthermore, to the
were permitted to vote. Although the United extent that part of its precariousness is due
States long ago extended the franchise, there to the strategic activity of other groups pur-
is still a cultural tendency to associate suing their advantage, sometimes to the det-
autonomy in the private realm of domestic riment of one’s own, autonomy is also
property with independence and participa- inherently contentious. An interest in auton-
tion in the public, political arena. Those omy not only draws one into relation with
who exercise greater control over their various policies, institutions, and norms that
private space, by virtue of owning domestic delimit one’s privacy and control over
property, are believed to participate more domestic property, therefore. It also draws
freely and fully in public affairs. Perin one into relations with various social groups
(1977, p. 56) has described this lingering who may threaten the autonomy that one
ideological association between homeown- already has.
ership and citizenship in the starkest way:
“Homeowners are full fledged citizens.
Renters are not.” DOMESTIC PROPERTY AS A “BUNDLE
Of all the interests of domestic property, OF INTERESTS”
autonomy would seem the least social, the
least relational. Yet the degree of privacy These six relational advantages of domestic
and control that one enjoys over domestic property might be treated theoretically as
property is regularly affected by the sur- housing preferences (or “values”), housing
rounding social environment. The freedom services (or “utilities”), or, in the jargon of
to use and improve domestic property, for real estate law, as “sticks” in a property’s
example, is dependent upon whatever land-Â� “bundle of rights.” For the purpose of
use controls, building codes, rental guide- explaining collective action, however, they
lines, or anti-Â�conversion ordinances happen are better seen as “interests.” The attributes
to be in effect at the time. Use and improve- that make them “interests” are their mater-
ment are contingent, as well, on contractual ial, objective, collective, and relational char-
relations between the owners of property acter, as well as the action orientation they
and the lenders who finance it. Most mort- bestow upon different domestic property
gage and development loans carry a stipula- positions.
tion of inspection and approval by the To say that these advantages are material
lender for any major changes that the owner is to claim for equity, liquidity, legacy,
may later propose for the mortgaged security, amenity, and autonomy little more
property. than that they originate in the tenures and
The latitude that an owner has in using functions of a physical entity—land and
his or her property is also affected, to some buildings used for shelter. They also affect
degree, by neighborhood norms—the expec- the physical or economic well-Â�being—i.e.,
358 |╇╇ J. E. Davis

the material condition—of those who have a relational bond, existing among similarly
personal stake in such property. situated individuals, which may become the
These six advantages are objective in the basis for solidarity and collective action
sense that one’s position in relation to among them.5
domestic property carries a probability of Equity, liquidity, legacy, security,
particular benefits, a susceptibility to par- amenity, and autonomy have also been
ticular costs, and a propensity to act in described as being relational. They each
certain ways that inhere in the position have a character that is social, locational,
itself, regardless of whether the incumbent precarious, and sometimes contentious.
of that position is aware of this state of They are “social” in the sense that all of
affairs. Saunders (1984, p. 207) puts it well, these interests are contingent upon numer-
when describing the “objective conditions” ous factors in the environment surrounding
that distinguish homeowners from tenants: any parcel of domestic property. Whatever
private interest an individual may have in
Owner-�occupiers, for example, form a distinct using domestic property is invariably
sectoral interest not because as property defined, limited, threatened, or enhanced by
owners they mainly believe that they have the market forces, public policies, and social
same sort of stake in the capitalist system, nor conditions of the encapsulating social struc-
because their lifestyle (e.g., suburbanism)
ture. These interests are “locational” in the
leads them to claim a superior status to that
of non-�owners, but because the objective con-
sense that every parcel of domestic property
ditions of their material existence are such as is situated in—and connected to—a given
to drive a wedge between their interests and locale. Some of the most important con-
life-Â�chances and those of non-Â�owners. ditions affecting one’s property interests are
those that are associated with the parcels
A group does not need to be aware of its and actions of one’s closest neighbors. Prox-
property stake for someone else to gauge imate parcels and proximate actors are
what the group’s interests might be. It is not linked together in a “community of fate.”
even necessary for people to want those To have a stake in property is to have a
interests or to defend them for an outside stake in place as well.6
observer to assess the interests inherent in The relational character of domestic
their property position or what relation property interests is also “precarious” and
those interests may have to social factors “contentious.” These interests are precari-
that threaten or enhance them. There will be ous because, in their contingency upon so
times, in fact, when an outside observer can many social and locational factors, they are
make a judgment of a person’s (or a group’s) susceptible to fluctuation, erosion, or loss.
interest that is more accurate than that Their precariousness, in particular, is a con-
which is made by the “interested” party. sequence of many actors pursuing their
The six interests of domestic property are advantage at the expense of one’s own.
objective in a double sense, therefore. They People may find themselves antagonistically
inhere in one’s objective relation to land and related, therefore, even if they neither recog-
buildings used for shelter, and they can be nize nor want such enmity, simply because
objectively assessed by an uninterested of a different and conflicting stake in
observer. domestic property. Their interests are objec-
To assert that domestic property interests tively contentious.7
are collective is not to embrace the dubious To have an interest in a parcel of
thesis that interests are structural properties domestic property, within a specific territo-
of collectivities, having nothing to do with rial space, is to become enmeshed in a
individual actors. Interests are collective complex web of local and extra-�local rela-
only in the sense that people who share a tions that both affect one’s advantage, for
common relation to domestic property are better or worse, and orient one’s behavior in
presumed to share a common set of inter- a particular way. This action orientation
ests. These common interests are a latent, reflects the propensity of people to act in
 Domestic Property Interests and Community╇╇ | 359

pursuit or defense of their own property NOTES

interests. These interests bestow not only a
propensity to act, but a propensity to act 1. Excerpted from “Domestic property as a bundle
of interests,” Chapter Four of Contested ground:
with or against other people. There is a
Collective action and the urban neighborhood.
latent tendency for the incumbents of the Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991.
same property position, sharing a common 2. The analysis of housing classes most relevant to
set of interests, to act collectively in defense the present discussion is found in Saunders (1984)
(or enhancement) of those interests. Sim- and Pratt (1982).
3. This builds upon Molotch (1976, p. 311) who
ilarly, there is a latent tendency for the
argued that every locality should be seen “not
incumbents of different property positions, merely as a demarcation of legal, political or top-
having antagonistic domestic property inter- ographical features, but as a mosaic of competing
ests, to act contentiously in defense (or land interests capable of strategic coalition and
enhancement) of their respective interests. action.”
4. A longer discussion of the “right to stay put” can
Whether this dual orientation actually leads
be found in Hartman (1984), who coined the
to collective action and inter-�group conflict phrase.
will depend on many conditions of con- 5. At least 10 property-�based collectivities may be
sciousness and organization. Even when found in urban neighborhoods that have a diversity
people’s interests are threatened, there is no of types and tenures of housing: the homeless,
public tenants, private tenants, social homeowners,
certainty that they will act collectively or
household homeowners, acquisitive homeowners,
contentiously—or act at all. There is only a landlords, financiers, developers, and speculators.
possibility that they will behave in this way, These “domestic property interest groups” exist
though a possibility made more probable by only in embryo. They are objectively constituted
the interests that are theirs. social formations that may or may not develop into
consciously organized, politically active groups.
In the end, it is this probability of pat-
6. “Community of fate” was coined by Logan
terned and predictable behavior that pro- (1978), although I am using the term differently.
vides the principal reason for treating the My own use is closer to that of Blum and King-
relational advantages of domestic property ston (1984, p. 175), who speak of homeowners
as a “bundle of interests,” rather than pref- sharing “an important economic fate with their
neighbors.” A similar idea is expressed by Qadeer
erences, utilities, or rights. To regard these
(1981) who speaks of the “web of externalities”
advantages as property interests, within the in which urban land is enmeshed.
Marxist meaning of that term, is to discover 7. Property interests that are different are not always
a means by which collective action and antagonistic. Cooperation, rather than conflict, is
inter-�group conflict on a territorial basis occasionally possible across the political divide
created by different property positions and prop-
might be explained. These interests establish
erty interests.
an essential theoretical connection between
the property and polity of the place of resi-
dence: linking a locality’s material base with
the differentiation and political action of its REFERENCES
indigenous groups; linking the spatial and
Blum, T. C. & Kingston, P. W. (1984). Homeowner-
the social. Interests of equity, liquidity, ship and social attachment. Sociological Perspec-
legacy, security, amenity, and autonomy tives, 27 (April), 159–180.
provide a means of comprehending why the Cox, K. R. (1981). Capitalism and conflict around the
territory of a common locale can sometimes communal living space. In M. Dear & A. J. Scott
become a seedbed for collective action. They (Eds.), Urbanization and urban planning in capitalist
society (pp. 431–455). New York: Methuen.
provide the raw materials for an explana- Hartman, C. (1984). The right to stay put. In C. Geisler
tion of group formation and inter-�group & F. Popper (Eds.), Land reform, American style (pp.
conflict in the residential urban neighÂ� 302–318). Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
borhood. Logan, J. R. (1978). Growth, politics, and the stratifi-
cation of places. American Journal of Sociology,
84(2), 404–415.
Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine.
American Journal of Sociology, 82 (September),
309–331.
360 |╇╇ J. E. Davis

Perin, C. (1977). Everything in its place: Social order Rakoff, R. (1977). Ideology in everyday life: The
and land use in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton meaning of the house. Politics and Society, 7(1),
University Press. 85–104.
Pratt, G. (1982). Class analysis and urban domestic Saunders, P. (1984). Beyond housing classes: The socio-
property: A critical reexamination. International logical significance of private property rights in
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 6(4), means of consumption. International Journal of
481–501. Urban and Regional Research, 2 (June), 202–225.
Qadeer, M. A. (1981). The nature of urban land. Tilly, C. (1974). Do communities act? In M. P. Effrat
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, (Ed.), The community: Approaches and applications
40(2), 165–182. (pp. 209–240). New York: The Free Press.
 CHAPTER 42

The CDC Model of Urban Development

A Critique and an Alternative

Randy Stoecker

THE CDC DEBATE strengthening community leadership.

Keating, Rasey, and Krumholz (1990, p.
For many years I have followed and worked 213) conclude that CDCs fail to achieve the
with community development corporations broader goals of “political and economic
(CDCs). I have become increasingly dis- independence and self-Â�sufficiency.”
tressed, however, by their lack of impact Consequently, some wonder if CDCs are
and by our fading memory of why CDCs a case of social movement co-�optation.
exist. This chapter analyzes the role of the Many neighborhood association members
CDC in the urban political economy, see CDCs as having lost their grassroots
exploring what purposes it serves and what mentality. Consequently, critics charge,
impacts it can have. It also proposes an CDCs have become another developer fol-
alternative model of urban redevelopment lowing a free market approach to redevelop-
that emphasizes community organizing, ment (Lenz, 1988; Taub, 1990) rather than
community-�based planning, and high capa� fighting for the social change necessary to
city multi-�local CDCs. support sustainable communities. Taub
Despite the growth of CDCs in the last (1990, p. 2) states that “The CDC world is
30 years, numerous analysts, including CDC filled with tales of ruthless screening, fast
advocates, cannot find evidence that CDCs evictions, and strict enforcement of behavio-
have enough impact to reverse neighbor- ral standards.” Lenz (1988, p. 25) decries
hood decline (Rubin, 1994b; Berndt, 1977; the “terrible paradox of thriving organiza-
Pierce & Steinbach, 1990) or that the devel- tions and dying communities.”
opment they produce would not have hap- CDC advocates respond passionately.
pened anyway (Marquez, 1993). CDCs do Like other service providers, they see their
better than local housing authorities at pro- work as at least a necessary Band-�Aid. We
viding housing, but it is “a drop in an ocean should not expect high productivity from
of need” (Twelvetrees, 1989, p.€ 155). CDCs, they say, because they operate in
�Twelvetrees argues that if CDCs are to be weak markets, precisely why for-�profit
rated according to three levels of success developers avoid those neighborhoods.
(staying in existence, achieving their major Without CDCs, they argue, there would be
objectives, and achieving those objectives no development in urban America’s most
efficiently), then only the largest CDCs show deteriorated neighborhoods (Hamilton,
success beyond the first level. CDCs are 1992; Bratt, 1989; Vidal, 1992). Further,
rarely credited with improvements in quality CDCs are more likely to meets the needs of
of life, community stability, resident health the poor and even raise expectations that
and happiness, and personal empowerment will lead to political pressure for social
(Taub, 1990). Vidal (1992) notes that only change (Rubin, 1995). Additionally, CDC
25% of CDCs say they have sparked major adherents argue that the community organ-
increases in community pride, and half izing model (a more confrontational,
say€ they have made some progress in conflict-�oriented political approach to
362 |╇╇ R. Stoecker

addressing poverty) is no longer appropriate of potential investors to see opportunities in

because neighborhood structure has the neighborhood; (2) profit maximization
changed, the targets are hidden, and there that prevented socially conscious investing;
are fewer local vital organizations. (3) and social/legal restrictions on invest-
Missing in this debate is a theoretical ment such as zoning laws. However, as gov-
understanding of the CDC. How does the ernment finances disappeared, CDCs had to
CDC interact with the contradictions of give up even this moderate “directed capit-
urban capitalism? What are the political-Â� alism” and “accommodate themselves to,
economic forces impinging on the CDC, rather than redirect, the course of the free
potentially hindering effectiveness? To market” (Marquez, 1993, p.€ 289). Their
understand these questions, we must look at goal is not to transform society but to
urban political economy and how the CDC “extend the benefits of the American eco-
model of urban redevelopment interacts nomic mainstream .â•›.â•›. to [those] that are left
with it. out” (Pierce & Steinbach, 1990, p.€ 33). At
best, poor neighborhoods are seen as weak
markets requiring reinvestment rather than
THE CDC MODEL as oppressed communities requiring mobil-
ization, leading CDCs to work within the
The continuing critiques of CDCs across existing economic rules.
three decades suggest that more is at issue It is important to understand that this
than imperfect practice. My argument is not model can work only by assuming that
that CDCs have been doing bad things, or capital and poor communities have com-
operate with evil intent. As Lenz (1988, p. plementary interests. As Berndt (1977, p.
25) notes, CDC practitioners “are good 126) noted, “CDCs have accepted the
people with bad theory.” Many CDC dir- rationale of the corporation within capitalist
ectors hold dearly to the goals of commun- society.” CDCs have come to operate more
ity empowerment and political activism. and more like businesses, narrowing their
Some CDCs succeed at avoiding the prob- activities to physical development. Many
lems discussed later (Rubin, 1997), but CDCs impose rules on tenants that are no
those exceptions only serve to emphasize different from any other landlord rather
that it is not the CDCs, but the model we than empowering residents to govern
hold up for CDCs to meet and the US polit- themselves.
ical economy that are the problems.
From the beginning CDCs were to
accomplish bottom-�up, comprehensive rede- POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE CDC
velopment. The bottom-�up approach is sup- MODEL
posed to help the community determine how
to conduct redevelopment and produce Understanding the problems with the CDC
more homes and businesses owned by com- model requires understanding the relation-
munity members. They are also supposed to ship between capital and community. The
empower whole communities through com- relationship between capital and community
prehensive treatment of social and physical is at least potentially contradictory (Feagin
conditions, measuring success in terms of & Parker, 1990; Logan & Molotch, 1987).
physical redevelopment and community Community’s tendency is to preserve neigh-
regeneration, participation, and empower- borhood space as a use value for the service
ment. As Kelly (1977, p. 18) says, this of community members, while capital’s
model is “socialistic-Â�sounding” but “the tendency is to convert neighborhood space
socialistic aspect is more apparent than into exchange values that can be speculated
real.” For the third part of the CDC model on for a profit. This sets up an antagonistic
is an acceptance of free market philosophy. relationship. Capital’s conversion of neigh-
The CDC model originally attempted to borhood space into exchange values drives
correct three market failures: (1) the inability up rents, destroys green space, eliminates
 The CDC Model of Urban Development╇╇ | 363

neighborhood-�based commerce, and dis- and neighborhood roots) inhibit access to

rupts neighboring patterns. Capital is less the capital and expertise that comprehen-
willing to invest in neighborhood redevelop- siveness demands. The community-�based
ment that maintains neighborhood spaces as ideology in the CDC model promotes ama-
use values because that would prevent teurism and volunteerism, isolating CDCs
speculation and limit profit accumulation. from prominent capital actors and experts.
Either through destructive investment or The ideology of the CDC as community
disinvestment community suffers. based also leads to a belief that the CDC is
Further antagonistic relationships exist in an alternative to government programs.
the city between workers and employers, Only about half of CDC operating budgets
and between renters and rentiers. Most is provided through government sources
important to the dynamics of this struggle, (Goetz, 1993). The public sector is reluctant
however, are those who are neither clearly to commit funds to CDCs because of the
workers nor owners, renters nor rentiers. lack of CDC productivity caused by inade-
Those in the middle occupy contradictory quate funding. Also, because CDCs purport
locations between the haves and have-�nots. to be community controlled, public adminis-
The members of this vast middle are part trators rationalize that their funding should
owner, and part proletariat. They also come from the community as well. The
control their own housing, but still pay rent impossibility of that occurring is ignored.
in the form of a mortgage. As a con- Government funding of CDCs may be most
sequence, they are pulled in two directions useful for maintaining social order. Enough
at once. The middle class is therefore cul� money is provided to stave off social unrest,
turally unpredictable and politically but not enough to threaten the unequal
constrained. balance of power. Conservative government
It is this insecure and unpredictable celebrates CDCs while providing just
middle location that CDCs occupy. CDCs enough money to help them fail—suggesting
manage capital like capitalists, but do not that government and corporations are sys-
invest it for a profit. They manage projects tematically hostile to empowering commun-
but within the constraints set by their ity development.
funders. They try to be community oriented The consequence is victim blaming.
while their purse strings are held by outsid- Developers are believed to fail or succeed
ers. They are pressured by capital to produce based on their skills, not their circum-
exchange values in the form of capitalist stances, so project failure is attributed to the
business spaces and rental housing. They are CDC (and thus the community) doing a bad
pressured by communities to produce use job. The reality, however, is that CDCs are
values in the form of services, homeowner- grotesquely under-�funded organizations
ship, and green spaces. This is more than a working in disinvested communities requir-
“double bottom-Â�line.” It is the internaliza- ing massive capital infusion. Self-Â�help is
tion of the capital–community contradiction unrealistic under such conditions and “may
and it leads to trouble. The result is three worsen problems in neighborhoods that
problems besetting the CDC model: (1) the require more, not fewer, resources.â•›.â•›.â•›. An
limits to comprehensiveness; (2) the myth of emphasis on self-�help should not be used to
community control; and (3) the develop- divert attention from the context” (Checko-
ment of disorganization. way, 1985, p.€482)
The role of the CDC has become that of
a means to divert our attention from the
Limits to Comprehensiveness
context. The media celebrate a single small
CDC work requires expertise ranging from initiative in a sea of decay and the public
finance, insurance, and real estate to archi- sees small CDC accomplishments portrayed
tecture to zoning laws, along with a vast as big victories and comes to believe there is
amount of capital. The things that can make little need for their taxes or their donations.
CDCs community based (their smallness Then they blame CDCs and their associated
364 |╇╇ R. Stoecker

communities when redevelopment fails. Of ing, costly, and hard to manage projects.
course, the way to get beyond the problem CDCs often have more complex organiza-
of smallness and the failure associated with tional structures than comparable for-�
it is to access massive resources. That, profits. This increasing complexity removes
however, carries its own burden and leads even more control from the community.
to the next problem. Control devolves to staff, who often live
outside the community and are more likely
to emphasize the technical details of devel-
The Myth of Community Control
opment over community empowerment
The assumption in the model that CDCs are (Rubin, 1994a). CDC boards, at most,
independent community-�based solutions to provide broad guidance rather than direct
urban decay mystifies the reality of external decision-�making.
control. The problem of maintaining com- Even if the board maintains informed
munity control is rooted in the fact that control, it may not represent the commun-
poor communities do not have enough com- ity. The board of the first CDC—Bed-Â�Stuy
munity controlled capital and must woo Restoration Corporation—was dominated
outside capital whose tendency is to trans- by U.S. Senator Jacob Javits, Ethel Kennedy,
form use values into exchange values. The the chairman of Mobil Oil, and the presid-
role of funders in subverting social change ent of Citibank (Berndt, 1977). Businesses
efforts has been well established generally often play a stronger role in directing CDC
(Roelofs, 1987) and in regard to CDCs policy than residents (Vidal, 1992). The fact
(Kelly, 1977). The Local Initiatives Support that board membership is neither glamorous
Corporation (LISC), the single most lauded nor exciting also hinders resident participa-
funder of CDCs, is controlled by elites who tion. This lack of participation can lead to
often view redevelopment from an exchange decisions that do not reflect the community
value perspective rather than a use value and produce festering resentments (Heskin,
perspective. Other large foundation sup- 1991). Even CDC supporters agree that
porters of CDCs are little different, evaluat- CDCs do not “necessarily aim for, nor result
ing CDCs for their economic acceptability in, widespread participation by the affected
rather than their ability to serve community tenants” (Bratt, 1989, p. 312).
needs. While CDCs may be able to use those Regardless of how much those within
funds without technically being co-�opted, CDCs think of themselves as having common
the funds still impose limitations because interests with the community, it is question�
they embody the profit principle, especially able that they do. Two-�thirds of CDCs
after government funding plummeted in the manage the housing they develop (Vidal,
1980s and was replaced by comparatively 1992). Consequently, CDCs are landlords
minuscule private sector funding. and thus have an interest in maintaining the
This sets up a secondary contradiction financial solvency of the organization, even if
between affordability and control. Outside they are nicer about it than for-�profit land-
capital resists supporting redevelopment that lords. Renters, however, have an interest in
maintains community control. Government, maintaining the affordability of their housing.
bowing to market ideology, follows similar This creates a structural antagonism that
rules. CDCs often must choose between divides the CDC from the community. Bratt
acting quickly enough to take advantage of (1989, pp.€ 234–235) implicitly distinguishes
fleeting funding opportunities and practicing “community-Â�based group” (apparently refer-
more cumbersome democracy (Twelvetrees, ring to CDCs) and “its constituency” as if the
1989). Thus, redevelopment that maintains concepts refer to different things. Residents
community control is expensive and redevel- also miss the contradiction. When redevelop-
opment that is affordable requires giving up ment fails, they blame each other rather than
control to outside funders. targeting the external causes.
In addition, as funding becomes scarcer, Ultimately, the control–affordability
CDCs package more complex, time consum- contradiction has “created responsibility
 The CDC Model of Urban Development╇╇ | 365

without control .â•›.â•›. [and] transformed polit-whether CDCs do any substantial organ-
ical questions for the political community izing, seeing them as consciously apolitical
into technical questions more accessible to (Keating et al., 1990). Giloth (1985, p. 39)
experts” (Heskin, 1991, p.€73). Under these sums up the problem by citing that “There
conditions, the CDC model is in danger of is housing advocacy and development—but
creating weaker rather than stronger little squatting.” In other words, working
communities. within the rules, CDCs accept what trickles
down rather than help people mobilize to
reclaim what has been taken away. Not only
The Development of Disorganization
is organizing neglected, but the CDC tries to
Market processes are unpredictable, unsta- be the neighborhood voice (Vidal, 1992).
ble, unaccountable, and disorganizing. They This is dangerous because we have already
allow the destruction of communities seen that CDCs are not adequate representa-
through speculative investment and disin- tives of neighborhood interests. The CDC
vestment. When CDCs behave as market-� may compete for public attention with
oriented organizations, they become part of organizing groups, dividing the community
those disorganizing forces. CDCs are also between CDC supporters and organizing
pressured to support the capital side of the group supporters (Stoecker, 1994, 1995).
capital–community contradiction and put The CDC also may delegitimize the organ-
organizational profit ahead of community izing group by making it appear more mili-
benefit (Twelvetrees, 1989; Berndt, 1977). tant because CDCs are less threatening to
When the CDC fails, it contributes to power holders than community action
neighborhood decline. When the CDC suc- organizations.
ceeds, it may also lead to neighborhood Even if the CDC understands community
decline by disorganizing the community. organizing as a true empowerment strategy,
Community development, when it emphas- it is unlikely the CDC is the best vehicle for
izes the physical over the social and remains conducting community organizing. Con-
limited to the possibilities dictated by capital, strained by their funding, CDCs cannot take
may actually increase turnover and displace- the risks necessary to produce empowering
ment within a community (Taub, 1990). community organizing. Additionally, organ-
Can CDCs develop community? Analysts izing and even service efforts take a back
have emphasized that CDCs do “projects,” seat to development when financial or polit-
but the continuing influence of the compre- ical pressures bear down. Rooted in the cap-
hensive emphasis has led to talk about ital–community contradiction, development
CDCs promoting community organizing. It and organizing can become contradictory
is unclear, however, whether CDC advo- missions (Stoecker, 1994, 1995).
cates understand what community organ- The CDC model potentially increases
izing is, would want to do it if they knew, internal community conflict, displacement,
or could do it if they wanted to. The CDC and disempowerment when it fails and when
model “has confused the building of power it succeeds. While CDCs try to work where
with the building of structures” (Traynor, government left off, they depend on govern-
1992, p. 9). ment, while they try to be community con-
The classic community organizing model trolled, they must respond to outside
does not appear to fit the CDC definition schedules and funds, and while they are
that uses advocacy synonymously with effective because they are small, the prob-
organizing. Community organizers under- lems are big (Twelvetrees, 1989). What is to
stand organizing as developing relationships be done? Many groups got into develop-
so people can press their demands collec- ment because they believed they were not
tively and gain power through that process. getting enough out of community organ-
Advocacy is an expert speaking for a con- izing, but they found that doing develop-
stituency, rather than helping them speak ment affected fewer people and made
for themselves. Some analysts question organizing more difficult (Bratt, 1989).
366 |╇╇ R. Stoecker

A NEW MODEL The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative

(DSNI) (Medoff & Sklar, 1994) focused on
It is too much to expect a CDC to be resist- organizing as the means to development,
ant enough to ward off market pressures while partnering with others to do actual
attempting to co-�opt its agenda, accountable physical redevelopment. In Minneapolis, the
enough to remain under community control, Cedar Riverside neighborhood residents
yet large enough to do the job that is needed conducted organizing through their Project
in disinvested communities. Area Committee, limiting their CDC to only
Given that CDCs are not good at maxi- implementing plans produced through the
mizing community participation and sup- organizing process. In San Antonio, Com-
porting community organizing, the sensible munities Organized for Public Service
solution is to do away with the mythology (COPS) resisted pressure to become a CDC
of the CDC as community based. Removing (in the words of their lead organizer,
the community-Â�based label removes the pos- Ernesto Cortes, “for the obvious reasons”)
sibility of scapegoating the community when as they achieved control of much of San
redevelopment fails; admits to the CDC’s Antonio’s CDBG budget.
potential community disrupting qualities, Community organizing is difficult,
allowing residents to better organize to however. Capitalist disinvestment has so
protect themselves; and removes a compet- disrupted community networks that organ-
ing voice from the neighborhood, allowing izing focused on rebuilding neighborhood
residents’ voices to be heard without the relationships may be necessary before the
filter of a developer. community can engage in more public strug-
Thus, we must also clean up the confus- gle. Defending against, and recovering from,
ing collage of organizational definitions, and the forces that cause neighborhood decay
all the labels only confuse the distinction requires education and planning as much as
between community organizing and devel- strategy and tactics.
opment. Let’s reserve CDC for those organi- The most important part of a community
zations that build buildings, and community organizing model that empowers residents is
organizing group for those organizations the planning process, increasingly seen by
that build community power. And let’s be CDCs as central to development, even if still
wary of those that refuse to admit their neglected in practice. Community-�based
priorities. planning, if done correctly, accomplishes
If we shift from a development model to a four purposes. First, it builds a sense of
community empowerment model, we can find community, becoming an organizing
a place for the CDC that does not so readily process. Second, it educates residents on
contradict community. This new model must what resources and threats exist in their
emphasize human development and organ- neighborhood. Third, it builds community
izing as much as physical development, power, allowing residents to determine what
demand non-�market solutions to the prob- redevelopment they want and thus better
lems of poverty, be wary of public–private defend themselves against speculators.
partnerships, subordinate development plans Finally, it helps residents plan for the ideal,
to an organizing agenda, and promote com- without regard to limitations imposed by
munity, not CDC, control of physical space. elites.
These principles lead to two components of a Harking back to the original CDC model,
new redevelopment model: a community-� the importance of planning being truly com-
controlled organizing/planning process, and prehensive cannot be emphasized enough.
the high-�capacity multi-�local CDC. One of the negative consequences of all past
ghetto revitalization programs has been that
residents move out as soon as their personal
Organize, Organize, Plan
circumstances improve enough, disrupting
Organizing by itself may work as well as the community networks and draining com-
CDC approach in creating redevelopment. munity resources. People need a sense of
 The CDC Model of Urban Development╇╇ | 367

control over their community. Residents is a political, not a technical, problem,

also need material reasons to stay, which which requires mobilizing communities to
means that their personal circumstances and demand action.
surroundings must improve together. And Is this proposal too radical and unrealis-
that means redevelopment cannot be con- tic? Can funders be convinced to give tens
ducted by a small CDC doing a house here of millions of dollars for comprehensive
or a business there. It requires a massive redevelopment in a single neighborhood?
influx of resources at once, and that is where
Can they be convinced to give that money in
the high-�capacity CDC comes in. support of neighborhood-�based plans? Can
support grow for market-�resistant subsidies
to community-�owned and -controlled
The High-�Capacity Multi-�Local CDC
businesses that keep wealth in the
We must build CDCs with adequate capital neighborhood?
capacity. When we remove the community-� The obvious, quick answer is no. No
based mythology from the CDC, individual seems to be the answer only because we
neighborhoods should neither need nor have come so far down the CDC model path
want their own CDC. Large CDCs have that we have forgotten that the real issue is
more capital capacity, more political capa� power, not development. The ideals of a
city, and more collective talent to conduct new model that emphasizes community
physical redevelopment that can outpace empowerment are unlikely to be achieved in
community deterioration. Of course, CDCs the short term, which makes it even more
with greater technical, economic, and polit- important that we begin to rethink a rede-
ical capacity also have greater capacity to velopment model that promotes current
overrun community needs. But there are a national and corporate priorities and
number of ways to counterbalance these myths€ and undermines the potential of
potential troubles. communities.
The most important means of countering
the large CDC’s power is, to develop strong
REFERENCES
community organizing groups with compre-
hensive and detailed redevelopment plans. Berndt, H. E. (1977). New rulers in the ghetto: The
These groups should have enough expertise community development corporation and urban
in the details of redevelopment to construct poverty. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
development contracts that hold CDCs Bratt, R. (1989). Rebuilding a low-�income housing
policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
accountable.
Checkoway, B. (1985). Neighborhood planning organi-
zations: Perspectives and choices. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 21(4), 471–486.
Fight the Power
Feagin, J. R. & Parker, R. (1990). Building American
Is such a model—reemphasizing community cities: The urban real estate game (2nd ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-�Hall.
organizing, expanding the capitalization of
Giloth, R. (1985) Organizing for neighborhood devel-
CDCs, and planning for redevelopment— opment. Social Policy, 15, 37–42.
practical or possible? Who is going to pay Goetz, E. G. (1993). Shelter burden: Local politics and
for this new community-�driven approach? A progressive housing policy. Philadelphia: Temple
federal government in financial tatters, University Press.
Hamilton, E. (1992). Adult education for community
walled in corporations, foundations that
development. New York: Greenwood Press.
trickle minuscule resources on massive prob- Heskin, A. D. (1991). The struggle for community.
lems? Our acceptance of these political real- Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
ities as technical realities, however, Keating, W. D., Rasey, K. P., & Krumholz, N. (1990).
contributes to the problem. Of course devel- Community development corporations in the United
States: Their role in housing and urban redevelop-
opment cannot be done without substantial
ment. In W. van Vliet & J. van Weesep (Eds.), Gov-
government dollars, hefty private sector par- ernment and housing: Developments in seven
ticipation, and enormous foundation countries (pp.€ 206–218). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
support. But the money is there. Accessing it Publications.
368 |╇╇ R. Stoecker

Kelly, R. M. (1977). Community control of economic Rubin, H. (1995). Renewing hope in the inner city:
development: The boards of directors of community Conversations with community-�based development
development corporations. New York: Praeger. practitioners. Administration and Society, 27(1),
Lenz, T. J. (1988). Neighborhood development: Issues 128–161.
and models. Social Policy, 18(4), 24–30. Rubin, H. (1997). Being a conscience and a carpenter:
Logan, J. R. & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: Interpretations of the community-�based development
The political economy of place. Berkeley: University model. Journal of Community Practice, 4(1), 57–90.
of California Press. Stoecker, R. (1994). Defending community: The strug-
Marquez, B. (1993). Mexican American community gle for alternative redevelopment in Cedar Riverside.
development corporations and the limits of directed Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
capitalism. Economic Development Quarterly, 7(3), Stoecker, R. (1995). Community organizing and com-
287–295. munity development in Cedar-Â�Riverside and East
Medoff, P. & Sklar, H. (1994). Streets of hope: The fall Toledo. Journal of Community Practice, 2(3), 1–23.
and rise of an urban neighborhood. Boston: South Taub, R. H. (1990). Nuance and meaning in commun-
End Press. ity development: Finding community and develop-
Pierce, N. R. & Steinbach, C. F. (1990). Enterprising ment. New York: New School of Social Research,
communities: Community-�based development in Community Development Research Center, Gradu-
America, 1990. Washington, DC: Council for ate School of Management and Urban Policy.
Community-�Based Development. Traynor, W. (1992). Community development: Does it
Roelofs, J. (1987). Foundations and social change need to change? Neighborhood Works, April–May,
organizations: The mask of pluralism. Insurgent 9–10, 22–23.
Sociologist, 14(3), 31–72. Twelvetrees, A. (1989). Organizing for neighbourhood
Rubin, H. (1994a). Surviving in the niche: Community-� development. Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
based development organizations and their support Vidal, A. C. (1992). Rebuilding communities: A
environment. Paper presented at the Urban Affairs national study of urban community development
Association annual meetings, New Orleans, LA. corporations. New York: New School for Social
Rubin, H. (1994b). There aren’t going to be any baker- Research, Community Development Research
ies here if there is no money to afford jellyrolls: The Center, Graduate School of Management and Urban
organic theory of community-�based development. Policy.
Social Problems, 41(3), 401–424.
 CHAPTER 43

Strengthening the Connections between Communities and

External Resources
Anne C. Kubisch, Patricia Auspos, Prudence Brown, Robert Chaskin, Karen
Fulbright-�Anderson, and Ralph Hamilton

The concentration of poor people—espe- dynamics, and public policies so forbidding

cially poor people of color—in urban that neighborhood improvement is the best
pockets of poverty did not occur by chance that we can hope for? Will the political and
in this country, or solely as the result of funding climate tolerate this type of work,
choices made by residents of those com- which is more politically oriented than in
munities. The racial and economic isolation, the past? What range of institutions and alli-
poverty concentration, and political disem- ances do we need to tackle these issues? This
powerment that characterize America’s poor chapter argues that participants in commun-
communities are largely the result of identi- ity building need to reinvigorate their
fiable policies and practices embedded in approach to community change so that it
public and private systems and in our soci- addresses the external relationships and
ety’s power structures—factors that would structural factors operating outside com-
exist even without a community-�change munities. Our discussion focuses especially
agenda. They contribute to the persistently on the inherent issues and tensions of four
poor social and economic outcomes experi- key activities: broadening the analysis of the
enced in the neighborhoods that are the problem, finding powerful allies, working
targets of community-�change efforts, and with the public and private sectors, and
they reinforce segregation by race and class. reexamining the assumptions and biases
This suggests that community building embedded in the community building
solutions must understand how these approach.
systems, rules, and structures affect poor
neighborhoods, and then make them work
better by tapping into the resources of BROADENING THE ANALYSIS OF THE
outside institutions and influencing their PROBLEM
actions. That observation raises serious
questions, however: How well do The principle of community building has
community-�change efforts incorporate his- several philosophical underpinnings that
torical and structural phenomena into the emphasize the power of “place” and the
solutions they develop? Does the very nature assets of neighborhood residents. Looking
of community-�based change lead to a bias back at the way community-�based initiatives
toward “local” issues and away from over- unfolded and the evidence of what they have
arching, structural ones? Is it possible to and have not achieved, there is a fundamen-
integrate the work done by community tal tension focusing inward on internal com-
members on their own behalf, within neigh- munity dynamics and capacities and
borhoods, with efforts to influence external addressing external structures which can
players—or do the demands of working enhance or constrain their success. On one
within communities preclude or limit such hand, practitioners and funders believe in
activities? Are the limitations imposed by the power of poor people in poor com-
external funding sources, systems, economic munities to change their environment and
370 |╇╇ A. C. Kubisch et al.

take control of their own destinies. Yet in high- and low-�wage sectors, and residents of
practice, by focusing on neighborhood resi- poor communities were left behind. Housing
dents’ capacity for change, many commun- policies exacerbated the problem. Public
ity building efforts have diminished, housing, intended as a temporary support
underestimated, or been unable to influence for people in economic crisis, became in
the power of external institutions, public many places permanent housing for the per-
policies, and private market dynamics. sistently poor due to processes for selecting
Forward-�looking participants in community tenants, a lack of adequate services, discrim-
change are looking for a new way to frame inatory site-�selection policies, the construc-
their work that captures the critical impor- tion of high-�density developments, and
tance of addressing external issues, even as isolation from surrounding communities.
they continue to expand and deepen Today, exclusionary zoning practices often
capacity-�building efforts within their com- preclude subsidized housing in the suburbs
munities. They agree, as one person said, or raise the cost of building suburban
that “framing the problem really matters. If housing to prohibitive levels. Property tax
it is framed as internal, that leads to one set policies discourage economic integration in
of actions; but if it is framed differently, it the suburbs and make mixed-�income com-
may lead to a very different set of priorities munities hard to create or maintain in cities.
entirely.” Acknowledging the power of the These and similar issues, fueled by power-
policy environment, many conclude that an ful political forces that are extremely diffi-
internal focus is a losing strategy for even cult to budge, shape the context within
the most exemplary practitioners. They which CCIs operate. In the words of one
argue for a new approach that links policy, African-�American researcher,
politics, and place on a metropolitan level
around the goal of expanding opportunities These things did not happen by chance. Those
for poor people. distressed neighborhoods exist because of pol-
Essentially, this “localism” leaves prevail- icies, procedures, and programs that have
ing economic and political paradigms been in place in powerful neighborhoods. The
unchallenged and approaches urban poverty zoning laws, the building codes .â•›.â•›. an entire
infrastructure was built in the first half of the
as a problem for neighborhoods and their
20th century to create the type of segregation
residents. Critics suggest that, instead of that meant that the communities that white
adding an additional set of approaches and people grew up in could only exist because of
strategies to an aging toolbox in need of the type of communities that I grew up in.
innovation, comprehensive community initi- Now, the problem with all of this is that you
atives (CCIs) seemed to displace an older can’t change the conditions in that neighbor-
consciousness about the structure of hood without restructuring the whole
poverty, racism, and the alignments of paradigm.
power that maintain the status quo.
Practitioners, scholars, policymakers, and The challenge is not to give up the local-�
residents can point to several issues that level work but to do a better job of balanc-
need to be reinfused into the analysis of the ing and aligning the two levels. To find that
problem. Problems with economic develop- balance, leaders of change in poor neighbor-
ment and housing policies are particularly hoods need to do two things. First, they
resonant. For example: public policies and must identify the causes of the problems
investments promoted the movement of they are experiencing, in the broadest pos-
middle-�class workers and jobs to the sible way. That means stopping for a
suburbs and left poor people of color iso- moment to consider the historical, institu-
lated in inner-�city neighborhoods. As the tional, and structural origins of problems. If
regional and national economies shifted people begin and end their analysis within
from manufacturing to service and techno- the community, they may miss important
logy, employment opportunities became contextual factors that affect everything
more mobile, the labor market split into they do. The second step is to identify
 Strengthening Connections╇╇ | 371

sources of power outside the neighborhood many different vehicles for change. For
that can be tapped or influenced to help the example, one avenue of work might revolve
community. Again, the challenge here is to around policies, such as the housing mort-
cast the net wide, well beyond traditional gage tax deduction, which are broad and
philanthropies or public programs, to “non-Â�targeted” but benefit the upper and
include various levels of government and middle classes more than low-�income
various types of policies as well as the role people. Here, alliances with national
of the private sector. housing advocacy groups make sense. Other
Armed with the results of those activities, work might focus on key moments in the
participants in community-�change efforts legislative cycle, such as reauthorization of
can develop strategies for addressing funda- welfare or of the Community Reinvestment
mental issues. Judging from the experiences Act. Or, there might be policy trends that
of recent CCIs and other endeavors, those offer opportunities for advocacy. One policy
strategies are likely to include finding organization, for instance, has picked up on
powerful allies, working with the public and the issue of regionalism.
private sectors in new ways, and reexamin-
ing the assumptions and biases that are Coalitions across neighborhoods can expand
embedded in community building. the base and, consequently, the influence of
political constituents.
In one good example, a community group
FINDING POWERFUL ALLIES joined with people in two other neighbor-
hoods to establish a leadership institute that
Although CCIs and other community build- taught residents how to influence policy at
ing ventures should recognize the need to the city and state levels. “It was important
engage forces outside their communities, to team with other communities in order to
they don’t have to lead engagement efforts lobby and advocate—for example, with the
themselves. CCIs do not have the capacity school board,” a practitioner recalled. Other
or the power base for that responsibility. practitioners, cognizant of the suburbs’
The people interviewed for this book offered influence on state legislatures, are consider-
the following observations about what those ing connections with allies outside their
“strategic alliances” might look like. neighborhoods, such as rural districts that
are similarly poor but have more voting
Alliances with national, state, and local power.
policy groups that advocate for disadvan- Alliances across neighborhoods can
taged groups give community-�change initia- become more powerful by including connec-
tives access to expertise and influence in the tions to middle-�class communities as well as
policy world. other poor neighborhoods, practitioners
The challenge for CCIs and other note. “If you only organize poor communit-
community-�based groups lies in knowing ies then you will largely be limited to federal
how to reach out and build those alliances. funds, and they tend to come with more
Policy groups vary in their focus and strat- strings attached,” one person observed. His
egies: some address specific populations, coalition paired people from rich and poor
such as children, the elderly, or people of neighborhoods.
color, while others focus on topics, such as
housing or transportation. Some concentrate Activities that mobilize residents’ political
on lobbying for money, while others pursue power and use it to influence policy discus-
systemic change through the legal system. sions increase the pressure on political forces
It is unlikely that there will ever be a outside the community.
policy organization equipped to take on the The problems of poor neighborhoods are as
full range of issues encompassed by a com- much political as they are technical. That
prehensive community-Â�change agenda. fact suggests the need for a new “politics”
Therefore, alliances need to form across of community building—one with explicit
372 |╇╇ A. C. Kubisch et al.

strategies for exerting pressure on the people I feel like we keep shifting back and forth
and institutions who do not naturally serve between confrontation-�style organizing and
the interests of disadvantaged people. consensus-�style organizing. On the ground,
Participating in the political arena can there needs to be a blend if we’re smart. I
think it’s more about how to be proficient at
lead to examination of and (sometimes) con-
both—being able to talk like equals to the
flict around fundamental ideological issues.
corporate heads and the lieutenant governor
As a former public official observed, as well as to be able to talk tough to them.

If we want to have the honest conversation

Some practitioners take a pragmatic
about how to do something for poor neigh-
borhoods, we are actually engaging on the
approach: they will work with anyone, at
most controversial aspect of American any level of the political system, who can
poverty. We have to be clear about why those help them address local concerns. Others
neighborhoods got into such a serious state of look for simple, practical ways to assert
distress. And then we have to work our their power.
way€from that explanation to what the strat-
egies for change are that aren’t just about The ability to use information strategically
trying to “fix those people” by telling them to is as important as policy acumen and an
pull up their socks and be responsible for agenda for change.
themselves. Knowledge about the nuances of power and
policymaking helps community stakeholders
Many practitioners and even some funders organize, understand, and prepare for policy
now call for a more explicit political agenda, changes. Current community building
both to put pressure on the public and efforts are beginning to track and share
private sectors and out of a core commit- information about broad issues at the state
ment to reaching and activating residents. and local levels, such as transportation and
The new emphasis on politics occurs at land use. Communities that lack capacity
the most basic level of neighborhood work, for gathering and analyzing such informa-
on issues that directly affect children and tion are forming connections with universi-
families. It involves “pressure organizing, ties and state-Â�wide organizations to expand
coalition building, and collaborative negoti- their reach. In one community, for instance,
ation,” in the words of one executive direc- university students have worked with resi-
tor. The political side of community building dents to understand trends in gentrification
means mobilizing residents’ political power and to help them find ways to address the
around neighborhood concerns, for problem. There are many other examples of
example, and activating voters. A CDC that this type of work. Practitioners also are
targeted voter apathy claimed to have beginning to think strategically about the
doubled the turnout in precincts where it information that decision-�makers get about
worked and then turned its attention to their communities, and they are finding
holding the newly elected representatives ways to shape the public dialogue. For
accountable to the community. Others have example, when race-�based assumptions
mobilized parents to plan school reform and began to drive discussions about welfare
influence local school boards. reform in a state legislature dominated by
suburban interests, a community organiza-
The development of political consciousness tion produced information that recast the
does not necessarily entail large-�scale move- discourse to recognize that white and subur-
ments or electoral activities. Efforts to build ban communities received as many or more
political connections encompass a range of benefits than black communities.
organizing styles.
Community organizing runs the gamut from
“hell raising” to “relationship building.”
Observers suggest the need for both ends of
the spectrum:
 Strengthening Connections╇╇ | 373

WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR group that could exert pressure when organ-
izations outside the neighborhood, such as
Community building efforts have come of the community college or health depart-
age at a time when ideas about government ment, failed to meet community needs.
responsibility for developing, testing, and Using financial information to enforce
replicating model programs are changing. accountability is especially important in
People can no longer assume that the public low-�income communities that receive sub-
sector will provide money for successful stantial government resources “on behalf of
approaches. At the same time, many practi- the community” without formal accountÂ�
tioners and funders suggest that initiatives ability requirements.
have not been resourceful enough in pursu-
ing public money. Public officials say that Engaging effectively with the public sector
government wants to join with private and means looking beyond financing to broad
nonprofit supporters of communities, and policy issues that affect poor communities.
that the timing is ripe. The challenge is to Many public policies that have a significant
figure out how to make the relationship impact on neighborhood circumstances
work effectively, in part because the rela- seem distant to people who are working to
tionship between community building initia- change communities, but in fact community
tives and government is a tricky one—part members can engage local policymaking
collaboration, part supplication, and part a institutions—including workforce invest-
quest for reform. Experienced participants ment boards, economic development author-
in publicly funded community building offer ities, business improvement districts, school
the following observations as guidance. boards, and transportation authorities—
around a variety of issues.
Community organizations need a better Community groups might target specific
sense of the public funding streams that agencies, such as a police department’s
come into their neighborhoods. “stop and frisk” policies, which affect com-
Very few community-�level actors have a munities of color much more than other
clear sense of the amount and types of gov- neighborhoods. Or they might analyze a
ernment money that flows into their neigh- variety of public policies and practices that
borhoods. Getting a full picture of funding add up to a “report card” for the local gov-
streams is a first step in understanding ernment. Even extremely specific policies
where the opportunities for increases or offer opportunities to exert community pres-
changes are likely to be. But practitioners sure. For example, when a city council con-
say it is very difficult to get the information, siders granting a tax abatement to a
because each funding stream is organized company, community participants might
and directed differently. Representatives of negotiate to make livable wages or hiring
community organizations further suggest agreements a precondition.
that government workers have little incen-
tive to disclose the information, because it Local government should figure much more
would give outsiders tools for negotiating prominently in community-�change initiatives.
and pressuring the system. Former government officials have expressed
Nonetheless, financial experts have surprise that CCIs had not developed better
helped people in some communities put methods for working with local govern-
information into the hands of residents so ment. Local government not only is the
they could hold the public sector account� source of much public money, it also has
able for investments. In one neighborhood, broader powers and responsibilities that
a CCI convened 20 residents for a year-�long affect communities. It is the maker, inter-
process of assessing organizational effective- preter, or enforcer of rules governing how
ness, using a standard set of questions and a federal and state programs are implemented,
framework for analyzing responses. That from decentralization mandates to local pur-
process produced an informed watchdog chasing policies to the blending of funding
374 |╇╇ A. C. Kubisch et al.

streams. Local government also is an appeal, poor inner-�city neighborhoods can

information conduit between communities be attractive investment sites. Thus corpora-
and outside entities. tions that are unlikely to give money for
nonprofit activities might find reasons for
Although the involvement of top city offi- more intensive investments in poor com-
cials often boosts community-�change initia- munities. In the words of an experienced
tives, it does not always translate into technical assistance provider,
long-�term change. Political rivalries, turn�
over in leadership, and bureaucracy can The fate of regions and low-�income com-
disrupt the community building process. munities is tied up with the new economy. At
Mayors and other city officials have taken the community level, we need to find and
active roles in neighborhood revitalization, reduce the hidden costs of doing business so
that we can get businesses to harness their
bringing resources, legitimacy, and visibility.
resources to the benefit of the community.
But these political connections are not
without risk. Constituencies can become
Experience shows that there are risks with
alienated, newly elected officials frequently
this strategy, however. As a former public
abandon their predecessors’ projects, and
official noted,
deeply embedded bureaucratic interests may
block action.
I think many of us think that income diversifi-
Moreover, the senior administrators who
cation in a neighborhood is a good thing. But
support community building are not the obviously the unacceptable price that you
people charged with carrying out public pol- could end up paying is complete displacement
icies on the ground. “We discovered that of the population; the very people you want
getting the policy right wasn’t enough,” to heal are driven away. How do we accom-
recalled one public official. “So we set up a plish [progress] in a way that doesn’t hurt
middle management training system to be people?
able to sustain the initiatives on the execu-
tion side. .â•›.â•›. If you focus just on the state In some areas, it is possible to tap into
capital then you miss the people who do the private-�sector resources and still maintain
transactions.” community control over their use.

People who think creatively about funding

WORKING WITH THE PRIVATE community change can find support from
SECTOR unconventional sources.
There are many sources of money that are
Distressed communities need the deep not necessarily obvious to community groups
pockets of the private sector to help them and other local engines of community
achieve their ambitious goals for community change. Some local organizations report
change. But private-�sector connections are success in obtaining private capital for com-
an unmined resource for most community-� munity trust funds, construction, and home
change initiatives. Community-�change ven- mortgages. Some use eminent domain author-
tures that have used or considered ity to support affordable housing and eco-
private-�sector resources offer the following nomic development. Private companies may
observations. also divert a portion of the funds in their
investment portfolios for social purposes. For
The greatest challenge is to connect with example, insurance companies interested in
mainstream capital markets in ways that do investing some portion of their funds in safe
not disrupt the community. securities have agreed to give up a few points
For several years, people have discussed the on their earnings to help with endowments of
advantages of investing in inner-�city neigh- historically black colleges.
borhoods. With their access to transporta- There have been examples of credit union
tion, physical infrastructure, and historic groups encouraging mainstream credit unions
 Strengthening Connections╇╇ | 375

to put some of their money into an invest- ing demographics are all trends that are
ment pool and agreeing that a small propor- likely to benefit those with access to power
tion of the earnings will go to communities. and influence at the expense of the poor and
Community building initiatives can also tap politically weak. Thus it is vitally important
people who have spent their careers in the for low-�income communities and their sup-
corporate world for knowledge about porters to understand how to reduce the
funding streams, innovative financing tools, negative consequences of globalization and
and hidden market opportunities. maximize the positive ones.

It isn’t easy to ensure corporate accountabil-

ity to neighborhoods, but some communit- REEXAMINING THE ASSUMPTIONS
ies report successes. AND BIASES EMBEDDED IN THE
Corporations receive many public subsidies COMMUNITY BUILDING APPROACH
and loans, and some grassroots groups have
drawn corporations into community build- Although practitioners and funders of com-
ing activities by holding them accountable munity building generally have deep experi-
for these privileges. Approaches include ence with the historical, structural, and
campaigns for livable wages and benefits, racial constraints imposed on poor people
community hiring goals and agreements, job by mainstream society, most have limited
training and retention services, improved their focus to the local neighborhood. They
local environmental standards, and retail view it as both the starting point and the
services that meet community needs. But the fundamental core of community change.
battle is an uphill one. As one community Why? There are several possible explana-
planner reported, tions, all of which represent ongoing ten-
sions in the community building arena.
In the poorest neighborhood in my city there
are more than 10,000 jobs. And there are
Some observers defend the core assumptions
almost 50,000 jobs within walking distance of
the neighborhood. The problem is that the
behind recent community-�change efforts but
people who live in the neighborhood are notsay the political climate narrowed the range
connected to those jobs. of possible strategies for change.
The social justice and democracy move-
Some people fear that the moment to push ments of the 1960s and 1970s were power-
for greater corporate accountability peaked ful forces behind the proliferation of CDCs
in the late 1990s when the labor market was and other local change efforts of the time. In
tight. “That would have been the time to those years, political empowerment, grass-
negotiate over the quality of jobs and the roots participation, and institutional change
benefits and security that came with the emerged as important local capacity issues.
jobs,” one analyst said. “We let them keep But the civil rights consciousness that
the agenda focused on ‘soft skills’ rather infused community revitalization theory and
than taking up questions like the composi- practice in the beginning—especially the
tion of the work investment boards which sense that chronic disadvantages for minor-
are still all corporate.” ity groups were structural and institutional
problems—lost ground to the resurgent indi-
Poor communities are losing out in the rapid vidualism of the “Reagan revival” during
transformations of the private sector. the 1980s.
Corporations are going through many Some observers believe that the resulting
changes that have dramatic effects on low-� funding climate constrained the activities of
wage workers and low-�income communities. change agents. Foundations, too, retreated
They are downsizing, increasing their from “political” funding, and progressive
numbers of contractors, cutting benefits, values adopted a more communitarian
and moving overseas. Globalization, revolu- outlook. When it came time to translate the
tions in information technology, and shift- assumptions into action, critics suggest,
376 |╇╇ A. C. Kubisch et al.

funders would not support fundamental communities failed to address issues of

social change or tackle the really tough social justice, which are firmly rooted in pol-
political and structural issues of power, icies and arrangements of power.
access, and race faced by poor communities. Many participants in community change
Some practitioners now wonder whether have operated under the assumption that the
foundations can ever truly be in the van- work of reinforcing social connections could
guard of democratic social change since they rebuild the fabric of a community and lead
are, after all, the direct by-�products of to other broader positive changes. Their
corporate power and historical privilege. work generally focused on building trust
and understanding among stakeholders,
Community-�change efforts have promoted through collaboration and consensus. While
collaboration across racial and cultural lines that dimension of the work continues to be
but have not taken the lead in advocating important, there is some concern that it
for responses to the fact that all levels of underestimates the crucial work of “politi-
the€ political economy sort Americans by cizing” communities so they can tackle
race—institutionally, geographically, and tough political and policy issues.
psychologically.
Many residents and frontline practitioners Some analysts believe that the commitment
describe the problems of poor, inner-�city to place-�based approaches underestimated
communities in ways that reflect a structural the dynamic nature of communities.
analysis of racism. These observers highlight Some critics say that community building
assumptions, practices, and institutional treats people and communities as fixed and
behaviors that consistently give poor people unchanging, while in reality communities
of color too few of society’s benefits and too are dynamic. Most Americans move fre-
many of society’s punishments. They recog- quently, and most jobs are located outside
nize that entrenched white privilege and workers’ neighborhoods. Instead, they
minority stereotyping in major institutions suggest, community change efforts should
continually undermine individual and local enable residents to choose where they live so
community gains, as revealed by the policies they can have better access to jobs. CCIs
and practices of public education, housing, and other community-�change efforts have
employment, transportation, law enforce- engaged only sporadically and superficially
ment, and other social institutions. They in efforts to make policies, power structures,
suggest that attention to race necessarily and other influences outside their neighbor-
leads to a more externally oriented strategy hoods work on behalf of poor communities.
for rectifying race-�related disparities in As this chapter suggests, however, oppor-
urban outcomes, a strategy that addresses tunities do exist to overcome, shape, or
institutional and systemic issues. This know- exploit those elements.
ledge does not carry over into the design of Change can happen if people think
community-�change ventures. broadly, act more politically and proactively
than in the past, and form nontraditional
Many observers believe that the focus on alliances across sectors. Those obligations
developing broad social relationships, net- should therefore be on every current agenda
works, partnerships, and collaborations in for comprehensive community building.
 CHAPTER 44

Concluding Thoughts
James DeFilippis and Susan Saegert

The community development industry/ been part of community development from

movement is now almost half a century into the beginning.
the period of growth and maturity that Community development contains within
began with Bobby Kennedy’s famous visit to itself a set of goals and aspirations that, on
Bedford-�Stuyvesant in 1966. There remain, some irreducible level, are (at best) in
however, some basic unresolved issues and tension with each other or (at worst) in
questions. In this concluding chapter we will direct contradiction with each other (for an
briefly discuss long-�standing challenges in early discussion of these tensions, see Sturdi-
community development, as well as describe vant, 1971). The first of these is the rather
some of the emerging tensions, contradic- well-�known issue of the relationship
tions, and difficulties that we see as vital in between markets (efficiency) and equity.
terms of interpreting the future of commun- Communities most in need of development
ity development. We first revisit the tensions begin their efforts from a position of market
that have been evident in community devel- failure. The efforts that energized significant
opment since its inception as a movement/ victories for the community development
industry, and then discuss those that have movement such as the fight for the Com-
emerged over the course of its 40-year munity Reinvestment Act (CRA) staked
modern history. The point here is not to their claims on notions of equity and fair-
present a catalogue or laundry list of unre- ness. But like the CRA, solutions ultimately
solved problems, because that would be were required to contend with market forces
neither intellectually stimulating nor pracÂ� and find ways to work with them. O’Connor
tically useful. At the same time, we would traces this tension through much of the
be remiss if we let the book conclude development of the movement. Since 1980,
without a recognition of the fundamental pretty much all efforts to resolve problems
conundrums that remain and are emerging of social equity rely on market mechanisms.
in the field. We do not offer a guide for how For example, the largest source of capital
to respond to these issues, but hope that in for the community development of housing
the writing we will enable the kind of clear-� for many years has come from tax credits
eyed analysis and practice needed to miti- for corporations for funds devoted to this
gate the problems and embrace the purpose.
opportunities. Reliance on market mechanisms to
resolve equity issues often falter because the
aims and goals of successful markets and
UNRESOLVED ISSUES (PRESENT AT equity are not the same. Communities in
THE CREATION) need of development are by definition failing
in the market. The goals of community
There are several problems inherent in com- development are inherently redistributive.
munity development as a framework for The organizing component of community
improving and changing society, and have development, as Stoecker points out, works
378 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

to employ the power of political mobiliza- to change them so that previously neglected
tion of disaffected peoples to force a redis- communities gain more. Stoecker lays out
tribution of power and resources that would the conflicts between these two different
and could not occur through market forces. functions and regards them as incompatible
All theories of community development while Traynor presents development as one
recognize that markets as they exist are not possible outcome of increasing the social
the ideal free markets of economic theory connections and capacity to act collectively.
but instead products of the existing distribu- Perhaps the next step in overcoming these
tion of power and resources. Those with the tensions is to shift the scale of development
most power and wealth write the rules. and service provision beyond the local, and
Community organizing aims to rewrite extending the scope of organizing to larger
them. Unlike Stoecker, we see the contradic- geographical scales. At the same time this
tion between the goals of organizing and approach relies on intense citizen engage-
those of local production of goods and serv- ment within local neighborhoods and
ices as a tension that community develop- institutions.
ment must live with because the residents of The problem of scale is in fact the third
poor communities must both have the neces- persistent problem for community develop-
sities of life and struggle to reposition them- ment. By this we mean two related, but dis-
selves politically and economically. But that tinct, things. First, even the most successful
does not mean the contradiction has or can community development organizations are
be resolved. And as community develop- relatively small—given the amount of decent
ment has become more market based in the affordable housing or adequate social serv-
last 25 years, this inherent tension—which ices needed in most metropolitan areas.
was there at the beginning—has only Even if the components of capacity building
become reemphasized and enhanced. highlighted in Glickman and Servon’s
The first issue is closely related to the chapter were enacted, and the problems and
second one, which is the tension between potential pitfalls discussed in Rohe, Bratt,
doing development and/or service delivery and Biswas’ chapter were avoided, there
and organizing. The best community devel- would still be the problem of the needs
opment organizations, we would argue (in simply outstripping the ability of commun-
agreement with Greenberg) are able to do ity organizations to meet those needs. The
both. And we do not accept a rigid binary emergence of social enterprises offers the
where it is one (development/service deliv- promise of new ways to provide capital and
ery) or the other (organize). But, having said organizational resources for community
that, there are real and meaningful tensions development. The capacity of this approach
between organizing and development/service to deliver on this promise has not yet been
delivery. These tensions exist both in theory demonstrated. The second problem with
and in practice. scale is that the multiple and shifting prob-
On the one hand, the success of commun- lems of localities are interconnected by the
ity development (and certainly the budgets flow of capital, populations, political influ-
of community development corporations) ence, and changing economic and institu-
have come from real estate development or tional bases. Sites and his colleagues make
service provision. But, on the other hand, this point well in their chapter. Forty years
both of these require close cooperation with ago, it made more sense to talk about
private sources of capital and operating national political economies. Today, that is
expense funds, and with government. This not possible, or at least, not sufficient. And
money comes with strings attached, but it is Newman’s chapter reminds us that the tidal
necessary if organizations are to provide wave of foreclosures in some communities is
actual goods and services. These functions rooted in the embeddedness of community
of community development conflict with crises in international financial markets.
community organizing goals to challenge Thus, and as we argued in Chapter 1, most
existing power and resource dynamics and of the problems evident in communities do
 Concluding Thoughts╇╇ | 379

not originate in those communities. There- chapter by Fisher et al. indicates, in past
fore the solutions can’t be found in efforts crises such as these, there have also been
that focus solely on communities. significant collective efforts on the left,
which have yielded meaningful political
reform. We do not see it happening now,
EMERGING ISSUES but the opportunity is still there for
community-�based organizing and broader
As we write this in the summer of 2011 the social movements to make some good come
largest story is the foreclosure crisis, and the out of the crisis.
economic crisis of which it is both a cause The foreclosure crisis has revealed to the
and product. It is a crisis of a magnitude public what the financial sector has long
that American cities have not seen since the known, and in fact innovatively and ener-
Great Depression. There is something getically created: a global finance system
particularly brutal about this current crisis, that constantly mutates in search of larger
because of how hard it has particularly hit profits and new markets. When community
so many of the communities that commun- development corporations first came on the
ity development organizations have spent scene, residential mortgage investment came
the last 40 years trying to improve. Such primarily from locally or state-�based banks.
crises bring with them not just the destruc- The CRA was based on the simple idea that
tion of lives and dreams, although they do banks had an obligation to meet the credit
certainly bring such destruction. They also needs of the communities in which their
tend to bring with them a broadening of branches were located. Banking regulations
politics; both to the left and right. Right limited the geographic scope of mortgage
wing, reactionary politics often flourishes in lenders. That world is obviously long gone.
such moments—and they certainly are doing Several of these changes have had major
so now. The last year has witnessed not just impacts on community development. These
the rise of the Tea Party movement in the include the ever expanding consolidation of
United States, but also the almost wholesale banks, emerging financial services that
turn to the right—and often far right—in provide credit and other banking services
European countries. And in both contexts through unregulated and not fully under-
the spreading of nativist and anti-�immigrant stood mechanisms, the securitization of
organizing and ideologies represent real debt, and the fragmentation of the various
threats to those trying to improve our components of loan origination, servicing,
diverse communities. This represents a signi- and ownership. The loss of locally anchored
ficant challenge for those working with mar- financial institutions also removes a signific-
ginal communities. It remains a real ant stakeholder from those concerned with
challenge for community development theo- the viability of particular cities and towns.
rists and practitioners to push back against As local communities experience neighbor-
the rise of exclusionary and reactionary hood-, municipal-, and state-�level impacts of
political explanations for the crisis. As pop- foreclosure, it has been hard or impossible
ulist rebellions spread across the Middle to identify which institutions had “any skin
East and parts of Africa progressive demo- in the game.” Immergluck, however,
cratic strains and religious fundamentalist reminds us how much work is being done,
tendencies contend with each other. The and has been done, by communities facing
international political character of many the crisis.
forms of community organizing and devel- The issues of globalization and commun-
opment mean that these changes will affect ity development, however, are not limited to
the landscape of immigration, national the changing character of capital, but also
political sentiments, global capital, and the extend to the realm of labor. And immigra-
availability of energy resources with tion, which on some irreducible level is
unknown consequences for marginal com- about globalizing labor markets, is the
munities in different countries. As the second key emerging issue that confronts
380 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

community development theory and prac- community development brings us to the

tice. The chapters by Cordero-Â�Guzmán and third key issue in community development
Quiroz-�Becerra, and Orozco and Rouse use- to emerge in its more than 40-year history.
fully discuss the particular roles played by This is the restructuring of the state in
immigrant organizations, and the specific American society.
needs of immigrant communities in Ameri- The last 30 years have witnessed funda-
can cities. But the larger questions of how mental restructurings of the American state.
immigration is transforming the meanings There are several components to this shift
of both community and development remain which are important for us here, but the
under-�explored in the academic and policy most important are the two interrelated
literatures in the field. For instance, if the processes of devolution and fiscal retrench-
members of a Mexican-�American Home- ment. First, devolution of responsibility for
town Association (HTA) in Pilsen, Chicago, and, to a significant degree, control over,
are pooling money to build a community housing and other social services for low-�
center in their town of origin in rural income people and communities began
Puebla, is that community development in under the Nixon administration and has
Chicago? Or if a community development continued largely uninterrupted in the 35
credit union (CDCU—of the kind described years since it began (see Bockmeyer, 2003;
in the chapter by Benjamin, Sass Rubin and Eisinger, 1998; Goetz, 1995). What this has
Zielenbach) in the South Bronx, New York, meant is that increasingly the federal gov-
is seeing some of its larger loans go to build- ernment has been block-�granting social
ing houses in the Cibao (in the Dominican service provision to the state, and to some
Republic) for its members to retire to later degree, local level, and it is up to states and
in life, is that community development in localities how to spend that money, in what
the Bronx? ways, and with what priorities. This is
The fundamental issue, it seems to us, is evident in subsidized housing, in which
the potentially radical separation of the states and localities control the allocation of
notion of community from attachment to a Low Income Housing Tax Credits
place. In both of the examples, the develop- (LIHTC)—the single most important source
ment is what the community wants and of federal subsidies for new affordable
needs. But in both, the community is trans- housing construction, and a stable funding
national. This does not at all delegitimize source for community-�based organizations.
the needs of the community but it does call It is also evident in welfare, in which Tem-
for a reexamination of many of the basic porary Aid to Needy Families (TANFâ•›), the
assumptions of community development as largest income assistance program for low-�
interventions in places. This reexamination income families, is a block grant which pro-
is particularly important for the founda- vides significant leeway to states and
tions, religious congregations, and local gov- localities in terms of how that money is to
ernments that are so important as be spent (that is, how much for subsidized
institutions in community development. child care, how much for workforce devel-
These institutions, to varying degrees, see opment, etc.). And the pattern repeats itself
their role in the world in terms of specific for other forms of social services as well.
places. This is perhaps most true for local Second, and not unrelated to devolution,
governments, which are place defined and is an overall shrinking of state resources for
play a vital role in the enabling or constrain- low-�income people and communities. For
ing of what people have called the “com- instance, funding for Community Develop-
munity development industry” system. ment Block Grants (CDBGs), a staple in
While the scale of organization of capital federal funding for development in low-�
and labor has been globalizing, the scale of income communities has declined signifi-
government as it relates to community cantly since the early 1980s. And that
development has been shrinking. The decline has accelerated in the last decade, as
growing importance of local governments in we went from around $4.8 billion per year
 Concluding Thoughts╇╇ | 381

in the late 1990s (Schwartz, 2010) to $3.3 of social services and the meeting of basic
in fiscal year 2011 (Rice & Sard, 2011). human needs in Western political econo-
Other examples abound, particularly in the mies. A whole host of human needs are
arena of housing, which has witnessed the increasingly being met by public–private
1983 elimination of the project-�based partnerships and the not-�for-profit sector.
Section 8 program, the passage in 1992 of Thus, community organizations become
the “HOPE VI” program, which subsidizes implicated in these state transformations in
the demolition of public housing projects important ways. First, they receive funding
and the relocation of some of their residents, from the government (at the federal, state,
and the 1998 public housing reform which and, most often, local levels) to provide
made it illegal for local housing authorities services that used to be public sector serv-
to build new public housing (except to ices. This enables the community organiza-
replace units demolished under HOPE VI). tions to provide services (by transferring
To some extent this is not unrelated to the resources to them), but it also can impact
process of devolution, which both limits the what kinds of services they provide and to
growth of federal spending when economic whom. It also means that their abilities to
downturns create increased demands for organize to demand better, more compre-
housing and social service assistance (by hensive, services from the government—on
fixing the amount given to states for mul- behalf of their communities—has become
tiple years at a time, regardless of what the compromised because they themselves are
economic circumstances of those years the service providers. So not only are com-
might be), and encourages states and locali- munity groups left in a position of filling
ties to move people off public assistance (by needs that are beyond their capacities, but
limiting the amount of money, despite popu- they are also less able to effectively demand
lation growth and increased demands). that the government meet those needs itself.
Importantly, and as the CDBG example The shrinking allocation of government
illustrates, block grants and the other forms resources for low-�income people and com-
of federal devolution have a tendency munities has been only the most extreme
toward long-�term decline in the amount of example of the declining role (and efficacy)
money allocated to them (Finegold, Wherry, of the government in performing its
and Schardin, 2004). domestic functions. The pitiful federal
There are several consequences for com- response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005
munity development of devolution and related to devolution of responsibilities to
shrinking of federal resources for assisting local levels without adequate provision of
low-�income people and communities. One resources or coordination of levels of gov-
of these has been the increasing reliance on ernment, and to the decreased efficacy of
community-�based, not-�for-profit organiza- federal agencies in performing core mis-
tions to fill roles formerly played by govern- sions. Failures in protecting public health,
ment. Another involves increasing occupational safety, food and drug safety,
competition for local governmental and environmental quality have similar
resources as more and more functions of the roots. Thus cities and states increasingly
state are devolved. The third consequence is must pick up these responsibilities, further
the increasing inability of locally based depleting their resources and decreasing
organizations to confront national and funds for community development.
international sources of inequity. These changes have altered the terrain on
Related to both devolution and retrench- which community development is practiced
ment, and largely as a result of fiscal pres- and understood. And they have often done
sures placed upon them, local governments so in ways that have reinforced tensions
and states are turning to the community-� inherent in community development. But the
based not-�for-profit sector to fill in the gaps story here is not uniformly ominous, and
created by state retrenchment. Accordingly, community development has demonstrated
there has been a major shift in the provision itself to be both a vital component in the
382 |╇╇ J. DeFilippis and S. Saegert

improvement of urban and rural neighbor- this book will play its part in that process
hoods, and able to adapt to changing struc- by enabling community development theo-
tural conditions. The problem on the agenda rists and practitioners to better understand
for the next generation of community devel- the meanings and implications of their craft.
opment is to move beyond critique and abs-
tract debates about inherent limits to new
theory and practice. The problems of histor- REFERENCES
ically reified ideologies around private prop-
erty, historically hardened forms of Bockmeyer, J. (2003). Devolution and the transforma-
tion of community housing activism. Social Science
oppression and exclusion, and the huge
Journal, 40(2), 175–188.
power and resource difference between local Eisinger, P. (1998). City politics in an era of federal
actors within communities in need of devel- devolution. Urban Affairs Review, 33(3), 308–325.
opment and external larger, wealthier, and Finegold, K., Wherry, L., & Schardin, S. (2004). Block
more powerful actors, do not argue for grants: Historical overview and lessons learned.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute New Federalism
eschewing altogether the local scale. Nor as
Program.
the chapters in Part IV illustrate does the Goetz, E. G. (Ed.). (1995). Potential effects of federal
speed and innovativeness of capital mobility policy devolution on local housing expenditures.
and forms of immigration diminish the sig- Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 25(3), 99–116.
nificance of local places for social reproduc- Rice, D. & Sard, B. (2011, June 23). Unbalanced
tion and justice. If we are able to make the approach to deficit reduction could cripple housing
and community development programs. Washing-
kinds of communities we want—communi- ton, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
ties that support the ability of individuals Schwartz, A. (2010). Housing policy in the United
and households to thrive, both emotionally States (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
and materially—then the organizations Sturdivant, F. (1971). Community development corpo-
involved in community development cer- rations: The problem of mixed objectives. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 36(1), 35–50.
tainly have a central role to play. We hope
 INDEX

Page numbers in italics denote tables, those in bold denote figures.

Not all author citations are listed in the index. Readers requiring complete lists of cited works and
authors should consult the reference lists at the end of each chapter.

Aber, L. 314 Americanization 275–6

Abrams, Charles 78 anonymity 341
accommodation, city governments and anti-sweatshop movement 290
neighborhoods 162–3 antidiscrimination regulations 28
accountability 153, 248 antipoverty policy 28
acquaintanceship 314 Archdeacon, T. 276
acquisition-to-demolish 95 Archer, Margaret 229–30
action, scales of 176 area redevelopment 18–20
activism 11, 20 Area Redevelopment Act (ARA) 1961 19, 22
activist mothering 203 Area Redevelopment Administration 19–20
Addams, Jane 2, 193, 197, 202–3 Arendt, Hannah 246
administrative fragmentation 13 Aristotle 320
adolescent outcomes 314–15 Ashoka 118, 119, 121
advocacy 42, 365 aspirations 377
Advocate Community Development Corporation Association of Community Organizations for
(ACDC) 72 Reform Now (ACORN) 33, 195
affluent neighbors, absence 314 Association of Neighborhood and Housing
affordability, housing 84 Development (ANHD) 37
affordable housing 180 assumptions, knowing and testing 244
affordable housing development, and public Atlanta, Georgia, faith-based institutions 144–8
schools 136–7 Atlanta Legal Aid 93
affordable housing lobby, and city governments 164 atomization 244
African Americans 202 autonomy 332; and domestic property 356–7;
agenda promotion, community development professionals and nonprofessionals 333; of
corporations (CDCs) 63–4 residents 16
aggressive development 316
Agnew, J. 5 Back of the Yards 16, 194, 201–2
agnostic-pluralist neighborhoods 233 Baker, Ella 205
agriculture 170 balanced portfolio risk, community development
Albert, M. 173 corporations (CDCs) 57
Alexander, D. 330 banking, expansion 263
Alinsky model 188, 194–5, 201–2, 214–15, 222; bargaining power, and free trade 256–7
vs. women-centered model 203–6 Basch, L. 270
Alinsky, Saul 16, 27, 33, 201–2, 204, 229 Basic Law on Shokuiku 169
alliances 371–2 basic needs 322
Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act Battle Anderson, B. 120
1982 265 Baum, H.S. 238
amenity, and domestic property 356 Beauregard, R.A. 4
American Dream 262 Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation 23
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Behrens, W.W. III 175
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) 288 being-in-common, vs. common being 172
384 |╇╇ Index

belonging 215 channel specialization 267

Berlin, Isaiah 246 Chapin Hall Center for Children 150
Berndt, H.E. 362, 365 Chaskin, R.J. 238
Bernstein, R.J. 2 Chaves, M. 142, 143
Berry, Wendell 245 checking accounts 100
bicycle plans 179 Chiapello, E. 173
black capitalism 31 Chicago Area Project 15–16
black power movement 30, 31 Chicago School 15, 38, 310–11
Black Women’s Clubs 202 childrearing 313
Blair government 119 children in poverty: categorical programs 128;
block grants 131 community relationships 129; Comprehensive
boards, community development corporations Community Initiatives (CCIs) 130–1; context
(CDCs) 58 and overview 125; definitions of community
Bolan, R.S. 237 127; families and service providers 129; family
Boltanski, L. 173 relationships 129; federal policy initiatives
Booth, Heather 202 127; neighborhood effects on children 126;
Borzaga, C. 122 neighborhood effects on families 126–7;
Both, D. 128, 129 relationships among service providers 129;
boundary crossing 45–6 role of schools 131; service reform programs
Bourdieu, Pierre 189, 221 128; summary and conclusions 131–2
Bratt, R.G. 77, 79, 364 choice, and place 341–2
bridge leaders 205 Choldin, H. 311
bridge lending, Microenterprise Development Cisneros, Henry 144
Programs (MDPs) 298 cities 315–16, 339–41
broker originated lending 266 citizen/resident participation 15
Bronfenbrenner, K. 257 citizenship, exclusion from 332
Brooks-Gunn, J. 126, 130, 314 city governments: and affordable housing
bureaucratic rivalry 13 lobby 164; analytical framework 158–9; and
Bursik, R.J. 314, 315 community development corporations (CDCs)
Bush (George H.W.) administration 26–7 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164–6; gap
business retention 107 financing 161; institutional relationships 162;
business ventures, neighborhood-based economic land and structures 161; operating support
development 108–9, 110, 111–12 programs (OSPs) 160; organizational learning
164–5; overview 158; phases of relationships
capabilities, and commodities 322 162; processing funding and permits 161–2;
capability approach 319–27 recommendations for 165–6; and residential
capability, of persons 321 neighborhoods 162; responses to market
capability sets 323 conditions 159–60; support for community
capacities, cumulative 216 development 159–62
capacity: components 55, 143; defining 54–5 CityFirst Enterprises 95
capacity building: community development civic agriculture 170
corporations (CDCs) 68; faith-based civic capacity: contextual influences 226–7;
institutions 140–9; foundations 154 model for building 223, 223–4; outcomes
capital, and community 362–3 224; overview 220; summary and conclusions
capital flow 263 225–7
capital markets 374 civic engagement 222
capital mobility 254–6 civic republicanism 338
capital switching 263 civil rights movement 20, 195
capitalism: flexible 173; Fordist 41; Marx civil society, and food systems 169–70
329–30; multivariant 173; understandings of class 32, 330
32 class relations 332
capitalist urbanism 2 Clinton administration 27–8, 99
carpools 179 co-active power 204
Carr, J. 37 coalitions 352, 371
Carter, Jimmy 25 coalitions for change 13
Castells, Manuel 230 Cobb, J. 254
Center for Community Building and code clashes 241
Neighborhood Action 96 code confusion 240
Center for Family Life 130 codes 241
centerwomen 205 codes of conduct 289
certificates of deposit (CDs) 100 Coleman, J.S. 221, 225, 313
change, coalitions for 13 collaboration: community development
 Index╇╇ | 385

corporations (CDCs) 57; and consensus 35; 217; information richness 218; interactive
experts and citizens 15; faith-based sector spaces 218–19; leadership 218; limits and
141–2; and political mobilization 28 challenges 212–13; low-level affiliation 218;
Collatoralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs) 264 and neo-liberalism 227; network organizing
collective action 226, 312, 353 217–20; overview 209; as populist economic
collective agency 188 movement 216–17; public schools 137; public
collective attachment 314 sphere 211; rethinking 214; roots of 189;
collective capacity 245–6 supply side 211–12; vs. community organizing
collective efficacy 313–14, 315 214–15, 222–4, 225
collective organization, Microenterprise community capacity 238
Development Programs (MDPs) 297 community context: agnostic-pluralist
collectivism, of women 203 neighborhoods 233; and community
college apparel 288 organizing 230–1; conflict 231–2; consensus-
combined models 188 pluralist neighborhoods 232; difference 232;
commercial development, community dimensions of political culture 231; diverse-
development corporations (CDCs) 62 inclusive neighborhoods 232; knowledge of
commercial revitalization 107–8 244; networks 230; overview 228; partisan-
Commission on a National Agenda for the advocate neighborhoods 233; political
Eighties 24 cultures and models of organizing 233–5;
commitment 188–9 rules, policies and practices 230–1; summary
commodities, and capabilities 322 and conclusions 235; theoretical model of
commodity-based evaluation 326 organizing 234
commodity fetishism 320, 322 community control, myth of 364
commodity relations 3 community development 39, 40–1, 45;
common being, vs. being-in-common 172 emerging issues 379–82; importance of 1;
common issues 5 interconnections 176; new model 366–7;
common understandings, myth of 340 purpose of 5–6; unresolved issues 377
commonality 245, 342 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
communicative action 238 24, 57, 380, 381
Communist Party 194 community development corporations (CDCs)
communitarianism 35–6, 308, 338–9, 342, 344 22–3, 30, 51; access to funders 57; Advocate
communities: and cities 340; conceptions of 3; Community Development Corporation
as face 127, 128–9; and globalization 255–7; (ACDC) 72; agenda promotion 63, 65;
importance of 3–5; integration of place, face balanced portfolio risk 57; boards 58; “bricks
and space 130–1; as place 127–8; of purpose and mortar” approach 211; capacity 54–5;
344; roles of 1; as space 127, 129–30; use of capacity building 68; and city governments
term 1–2 158–66; commercial development 62;
communities-of-connection 215 community participation 65, 66; community
communities of place 338 relationships 129; conflict management 67;
community: appeal of 308; and capital 362–3; critique 361–6; debate 361–2; developing
contesting 344; defining 127, 189–90, 196, community 365; development capital 57;
245, 308; femininist 343–4; as fraternity disorganization 365; economic development
339–40; identity-based 338–45; importance 62; education and training 67; evaluation 60;
of 310; loss of 309; operational definitions fiscal management 58; flexibility 55; focus
310; overview 308–9; and place 380; political of 43; funding 35; high-capacity, multi-local
economy 315–16; summary and conclusions 367; housing 62; interaction between elements
316–17; wider context 317 of capacity 57, 60, 67–8; as landlords 364;
Community Action Agencies (CAA) 21, 30–1, leadership 58; lessons from failures 72–5;
195 limits to comprehensiveness 363–4; managed
Community Action Program (CAP) 20, 21, 23, growth 58, 60; Milwaukee (CDCW) 70–1;
30, 31, 195 model 362; mutually supportive programs 63;
community-based assets 36 myth of community control 364; networking
community based organizations (CBOs) 212–13 capacity 63–5, 64; non-financial resources
community-based planning 366–7 65; Oak Cliff Development Corporation
community builders, attitudes to community 187 (OCDC) 71–2; organizational capacity 58–60,
community building 43; assumptions and 59; organizing 62; overview 54; political
biases 375–6; collective and aggregate power capacity 65–8, 66–7; political economy 362–5;
219; community organizing-lite 213–14; political leverage 67; professionalization 33–4;
contribution to civic capacity 226; defining programmatic capacity 60–3, 61; project
209–11; demand-side 216; diversity of people management 60; proliferation 34; relationships
and choices 219; emphasis on place 369–70; 63; resource capacity 55–7, 56; responding to
focus of 220; form follows function 218; fun change 62–3; small-business finance 99;
386 |╇╇ Index

community development corporations continued community stability 314

staff 58; summary and conclusions 68; targets community stratification 311–12
129–30; transformation 34–5; Whittier comparative advantage 254
Housing Corporation (WHC) 71 comprehensive city planning movement 15
Community Development Financial Institutions Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs)
(CDFI) Fund 100 130–1, 209, 212–13
community development financial institutions comprehensiveness 14–15, 363–4
(CDFIs) 52; community facility financing 102; compulsory purchase 19
context and overview 99–100; debt 102–3; concentration effects 311–12, 349
development funding 102; equity 103; exits Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles
103; financial services 100–1; housing finance 204
101–2; impact 104; multi-family financing conflationism 229–30
102; prospects for 104–5; small business conflict 231–2; city governments and
financing 102–3 neighborhoods 162; social 312
community development organizations, extended conflict-based organizing 228–9
roles 1 conflict management, community development
community economic development (CED) 52 corporations (CDCs) 67
community economics 172 confluence 228, 235
Community Empowerment Board 27 confrontation 42, 224
community empowerment model 366–7 congregations: Atlanta, Georgia 144–8;
community engagement, demand-side 216 capacity for community development
community goals, and individual rights 317 140–1; community development 142;
community investment 12 computer technology 146; funding 145, 146;
community land trusts (CLT) 83–5 membership size 146; national overview
Community Liberated 310 of activities 142–3; network capacity 147;
community links, public schools 135 organizational ability 144–6; political capacity
Community Lost 309–10 147; programmatic capacity 147; resource
community organization, history and strategy capacity 146–7; response to policy changes
38–41 147; staff 146; technical assistance needs 145,
community organizations, in public/private 145–6; welfare services 147; see also faith-
sphere 204 based institutions
community organizing 39, 40, 45; characterizing Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)
247; critical view 228–30; and interest group 201–2
pressure 42; neighborhood-based economic consensus building 225, 238
development 109, 111, 112–13; and planning consensus organizing 35, 36, 228–9
366–7; vs. community building 214–15, Consensus Organizing Institute 35, 229
222–4, 225 consensus-pluralist neighborhoods 232
community organizing-lite 213–14 conservatism 191, 197–9
community organizing tradition, attitudes to constitutional law 317
community 187 context, economic and political 246
community participation, community context-sensitive design 179
development corporations (CDCs) 65, 66 control and development: black power and
community political cultures, dimensions and black capitalism 31; direct democracy
types 232 movement 32; growth of community
community practice: boundary crossing 45–5; development corporations (CDCs) 34; lost
community organizing vs. interest group opportunities 32; neighborhood movements
pressure 42; context and overview 38; 32–3; neo-Alinskyism 32–3; neo-liberal
economic development vs. community building communitarianism 35–6; overview 30
42–3; future of 44–6; globalization 43–4; control, institutional 248
history and strategy 38–41; paradigms 39, corporate accountability 375
39–40, 45; post-Fordism 41; postmodernism corporate responsibility movement 290
44; social planning vs. flexible services 41–2 corporate supply chains, inequities 170–1
community problem 338, 342 corrective capitalism 13
Community Reinvestment Act 1977 (CRA) 25, corruption, and local solidarity 316
33, 99, 265, 379 counseling, foreclosure prevention 92
Community Reinvestment Committee (CRC) Counts, A. 293
266 Cox, K.R. 354
community relationships 129 creative thinking 374–5
Community Saved 309–10 credit, expansion 263
community social capital 315 credit ratings 100
community social organization: mechanisms 315; credit scoring 96, 97
theory of 312–14 credit unions 99, 100–1, 295–6
 Index╇╇ | 387

crisis of metropolitanization 18 autonomy 356–7; as bundle of interests 357–9;

Cuba, food security 169 equity 353–4; legacy 355; liquidity 354–5;
culinary commons 168–9 overview 353; and security 355–6; see also
cult of domesticity 201 property
cultural imperialism 333–4; and violence 335 domestication 247
culture of organizing 213 domesticity, cult of 201
cumulative capacities 216 Dos por Uno 284
double consciousness 334
Daly, H. 254 downward conflationism 230
Davis, M. 199 Drayton, Bill 118, 120
debriefing 241 Dryzek, J. 253
decentralization 222; public housing 17 Du Bois, W.E.B. 334
decision-making structures 205 Dunn, R. 253
decoding 240, 242
deconstruction 338–9, 340 Earls, F. 313
Dees, J.G. 117, 120 Eckes, A. 255
defended neighborhoods 316 ecological differentiation 310–12
defense investment 18 ecological norms, effects of globalization 258
DeFilippis, J. 221 ecological relationships 172
Defourny, J. 122 economic and political context 246
deindustrialization 311 economic crisis 1, 379
Delgado, G. 230 economic dependency, external 244
demand-side, community engagement 216 economic development: community development
democracy, and sustainability 181–2 corporations (CDCs) 62; public schools 136;
democratic processes 226 sustainability 180–1
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Economic Development Administration 19
Development Act 1966 22 economic history 255
Denton, N. 311 Economic Human Rights Campaign 37
Department of Housing and Urban Development Economic Opportunity Act 1964 20, 30
(HUD) 21, 79, 83 economic policy: effects of 12; and globalization
dependency, and oppression 332 257–8
depoliticization 36 economic prosperity: and life expectancy 320;
Depository Institutions Deregulation and pursuit of 319
Monetary Control Act 1980 265 economic shocks, in segregated environments
Depression Era 194–5 311
deprivation 321, 331 ecosystem protection 177
descriptive frameworks 343 education, and inequality 349
Desmarais, A. 169–70 education and training, community development
Detroit study 198 corporations (CDCs) 67
development 283 Edwards, F. 172
development capital, community development Eichler, Michael 35, 229
corporations (CDCs) 57 El Salvador, Hometown Associations (HTA)
developmental organizing 247 284–5
deviance 334 elementary evaluation 323
devolution 380–1 Elliott, D. 315
Dewey, John 2 Emergence of Social Enterprise in Europe
dialectical processes 191 (EMES) Research Network 119, 122
dietary practices, protecting 169 eminent domain 19
difference 232, 340 employment: impact of free trade 255–6; and
difference principle 323 inequality 349–50
differential social organization 313 Empowering and Strengthening Ohio’s People
direct democracy movement 30, 32 (ESOP) 93
direct marketing, predatory lending 266 empowerment 204; Microenterprise
discrimination 18 Development Programs (MDPs) 297, 299;
dissonance 234, 235 paradox of 206
distrust 216 Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/
diverse economies approach 171–2 EC) 27–8, 129
diverse-inclusive neighborhoods 232 encoding 240, 242
diversity of people and choices 219 ends–means confusion 319–20
diversity, social 238 engagement, non-confrontational 35
division of labor 333 Engel, K. 266
domestic property: and amenity 356; and enrichment, of lives 319
388 |╇╇ Index

Enterprise Foundation 35 community 338–45

enterprise zones 26 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and
entrepreneurialism 109; see also social Enforcement Act 1989 265
entrepreneurship financial integration 258
environment, sustainability 177 financialization 263–4, 267
environmental–social relations 172 Firestone, D. 256
equity 353–4, 377 fiscal austerity 12
ethical complex 168 fiscal management, community development
ethics 175 corporations (CDCs) 58
ethnography 239–41 Fischer, C. 310
Euclidean zoning 178 fixity 264
evaluation: commodity-based 326; community flexibility, community development corporations
development corporations (CDCs) 60; and (CDCs) 55
issues of value 322 flexible capitalism 173
exclusion, and social capital 221 flexible services 41–2
expansion, community development Flynn, Ray 163
corporations (CDCs) 57 Fogelson, R.M. 198
exploitation 329–31 Follain, J. 264, 265
external economic dependency 244 food democracy 170–1
external resources: alliances 371–2; analysis food insecurity 167
of problem 369–71; capital markets 374; food production 52
coalitions 371; context and overview 369; food riots, Central and South America 167
corporate accountability 375; effects of private food security 168–9
sector change 375; knowledge and information food sovereignty 169
372; local government 373–4; officials 374; food systems: civic agriculture 170; and civil
policy groups 371; policy issues 373; political society 169–70; community development
climate 375–6; political connections 372; theory 172; community in 168–70; context and
political pressure/influence 371–2; powerful overview 167; corporations and community
allies 371–2; private sector 374–5; public 168; diverse economies approach 171–2; flexible
funding streams 373; public sector 373–4; capitalism 173; gleaning 170; multivariant
unconventional sources 374–5 capitalism 173; summary and conclusions 173;
transformative possibilities 170–1
face-to-face interactions 344; as performance food, within families 326
239–42 Ford Foundation 21, 35
facility development, public schools 135 foreclosure 267, 379; community responses
Fainstein, S. 30, 45 91–2, 92; constraints 90; context and overview
Fair Credit Reporting Act 97 90; counseling 92, 93; effects on households
Fair Housing Act 1968 23 96; federal regulation 90–1; Homeownership
faith-based community development 141; Preservation Initiative (HOPI) 93; household
national overview 142, 142–3 recovery 96–7; lack of data 95–6; laws and
faith-based institutions 52, 214; assumptions costs of vacant housing 94; lender fees 94;
about 140; Atlanta, Georgia 144–8; capacity loan modifications 92–3; mitigation 93–4;
building 140–9; collaboration 141–2; neighborhood recovery 94–6; opportunity
partnerships 140, 143; summary and space 90–1; outreach 92; policy changes 93;
conclusions 147–8; see also congregations prevention 92–3; property rehabilitation
families: different experiences of 201; and service 95; spillover effects 93–4; summary and
providers 129 conclusions 97; tenancy protection 96
Fannie Mae Foundation 35, 37, 266 foreclosures 263
Farnsley, A. 145 Forester, J. 241
federal aid 42–3 form follows function 218
Federal Community Self-Determination Act 1969 foundations: application of theory 151; attitudes
30 to funding 28–9; capacity building 154; doing
federal government, participation 28 153–5; doing and action 154; as funders
federal grants 57 212; goals 151–2; influence 154; information
Federal Home Mortgage Loan Disclosure Act and knowledge 155–6; learning 155–6;
1975 33 learning and action 156; partnerships 153–4;
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 17–18 thinking 151–3; thinking and action 152–3;
federal policy initiatives, children in poverty 127 understanding communities 152; see also
femininist community, in practice 343–4 philanthropy
feminism: community problem 338; Fox Gotham, K. 264, 265
deconstruction 338–9, 340; female oppression Fox, Vicente 290
330; moral theory 332; perspectives on frameworks, descriptive and normative 343
 Index╇╇ | 389

framing 370 Grameen Bank 293

free trade: context and overview 253–4; empirical Grasmick, H. 314
critique 255; impact on jobs and wages 255–6; grassroots movements 11, 172
labor’s bargaining power 256–7; theoretical Great Society programs 23
critique 254–5; see also globalization Grogan, P. 36
freedom 321; and individual values 324–5; ground lease 84
intrinsic and instrumental views 323–4; group centered leadership 205
restriction 316 group identities 189
Friedberg, S. 168 growth, rethinking 176
Friedman, M. 338
Friedmann, J. 238 Hagan, J. 270–1
friendship ties 314 Halpern, R. 31, 42–3
fringe banking 100 Hamilton, Cynthia 204
FROC-CROC 287–92 hard and soft work 213
Frost, J. 195 Harris, E. 173
fun 217 Harvey, D. 263, 264, 267
functionings 321, 322, 324 “have nots,” support for 188
funding 55–6; CDC access to funders 57; Hayden, Tom 196
community development corporations Hein, J. 141
(CDCs) 35, 57; conditional 378; faith-based heterogenity 5
institutions 145, 146; from foundations 212; high-capacity, multi-local community
Hometown Associations (HTA) 280–1, 284–5; development corporations (CDCs) 367
immigrant groups and organizations 274; highway building 19
processing applications 161–2; state 380–1; Hillery, G.A. 310
time frames 151; transport 179 history: 1920s 197–8; 1950s 198–9; 1960s 195;
anti-canon 197–9; Depression Era 194–5;
gap financing 161 different canons 192; importance of historical
Gates Starr, Ellen 202–3 context 193; lessons from 192–7; overview
gender 196; Alinsky model 201–2; assessing 191–2; post 1975 199; Progressive Era 193–4;
inequality 325–6; attitudes to human nature Settlement House movement 193–4
and conflict 203–4; comparison of models Home Affordable Modification Program
203–6; leadership development 204–5; (HAMP) 93
oppression 330–1; organizing process 205–6; Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 1975 25
overview 201; and political labor 340; power Home Ownership Loan Corporation (HOLC) 17
and politics 204; public/private sphere 204; homeownership 80–1, 262; expansion of 264;
summary and conclusions 206–7; women- nonspeculative 81–3; promotion of 17; and
centered model 202–3; and workplace race 348; resale-restricted 85–6
exploitation 330–1; see also women Homeownership Preservation Initiative (HOPI)
gender socialization 330 93
gentrification, and public housing 77 homeplace 202
Genuine Progress Indicator 176 Hometown Associations (HTA) 271; activities
George, Henry 84 280–1; constraints on 283; development
Gibson-Graham, J.K. 171–2, 173 potential 284; fundraising 280–1; local
Giloth, R. 365 partners 281; members 281–3; opportunities
gleaning 170 for donors and governments 284–4; overview
global economy 4 280; partnership working 284–5; and private
global environmentalism 175 sector 285; remittance senders 281, 281–2,
globalization 1, 43–4, 379–80; and communities 282; role in development 283–4
255–7; and democratic self-governance 258–60; Hoogendoorn, B. 122
and economic policy 257–8; effects on social hooks, bell 202
and ecological norms 258; legal impact 259; HOPE VI 77–8, 381
overview 251–2; summary and conclusions 260; housing 17–18, 51–2; affordability 84;
and welfare states 257–8; see also free trade community development corporations (CDCs)
Glyn, A. 258 62; disinvestment 83; sustainability 180;
goals 225, 248, 377 women’s cooperatives 343
Goffman, Erving 239, 240 Housing Act 1937 17
González Baker, S. 270–1 Housing Act 1949 18
Gordon, M. 259 Housing Act 1990 78
Gore, Al 27 Hull House 2
Gotham, J.F. 198 human capital 224
government decisions, effects of 315 Hunter, A. 309
government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) 264 Hurricane Katrina 381
390 |╇╇ Index

identity 341 joblessness: concentration effects 311–12;

ideological bases 189 corrosive effects 314
ideology, and policy formation 13–14 Johnson administration 20–1, 23
immigrant groups and organizations: assistance Joint Center for Housing Studies 266
with immigration process 274, 275; budgets joint uses, public schools 135–6
273; characteristics 272–4, 273; context justice 203–4, 328
and overview 270; formation 272; functions
274–7; funding 274; links to country of origin Kant, Immanuel 319
277; literature 270–1; location 273; number Kasarda, J. 313
and type of clients 274; representational role Kasinitz, P. 270
276–7; settlement assistance 275; staff size and Keating, W.D. 361
characteristics 273; summary and conclusions Kelley, Florence 193
277; types 271–2; year started 273 Kelly, R.M. 34, 362
immigrants: Americanization 275–6; links to Kennedy, Robert F. 22
country of origin 280 Keyes, L.C. 63
immigration 379–80 Keynes, John Maynard 257
implementation 43 Kletzer, L. 256
imports, impact on jobs and wages 255–6 knowing-in-practice 237
in-organic quality 215 knowledge: and information 372; and practice 42
inclusionary zoning 180 Köhler, B. 46
Independent Union of Workers of Kukdong Korea House of International Solidarity (KHIS)
International Mexico (SITEKIM) 291 291
indigenous participation 15–16 Kornhauser, R. 314
individual consumption, effects of 246 Kotler, M. 31, 32
individual interaction 189 Krippner, G. 263–4
individual rights, and community goals 317 Krugman, P. 256, 258
Industrial Areas Foundation (IAFâ•›) 33, 195, 202 Krumholz, N. 361
inequality: measuring 325–6; spatial and racial Kubisch, A.C. 127, 128
348–9 Kukdong International 286–92
inequities, corporate supply chains 170–1 Kuttner, R. 259
inferiority 334
infill development 178 Labor Housing Conference 16
influence, foundations 154 labor, reproduction 3–4
informal social control 315 labor theory of value 329
information: asymmetries 266; importance of Labour Party (UK) 119
155–6; and knowledge 372; richness 218 land banks 95
Initiative for a Competitive Inner City 35 land trust movement 84
injustice, oppression and domination 328–9 land trusts 180
Innes, J.E. 238 land use, sustainability 178–9
institutional accountability and control 248 laws: effects of globalization 259; public–faith
institutions 5, 51–2, 314 sector partnerships 140
integrated mutual housing associations 80 leadership 58, 218
interaction: individual 189; place and people leadership development 204–5
342 leakages 257
interactive spaces 218–19 lease-purchase 95
Interagency Coordination Council 25 legacy, domestic property 355
Interagency Stabilization Group (ISG) 71 legitimacy 215; of violence 335
interconnections, community development 176 Lenz, T.J. 361, 362
interdependence 1, 163, 245 Lerner, M. 122
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act levels of practice 194
1991 (ISTEA) 179 Leventhal, T. 126, 130
internationalization 1 Levy, H.J. 82
investment, and security 355–6 Libby, M. 266
irrationality, of violence 335 liberalism 331–2
issue-specific organizing 247 life, as doings and beings 320–1
issues: common 5; identifying 205 limited-equity cooperatives 81–3
limits, acknowledging 176
Jacobs, Jane 32, 341–2 liquidity 264, 354–5
Janowitz, M. 313 Lissak, S.R. 270
Japan, food legislation 169 literacy 326
Javits, Jacob 22 Living Cities 158
Jenkins, S. 270 loan documents, not reading 266
 Index╇╇ | 391

loan modifications 92–3 bridge lending 298; collective organization 297;

local determinism 317 context of 293–5; criticisms 298–9; early forms
local government 52; community change 295–6; empowerment 297, 299; European
initiatives 373–4; foreclosure prevention 93; programs 298; evaluation concerns 298–9; focus
and sustainability 177–8 on women 296–7, 299; innovative methods
Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) 35, 296–8; local relevance 297; overview 293;
102, 364 peer lending 297; reaching the very poor 299;
local issues, vs. structural issues 369–71 step lending 297; as strategy for development
local organizing 196 296; success 298; summary and conclusions
local participation 15 299–300; village banks 297–8
local solidarity, and corruption 316 microenterprises 103
local trade 253 militancy 194, 195
localism 370 Milwaukee (CDCW) 70–1
Logan, J. 315 minority groups, and policy formation 14
long-term operating support 55 Model Cities 21–2, 31
longevity 324–5 Molotch, H. 315
loss of community 309 moral agency 332
loss, sense of 308 mortgage defaults 101
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) 35, mortgage financing 85, 90–1; community
57, 102, 380 development financial institutions (CDFIs)
low-level affiliation 215, 218 101–2; racial disparity 266
Lowry, G. 221 mortgage insurance system 16
Lucas, Rev. Fred 142–3 mortgage subsidies 18
mortgages 263; increasing demand for 264; and
MacDonald, H. 265 inequality 350; overview 262–3; secondary
mainstreaming 1 market 264; summary and conclusions 267–8
managed growth, community development motherhood 206
corporations (CDCs) 58, 60 mothering 203
Mann, Horace 349 multiple funders, community development
Manos Unidas por El Salvador 285 corporations (CDCs) 57
marginalization 331–2 multivariant capitalism 173
Marino, Rafael 289 multiyear support 55
market conditions, responding to 159–60 municipal housekeeping 202
market mechanisms, and sustainability 176 mutual housing associations (MHA) 79–80
market paradigm 215 mutual trust 313
market-rate cooperatives 82, 83 mutually supportive programs 63, 65
markets, and power 378
Marks and Spencer 168, 170, 171 National Community Building Network (NCBN)
Marquez, B. 362 212
Marx, Karl 2, 320, 321; collective action 353; National Community Development Initiative
theory of exploitation 329 (NCDI) 158
Massachusetts Fair Share 33 National Confederation of Peasants (CNC) 287–92
Massey, Doreen 4 National Federation of Settlements 193
Massey, D.S. 270, 311–12 National Gathering of Social Entrepreneurs 119
matched funding 284–5 national groups 33
mau-mauing 36 National Workers’ Union (Union Nacional de
McCoy, P. 266 Trabajadores, UNT) 289
McKay, H. 312 “negro removal” 19
McKnight, John 36 neighborhood-based economic development:
McMichael, P. 293 business retention 107, 109–10, 111; business
Mead, George Herbert 2 ventures 108–9, 110, 111–12; capital
Meadows, D. 175 accumulation 109, 110, 112; commercial
Meadows, D.L. 175 revitalization 107–8, 110, 111; community
means-testing 14 organizing 109, 111, 112–13; context and
medium conflationism 230 overview 107; education, training and
menial labor, and race exploitation 331 placement 109; employment, training and
Menino, Tom 163 placement 110–11, 112; entrepreneurialism
Mercer, D. 172 109, 110, 112; forms 108; labor-based
Mexico: Hometown Associations (HTA) 283, development 109, 111, 112; neighborhood
284; see also Kukdong International and regional economy 109–11; practice 107–9;
MexMode (formerly Kukdong) 292 sociopolitical conditions 111–13; theory
Microenterprise Development Programs (MDPs): evaluation 113; theory requirements 113
392 |╇╇ Index

neighborhood change 15 OEO 24, 30, 33

neighborhood, defining 244, 310 officials 374
neighborhood effects 5 Ooms, T. 129
neighborhood government 32 operating support programs (OSPs) 55, 160
neighborhood homeowners’ associations 198 opportunity structure 347, 351
Neighborhood Housing Services of Minneapolis oppression: application of criteria 336; cultural
94 imperialism 333–4; exploitation 329–31;
neighborhood intervention, in social problems 315 overview 328–9; powerlessness 332–3;
neighborhood movements 32–3 structural 329; use of term 328–9; violence
neighborhood policy, 1960s 31 334–6
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) organic agriculture 170
35; mutual housing associations (MHA) 80 organizational capacity, community development
Neighborhood Revitalization Program 71 corporations (CDCs) 58–60, 59
neighborhood settlement house 14 organizational learning, city governments
neighborhood socioeconomic status 314 164–5
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) 90–1 organizers 213–14
neighborhoods 126–7 organizing: community development
NeighborWorks 91, 101 corporations (CDCs) 62; and development/
neo-Alinskyism 32–3, 40, 42 service delivery 378; need for new form 215;
neo-liberal communitarianism 35–6 non-confrontational 35
neo-liberalism 227, 264 organizing process 205–6
NEOCANDO 96 Orozco, Manuel 283–4
Nestlé 168, 170, 171 Otherness 334
network analysis 313 outcomes 223–4
network organizing 217–20 outreach, foreclosure prevention 92
networking capacity: community development
corporations (CDCs) 63–5, 64; congregations Pager, Devah 349–50
147 Palley, T. 256
networks 217; of community organizing 230; paradox of empowerment 206
social capital rich 224 parents, as advocates/brokers for children 127
New Business Ventures for Nonprofit park and greenspace planning 178–9
Organisations 119 Park, Robert 2, 310–11
New Deal 16–18, 20 participation: citizen/resident 15, 364; federal
New Federalism 24 government 28; and sustainability 181–2
New Futures initiative 128 participatory democracy 172
new left, concept of oppression 329 partisan-advocate neighborhoods 233
New Markets Tax Credits 95 partnership, public and faith sectors 140, 143
New Paradigm for Community Reinvestment 37 partnerships, foundations and communities
New Right movement 199 153–4
Nicholls, A. 118 peak oil 167
Nike 290–1 pedestrian environment 179
1920s organizing 197–8 peer lending, Microenterprise Development
1950s organizing 198–9 Programs (MDPs) 297
1960s organizing 195 peer-to-peer connections 216
Nixon administration 24 people, and place 342
non-confrontational organizing 35 performance, face-to-face interactions as 239–42
non-financial resources, community development permits, processing applications 161–2
corporations (CDCs) 65 Persky, J. 253
non-spatial communities 310 philanthropic housing 78
non-verbal behavior 239–41 philanthropy 52, 150–1, 156–7 see also
nonprofessionals 332–3 foundations
nonprofit rental housing 78–9 Pickman, J. 141
nonspeculative homeownership 81–3 Pierce, N.R. 362
normative frameworks 343 place: attention to 176; and choice 341–2;
norming 241 emphasis on 369–70; importance of 211; as
norms, effects of globalization 258 locus of community 215, 380; as locus of
not-for-profit sector 381 community organizing 230; and people 342;
numeracy 326 race and privilege 347
Nyssens, M. 119, 120, 121, 122 place-based approaches 376
place-based communities 4–5
Oak Cliff Development Corporation (OCDC) place-based policies 12
71–2 place-based reform, principles 14
 Index╇╇ | 393

planning: approach to research 239; community- privatization 222

based 366–7; discussion and implications 242; privilege, place and race 347
ethnographic accounts 239–41; importance professionalization, community development
and difficulty of 238–9; nature of 238; options corporations (CDCs) 33–4
241–2; overview 237–8; research method 237; professionals 332–3
tensions 238–9 profit 329
Plotkin, W. 198 programmatic capacity: community development
pockets of poverty 18 corporations (CDCs) 60–3, 61; congregations
police corruption 316 147
policy: effects of 370; and race 350–1 “progressive city” regimes 42
policy changes, foreclosure prevention 93 Progressive Era 14–16, 193–4
policy contradictions 29 project management, community development
policy groups 371 corporations (CDCs) 60
policy issues 373 property: accommodation and accumulation
political action 341 353; see also domestic property
political alliances 13 property interests, nature of 358
political capacity: community development property transfer 161
corporations (CDCs) 65–8, 66–7; prophetic voice 147
congregations 147 Proscio, T. 36
political change 379 public and private spheres 201
political climate 375–6 public control, and institutions 314
political connections 372 public–faith sector partnerships 140, 143
political cultures and models of organizing public funding streams 373
233–5 public housing 26, 77, 315
political economy 4, 5, 315–16 public officials 374
political identities, of groups 31 public–private partnerships 381
political institutions 230–1 public schools 52; and affordable housing
political involvement 248 development 136–7; collaboration and
political labor, gendered division 340 outreach 137–8; community building 137;
political leverage, community development community links 135; creative financing
corporations (CDCs) 67 138; economic development 136; facility
political pressure/influence 371–2 development 135; importance of 139;
politics and power, and gender 204 intergovernmental cooperation 138; joint uses
politics of the possible 172 135–6; overcoming obstacles 137–8; overview
Porter, Michael 35 134–5; role in communities 134; sustainable
post 1975 organizing 199 development 135; and transport 137; youth
post-Fordism 41 development 136
postmodernism 44 public sector 373–4
poverty: concentration effects 311–12; New public space 247
Deal approach 17; pockets of 18; reduction public sphere: community building 211; as locus
strategies 28; remedies 351; and social of community organizations 204; as oppressive
isolation 314; see also children in poverty 340
power 219, 246–7 public transportation 179
power and politics, and gender 204 Puebla, Mexico 286–7
power differentials 226 purchase-rehabilitation loans 91
Power, Thomas Michael 253 Putnam, Robert 36, 189, 221, 225, 313
powerlessness 332–3
practice, levels of 194 quality of life 320, 322
practices, overview 51–2
pragmatism, view of communities 2 race 18; alliances for change 352; and anti-
predatory lending 266 poverty policy 351; and development 348;
prefiguration 172 and education 349; and employment 349–50;
presence, faith-based institutions 144 exploitation 331; failure to respond to 376;
prices, and production costs 255 and housing 348; oppression 330; place and
pricing, transport 179 privilege 347–8; and policy 350–1; and policy
primary goods 323 formation 14; and respectability 333; spatial
prime lending, regulation 267 inequality 348–9
private nonprofit housing 78–9 race-conscious strategy 29
private sector 374–5; and Hometown racial segregation 12
Associations (HTA) 285 racism 198–9
private sphere, as locus of community radicalism 194
organizations 204 Ramsay, M. 142
394 |╇╇ Index

Randers, J. 175 Section 202 housing 78–9

Rasey, K.P. 361 sectoral boundaries 45
Raudenbush, S. 313 securitization 265
Rawls, John 322–3 security, and domestic property 355–6
reaction 191, 197–9 security of tenure 355
Reagan administration 26–7 segregated environments, economic shocks in
real estate development 213 311
real estate industry, attitude to public housing 77 segregation 198–9, 316, 348
real estate, property value 347 Self-Help (North Carolina) 95
reality 246 self-interest 203
reciprocity 5 Selznick, P. 312
recycling 177 Senate hearings, on urban crisis 22
Redefining Progress 176 sense making 241
Reebok 290–1 service infrastructure 245
regional economic modernization 16 service integration 129
Regional Federation of Peasants and Workers service labor, and race exploitation 331
(FROC) 287–92 service provision 52
relationships, community development Settlement House movement 187, 193, 202–3
corporations (CDCs) 63 sexual oppression 330
religious institutions 52 sexual violence 334
resale-restricted individual ownership 85–6 Shadow State 35
resident/citizen participation 15, 364 shared institutions 5
residential ownership, public housing 26 Sharir, M. 122
residential stability 314 Shaw, C. 312
resilience 55 Siegler, R. 82
resource capacity: community development Simmel, Georg 2
corporations (CDCs) 55–7, 56; congregations Simone, AbdouMaliq 3
146–7; stabilization and expansion 57 SITEMEX (formerly SITEKIM) 291–2
respectability 333 Skloot, Edward 119
responsiveness 55 Skogan, W. 315, 316
Restore our Alienated Rights (ROAR) 199 Skoll Foundation 119
retrenchment 26, 380–1 sloppiness 244
reuse 177 Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity 169
revenue sharing 24, 25 Slow Food Movement 169
reverse mortgages 93 slum clearance 17, 18–19
Revolutionary Confederation of Peasants and smart growth 178
Workers (CROC) 287 Smith, Adam 254, 320, 321
Ricardo, David 254 social capital 36, 189, 220–2, 225, 238, 308–9,
Rodrik, D. 256, 257 313
role playing 240 social capital theory 224
Roosevelt administration 16–17 social conflict 312
rootedness 4–5 social control 312–13
rotating savings and credit associations social diversity 41, 238
(ROSCAs) 295, 296 social divides, bridging 45
Rothman, J. 39 social division, and inequality 325–6
Route 2 Co-op 83 social enterprise 52
Social Enterprise Unit (UK) 119
Sampson, R.J. 313, 314, 315, 350 social entrepreneurship: approaches to 118–20;
Sanchez Juarez, Rene 289 comparison of approaches 120, 120–2; context
Sankofa Foundation 283 and overview 117; defining 117–18; earned
Saunders, P. 358 income 121; Emergence of Social Enterprise
savings accounts 100 in Europe (EMES) Research Network 119,
scalar boundaries 46 122; governance 120; innovation 121;
scale 378 Innovation School of thought 118, 122; legal
schools, as central to services 131 structure 121; mission and services 121;
Schorr, L.B. 128, 129 profit distribution 121; Social Enterprise
Scott, R. 255 School of thought 118–19, 122; summary and
scripts 241 conclusions 122–3; UK approach 119–20,
Scudder, Vida 193 122–3; units of observation 120–1
secondary mortgage market 264, 265 social equity 181
Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act social housing: community land trusts
1984 264 (CLT) 83–5; forms 77; increasing 86–7;
 Index╇╇ | 395

limited-equity cooperatives 81–3; market- subcommunity 311

rate cooperatives 82, 83; mutual housing subdivision ordinances 177
associations (MHA) 79–80; nonprofit rental subprime lending 90–1, 94, 101, 265–7
housing 78–9; nonspeculative homeownership subprime market 262
81–3; overview 76; public housing 77; resale- suburbanization 309, 350–1
restricted individual ownership 85–6; Route suburbs, growth of 18
2 Co-op 83; security, power and control Sugrue, T. 198
80–1; summary and conclusions 87; Workers Sullivan, M.L. 127
Cooperative Colony 82; zero-equity co- supermarkets, engaging with communities 168
operatives 82 supply side community building 211–12
social injustice, violence as 335 supply-side philosophy 26
social justice 175, 376 sustainability 52; competing strategies 176;
social mission 45 economic development 180–1; environment
social movements 32, 196 177; housing 180; land use 178–9; limits 176;
social networks 96, 172, 310, 313 long-term view 176; and market mechanisms
social norms, effects of globalization 258 176; overview 175; perspectives 175–6;
social organization, and structural differentiation process and participation 181–2; raising
314–16 awareness 175; and size 178; social equity
social ownership, defining 76 181; transport 179–80
social planning 39–40, 41–2, 45 sustainable development: defining 176; public
social problems: neighborhood intervention in schools 135
315; spatial clustering 312 Suttles, G. 316
social reproduction 3 systemic model 313
Social Security Act 1935 16–17, 18
social theory, view of communities 1–2 Taub, R.H. 361, 365
social value, corporate promotion 171 tax benefits, nonprofit rental housing 79
social work, and community organization 38 Tax Reform Act 1986 265
socioeconomic status, neighborhood 314 technical assistance needs, faith-based
soft and hard work 213 institutions 146
solidarity 342 technological change 309
spatial clustering, social problems 312 technological optimism 175
spatial inequality 348–51 Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANFâ•›) 125,
spatial/political boundaries 45 131, 380
Special Impact Program (SIP) 22–3, 30 tenancy 80–1
spirituality 175 tenancy protection 96
sprawl 348, 350 tenure conversion 95
stability 314 territoriality 313
stabilization, community development The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) 266
corporations (CDCs) 57 The Wealth of Nations 254
staff, community development corporations theology 143
(CDCs) 58 theoretical issues, overview 305–7
Stall, S. 188 theoretical model of organizing in context 234
Starting Points 132 theories of change 151
state: and food security 168–9; restructuring theories of globalization 43–4
380; role in financialization 267 theory of housing classes, collective action 353
statewide groups 33 three Es 181
Static Enhancement Model 246 Tilly, C. 2–3, 310, 312, 313, 353
Stein, K. 266 togetherness 342
Steinbach, C.F. 362 toll zones 180
step lending, Microenterprise Development Tönnies, F. 2, 5
Programs (MDPs) 297 trade, local 253
stereotypes 334 Transformative Model 246
Stoecker, R. 188, 229, 365 transformative organizing 247
Stoecker’s model 366–7 transit-oriented development 179
Stone, Clarence 221 transnationality 43–4
street design 179 transport: federal funding 179; pricing 179; and
strength, and power 246 public schools 137; sustainability 179–80
structural differentiation, and social organization Traynor, W. 365
314–16 Tres por Uno 284
structural issues, vs. local issues 369–71 troops, use in ghettos 20
structural unemployment 19 Tsitsos, W. 143
style switching 241 Twelvetrees, A. 361, 364, 365
396 |╇╇ Index

two-tier provision 14 Weber, Max 2, 245

welfare analysis 322
underclass 331 welfare, injustices 331
Unemployed Councils 194 welfare services, congregations 147
unemployment, structural 19 welfare states, weakening 257–8
United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) 288, welfare theory 322
291 Wellman, B. 309, 310
upward conflationism 229–30 Wells, Ida B. 202
Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) 25 Western Union, four-for-one program 285
Urban Justice Center 37 Whittier Housing Corporation (WHC) 71
urban redevelopment: cooperative housing 82–3; Whyte, W.F. 316
and public housing 77 Wiewel, W. 253
urban renewal 18–19, 20–1, 315 Wilson, W.J. 311, 312, 314, 315, 350
urbanism 2, 310, 312 Wirth, L. 2, 309
US federal policy: 1970s 23–6; 1980s 26–7; women: collectivism of 203; Microenterprise
Clinton administration 27–8; community Development Programs (MDPs) 296–7, 299;
impoverishment 12; context and overview 11; oppression 330–1; see also gender
contradictions 12; historical patterns 11–16; women-centered model 188, 202–3, 222; vs.
New Deal 16–18; new policy environment Alinsky model 203–6
28–9; postwar 18–20; progressive roots women’s movement, cooperative housing 83
14–16 Wood, Adrian 256
utilitarian calculus 321 Woodstock Institute 96
work, hard and soft 213
vacant housing 94–5 Workers Cooperative Colony 82
verbal behavior 239–41 Workers’ Rights Consortium (WRC) 288, 291
vertical integration 314 workplace exploitation 330–1
Via Campesina 169–70 World Social Forum 46
victim blaming 363 World Trade Organization (WTO) 259
Vidal, A. 55, 57, 62, 143, 361, 365
village banks 297–8 xenophobic violence 335
violence, as oppression 334–6
Young, Iris Marion 44, 340–1, 344
Wade, R. 258 youth development, public schools 136
wages, impact of free trade 255–6 Yunus, Mohammed 293
Wald, Lilian 193
War on Poverty 20, 30 zero-equity co-operatives 82
Warren, M.R. 221–2 zoning 316, 350–1
Watts 21 zoning codes 177, 178
wealth disparities 348 Zorn, P. 264, 265
 Introducing the

Social Issues
COLLECTION
A Routledge/University Readers Custom Library for Teaching

Customizing course material for innovative and excellent teaching

in sociology has never been easier or more effective!
Choose from a collection of more than 300 readings from Routledge,
Taylor & Francis, and other publishers to make a custom anthology
that suits the needs of your social problems/ social inequality, and
social issues courses.
All readings have been aptly chosen by academic editors and our
authors and organized by topic and author.

Online tool makes it easy for busy instructors:

1. Simply select your favorite Routledge and Taylor & Francis readings, and add
any other required course material, including your own.
2. Choose the order of the readings, pick a binding, and customize a cover.
3. One click will post your materials for students to buy. They can purchase print
or digital packs, and we ship direct to their door within two weeks of ordering!

More information at www.socialissuescollection.com

Contact information: Call your Routledge sales rep, or

Becky Smith at University Readers, 800-200-3908 ext. 18, [email protected]
Steve Rutter at Routledge, 207-434-2102, [email protected].