REFOCUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

TAKING HOUSING OUT

ByKayla R. Hogan

B.A. National-Louis University, 1993M.S., Chicago State University, 1997

MASTERS PROJECTSubmitted as partial fulfillment for the requirements

For the degree of Masters in Urban Planning and Policyin the Graduate College of the

University of Illinois at Chicago, 2004

Chicago, Illinois

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ......................•.................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION •••••••••••..•.•••.....•.••...•.•••..••••..•..•••.••••••...•••....•.••••..•.••••••••••••.•••.•..••...•...•••••.•...•.••••.••••••.••....•..•.....1

PAPER GOALS •.....••...•.....•.•..••••.•.......•..••••••.•••.•.......•.•.•••..•.••..••.•...••.••...•.....••...•.••..•..••..•••.......•.••..•.•••••..•....•...•.2

METHODOLOGY .....•.•.••.•••.••.....•.•••••.•.••.....•....•••.•••..•.•..•••••.•..•.••.••..••..•.•...•.•.•.•.•.•...•.•..••.•.•.••.•.•.•..•.•.••..•..••.•.•.•.3

HISTORY OF CDCS •.•.••••••..•••••..••.•...•••••.••..•.••.•••••••••••..••••••••.•••••••••.•••.•.••....••••.•.•.•...•.•.•.••••..•••••.•.•••••••....•••.••••••3

FIGURE.l COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VERSUS GOVERNMENT POLICY SINCE 1930 8

THE CURRENT BASE OF ~NOWLEDGE •••.•.••.•....••.....•.•••••.•••.•••.•••.•.••...•...•••..•.•....•••...•.•...•.•...•.•••.•....•.•..•.••..8

MEASURING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF CDCs: QUANTITATIVE

APPROACHES , 10

LIMITATIONS OF CDC EVALUATION 14

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE TRADITIONAL CDC MODEL •.•.•..••.........•..................••......•..•.•....•15

TI-IETRADITIONAL CDC MODEL 15

CHANGING THE TRADITIONAL CDC MODEL AND IMPROVING EVALUA TION METHODS OF

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 18

RESPONDING TO HOMELESSNESS IN CmCAGO IN THE 1980s 22

IC-IHDC INTERFAITH PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY 27

FIGURE.2. IC-IHDC DEVELOPMENT PATH 28

FIGURE.3 IC-llIDC CROSS-SECTIONAL FLOWCHART 29

ANAL yzmG THE IC AND IHDC NETWORK : 30

EXTERNAL PRESSURES INTERNAL STRUGGLES 30 .

DISCUSSION: COMPARING THE TRADITIONAL CDC MODEL TO THE MULTI-LOCAL CDC MODEL 33

FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND NON- TRADITIONAL CDCs 37

CONCLUSIONS •.•...•.•••~•.•.•.•.•••,••.....•.••.•..••.•...•....••..•..•.•.•.•.....•••••.•.••••..•••••••..•••.•••••••.•.....••.•.•..•.••....•.•.••••.••..•.•.39

REFEREl'ICES •..•..•••.••••••••.•.••.•••••.•.•...•.•.•.•.•.•.••..•.........•.......•.•.•.•.••••.••..•....•.•...........•..•.•........•..•.••.•.•..•••..•.••.•.•.41

K,Hogan 1

ABSTRACT

Community development corporations (CDCs) are unique organizations that sponsor awide range of activities in order to address social problems and account for the collective

- - concerns of many stakeholders. Changes in federal public policies stimulated the evolution ofcommunity-based initiatives that led to the CDC movement, Over the past thirty years, CDCshave emerged as strong community leaders despite tremendous risk of failure in volatile politicalenvironments. CDCs adapt to new organizational roles, identify additional partners andstakeholders, seek to rectify urban problems, and respond to conflicting demands. A dauntingchallenge persists to discover ways to improve methods that promote and support efforts tofacilitate community development activities and ameliorate poverty in urban cities. TheInterfaith Housing Development Corporation (IHDC) plays an instrumental role in communitydevelopment in Chicago. Its mission and goals represent adaptations to the traditional CDCmodel. A non-profit developer of supportive housing, IHDC provides housing for the homelessor those at-risk ofhomelessness, low-income, chronically and mentally ill individuals. Throughcollaboration, networking, and strategic planning, the organization has been able to produce a lotof affordable, supportive housing throughout the ~ity of Chicago in a short amount of time.

Keywords: community development corporations; poverty and blight; very low income

INTRODUCTION

The origins of community-based initiatives began in the Progressive Era in response to

urban problems (Fisher, 1997). Historical accounts in the literature on community organizing

and social welfare illustrate changes in federal public policy that stimulated evolution in

community-based initiatives. A review of this literature reveals relationships between diverse

efforts such as the settlement house movement and the community development corporation

(CDC) movement (Halpern, 1994). In response to changes in the social, political, and economic

environments, each generation of community-based initiatives modified previous strategies (see

Fisher, 1997; Trattner, 1999). The historical context in which CDCs exist provides a basis for

exploring the past and present state of these complex human service organizations (HSOs).

Despite their extensive history and tradition in urban communities throughout the U.S.,

many question their contribution to revitalization and the amelioration of blight and poverty (i.e.,

~Hogan2

individuals with incomes below the median poverty level). The purpose of this research project

is to address the ongoing discourse about CDCs by examining the following research questions:

1) What is the "traditional" CDC model? What led to its development? What are thecharacteristic similarities and differences of the traditional CDC model and non-traditional adaptations, and what are the limitations of each approach to revitalization,blight, and poverty?

2) What are the contextual and organizational factors that precipitated the currentperspectives of CDCs?

3) In what ways can evaluation methods be improved in order to expand and improve thecontribution of complex HSOs in the amelioration of blight and poverty in the urbancommunity?

PAPER GOALS

This paper reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional CDC model and

explores in depth one adaptation to the traditional model. Specifically, it examines a new non-

traditional approach to the social problem of homelessness and poverty used by the Interfaith

Housing Development Corporation (IHDC), a private, not-for-profit, project-based organization.

Through an exploration ofIHDC's characteristic similarities and differences to the traditional

CDC model, this paper illustrates a non-traditional approach to community development.

This case study ofIHDC aims to provide insight into the adaptation process through

analysis of the organizational structure, specific goals, and outcomes. Finally, this paper will

lend itself to the advancement of knowledge by proposing to refocus the current goal of research

from how to achieve outcomes (e.g., political and capital capacity) to an alternate perspective

that emphasizes improving methods that examine external environments (e.g., socioeconomic

conditions and public policies).

K,Hogan 3

METHODOLOGYThis research project focused on issues related to the contribution of CDCs in urban

communities. To achieve this objective, the literature on the history of community organizing,

community development, social policy, and evaluation research was reviewed. A case study

approach was used to document the organization. This included a review of archival

information, annual reports, marketing materials, and interview data in order to glean more about

. the organizational structure, role, and function.

Site visits were conducted to observe the culture and physical environment of the

organization. Key actors within the organization were interviewed between January 23 and

March 2, 2004 to learn about the organizational structure, visions, objectives, and other specifics.

HISTORY OF CDCS

CDCs emerged as private non-profit entities organized to assume leadership roles in U.S.

cities. The presence of CDCs emanated from a long tradition of community-based initiatives,

beginning with the settlement house movement and including community-based organizations,

Community Action, Model Cities, and the War on Poverty (Fisher, 1997). Each new

community-based initiative sought to remediate social problems stemming from capitalism,

poverty, disinvestment, poor sanitation, and crime.

The period after World War II, represent an era in which there was significant focus on

alleviating poverty in inner-city communities. From 1930 to 1960, community-based initiatives

played a prominent role in the political arena; efforts focused on local reform were due to the

disbelief in the ability of these federal programs (e.g., New Deal in 1930s and Urban Renewal in

1950) to adequately address the problems within the social, political, and economic

environments. In 1950, when social welfare community work was better equipped than

community-based organizations to deal with the political realities of the times, community

"'"organizing suffered and community development went abroad (see Fisher, 1994; Trattner, 1994).

In order to keep social unrest and disorder at bay, foundations, and other non-governmental

organizations cultivated models for federal programs, and in 1961, an approach known as

community action agencies (Fisher, 1994) took hold. During this time, there were divergent

perspectives on public versus private care for the needs of the nations' poor. Some held to the

belief that care for the poor should be a matter of public responsibility while others believed that

care should come from the private sector (see Trattner, 1994). Community-organizations began

to mobilize.

The transformation of community-based initiatives from the goal of promoting federal

government reform to that of generating a local economy through community economic

development followed (Fisher, 1994). The Ford Foundation and others established a major

philanthropic presence in community-based economic development, first lobbying for

Congressional funding and providing direct support for major CDCs in the late 1960' s, and later

moving to create intermediaries to provide technical support in the 1970's (O'Conner, 1996).

Prompted by changes in federal policies, a new community economic development effort

launched the first generation CDC movement (Fisher, 1994).

The CDC movement began in 1966 when Senator Robert Kennedy of New York toured

Bedford-Stuyvesant, a New York community that is now a combination of two old Brooklyn

communities in Bedford and Stuyvesant Heights. The community, one of the largest in the five

boroughs, contained the largest African-American populations in New York City (see Fisher,

1994; Vidal, 1997). After touring this devastated community, Kennedy enlisted the support of

K,HogfUt 5

fellow Senator Jacob Javits to enact the Special Impact Amendment to the Economic

Opportunity Act.

The Special Impact Program (SIP) was a federal program that provided funds for

economic development in communities battling problems associated with drug-dependency,

unemployment, and deterioration. Under the SIP, one of the first known CDCs (see Bratt, 1989;

Vidal, 1992), Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation (BSRC or Bed-Stuy) formed to

produce jobs and economic development in blighted communities along with federal government

programs like Model Cities. Kennedy stated at the time that the program for Bedford-Stuyvesant

would, "combine the best of community action with private enterprise" (BSRC Website

Overview section, para. 1). He further stated that, "neither [community action nor private

enterprise] by itself is enough, but in their combination lies hope for the future" (Bedford

Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, http://v.rww.restorationplaza.onzlabout/ March 2004). The

SIP sparked the development of the CDC movement.

From 1966 to approximately 1970, less than 100 first generation CDCs were formed.

Most had a primary mission of job creation. This federally funded program established the first

generation CDCs, which represent the traditional cne, model (see Stoecker, 1997). The second

generation CDCs began to form in 1970 due to protests over redlining and displacement caused

by federal programs (e.g., Model Cities) (Vidal, 1992). This new generation adapted to

environmental changes by developing new organizational structures designed to overcome the

fragmentation and other problems associated with government bureaucracies shifting their focus

from community economic development toward housing production (Pierce & Steinbach, 1990;

Vidal, 1992). Changes in the political tide effectively dismantled SIP; consequently, CDCs had

to adapt again.

K,Hogan 6

By the mid 1970s, CDCs had garnered support from private philanthropy, support

groups, and other intermediaries (Vidal, 1992). External forces were at work again; in particular,

the reluctance of the public sector to commit funds to CDCs was due to of lack of productivity,

which was the direct result of inadequate program funding (Stoecker, 1997). Government and

other funders did not invest significant resources into CDC evaluation due to inconsistent

political pressure to do so and a lack of a centralized administrative accounting system to keep

track of their contribution to anti-poverty goals (O'Conner, 1995). A major item of contention

concerned the bureaucracies insistence that the funding for these purportedly community

controlled CDCs come from the community themselves; however, the impossibility of local

funding occurring was ignored (Stoecker, 1997). The battle over public versus private gained

momentum and consistency as government sought continued support of community development

programs.

External dictates forced CDCs to expand even further beyond their capacity with the

hope of receiving anything more than the meager set-asides written into the National Affordable

Housing Act of 1990 (Center for Community Change, 1991). Despite the changes in the external

environment, the number of CDCs grew from an initial 100 to over 2,000 (Vidal, 1997).

However, by 1980, government spending vacillated, and federal, state, and local bureaucracies

withdrew again from social welfare. By the 1990s, persistent poverty in urban communities

manifested itselfin very gross and unmistakable ways (see Wilson, 1987). The private sector

once again began to provide subsidies to emerging CDCs.

In the mid 1990's the federal government implemented programs designed to initiate

private investment (e.g., Empowerment ZoneslEnterprise Community-EZIEC Initiatives) which

sought to regenerate political support for large-scale revitalization, not just improvements for

K, Hogan 7

particular communities (Halpern, 1995). This radically altered the administration of community.~

development prowams (Trattner, 1999), and CDCs had to change positions again. Compared to-".~-

the billions of dollars leveraged in tax-breaks for the major corporations to participate in the

EZIEC programs, CDCs received meager funding to respond to the problems in the community

that antipoverty analysts argued was most useful for maintaining social order (Stoecker, 1997).

Despite reductions in direct federal support for housing development, including public housing,

this period marks the beginning of CDCs insurgence into the affordable housing industry (Bratt,

1989; Vidal, 1997). Recent trends in government funding, in particular, the creation of the Low-

Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), combined with expanded efforts of philanthropies and

national intermediary group, suggest that CDCs will continue to be central players in the

affordable housing industry (pierce and Steinbach, 1987). As previously indicated, this

historical review is an effort to provide a contextual basis for analyzing the conditions under

which traditional CDC models have grown and to inform the discussion about current issues

related to the contributions CDCs make in urban communities in U.S. The next section

examines this same history but in terms of knowledge generated about community development.

K,Hogan 8

FIGURE.1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VERSUS GOVERNMENT POLICY SINCE 1930

I _------,GOVERNMENT POLICY

,

PROGRAMS

1930SocialWelfare

and LiberalReform

1940DepressionNewDeal 1980

Recession

1990NationalAffordable

HousingPolicy

1950 1960War on Poverty

UrbanRenewal SIP1970

ModelCities

I

1930 2000

SETTLEMENT HOUSE;

TOCDes

1930 19401~Generation "CommunitySpin.()ffs" 1950

CommunityOrganizationsSettlementHouse CommunityAction

Movement Agencies

19702"d Generation

CDCs

1990CDCs break into theAffordableHousing

Industry1960

CDC Ma/ement1"GenerationCDCs

1980CDCsgrew

from 100to 2000+

1930 2000

THE CURRENT BASE OF KNOWLEDGE

The first three decades after World War n brought important changes in the role and

production of knowledge related to comprehensive community-based initiatives (e.g., social

welfare policy, evaluation research, and CDCs) (see Fisher, 1994; O'Conner, 1995; Trattner,

1999). Changes in the social, political, and economic environments contextualize the changes in

federal public policy, the evolution of community-based initiatives, and evaluation research. The

first social change aided the progress of community-based initiatives, and guided the formation

of new and improved implementation methods; the uncompromising attitudes from previous

K,Hogan 9

government administrations met with bold social experimentation beginning in the mid 1930's

(see Trattner, 1994). The second change, the Depression and the New Deal (late 1930's to

1940' s), was a political shift that stimulated the development of community spin-offs (Fisher,

1994). The final change, the introduction of a new federal planning and budget system, affected

the economic environment. In the late 1950s and up to 1960, the Johnson administration

mandated the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS) in all executive branch

agencies. Community-based initiatives in the post World War II era were deeply affected by

federal public policy and the new political environment. Federal public policy ripened for the

widespread use of experimental, outcomes-oriented research often associated with scientific

evaluation (O'Conner, 1995). These changes gave evaluation research a prominent position in

shaping community-based initiatives.

Today, academic scholars, analysts, practitioners, and stakeholders are in disagreement

about the actual contributions of community-based initiatives. Numerous studies exist that

define, analyze, and advise CDCs, but a consensus about the role, function, and contribution of

these organizations is elusive. The National Congress for Community Economic Development

(NCCED), which has been tracking CDCs since 1988, defines CDCs according to their mission

statement, role, and function in urban communities; however, the NCCED does not differentiate

the activities of these organizations.

One group that recognizes problems with evaluation research and community-based

initiatives is the Aspen Institutes Roundtable Discussion on Comprehensive Community

Initiatives for Children and Families (Connell, Kubisch, Schorr, and Weiss, 1995). One

contributor to a volume of papers presented by this group took a chronological perspective to

review and analyze the important historical underpinnings that influenced the development of

K, Hogan 10

evaluation research and the CDC movement. O'Conner (1995) found that political and

institutional barriers have hampered effective evaluation, that CDCs face persistent dilemmas,

and that scientific evaluation has played a relatively limited role in determining the fate of these

organizations. Barriers to effectively evaluating comprehensive community-based initiatives

relate to the "contextual analysis" required to understand the impact of CDCs (O'Conner, 1995).

Gittell and Wilder (1999) concurred, asserting the importance of considering contextual factors

directly influenced by the external interaction between and among economic, social, and political

environments.

MEASURING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF CDCs:QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES

CDCs have expanded on multiple dimensions, going "beyond the traditional focus on

housing and business development into human services, community empowerment, and building

social capital" (Rohe, 1998; Stoecker, 1997; Temkin & Rohe, 1998). "Unlike for-profit

organizations, however, there is no single bottom-line measure against which organizational

performance may be evaluated." (Drucker, 1990) CDCs work in tandem with other community

leaders, private foundations and other stakeholders to create positive change (see Bratt, 1989;

1996; Vidal, 1997). In many U.S. cities, they are the most productive developers of affordable

housing for low-income residents (Vidal, 1992). The National Congress for Community

Economic Development (NCCED) estimated in 1991 that CDCs had created 320,000 units of

housing (Vidal, 1992) and in 1995 NCCED added another 80,000 units. "CDCs do better than

local housing authorities at providing housing (Stoecker, 1997), "but it is a drop in an ocean of

need" (Twelvetrees, 1989, p.155).

The current base of knowledge about CDCs emphasizes measuring success based on

outcomes, which Gittell and Wilder (1999) and Twelvetrees (1996) both believe fails to account

=

K,Hogan 11

for the difference between the success of the organization and the success of the resident

population it serves. Several studies conducted over time to assess CDC performance and

effectiveness in reducing urban blight and poverty reveal compelling evidence that supports the

claim for improving evaluation measures and methods.

After WWII, quantitative outcomes research increased as researchers adapted the

methods of controlled experimental design developed over several decades, and applied in

engineering, psychology, and educational research (Campbell and Stanley, 1966). This

experimental approach favored a laboratory setting in order to establish the cause and effect of

particular interventions with some degree of statistical validity. "The absence of ideal laboratory

conditions wherein researchers could manipulate most of the variables, evaluations of human

interventions became an exercise in control; controlling for contextual factors or natural

processes not directly tied to the intervention in an effort to avoid bias" (O'Conner, 1995, p.31).

Foundations and federal funding agencies generated a quantitative research industry and used

CDC evaluations for political purposes to justify continued support for community development

programs. However, early evidence suggests that this was problematic.

For example, Abt Associates (1973) conducted a study of SIP in the early 1970's using

statistical measures and concluded, ''while the SIP legislation stipulates "appreciable impact" as

the overall goal of the Program, it fails to provide criteria for the "appreciability" of observed

CDC impacts"(Abt Associates, 1973, p.9). Consequently, the decision whether a given CDC is

capable of achieving appreciable impact (justifying continued support) is based on the subjective

judgments of the individual observer (Abt Associates, 1973).

The next generation of CDC studies was designed to begin to fill in the gaps in

knowledge about community development-particularly, about CDCs as community stabilizers.

K,Hogan 12

These studies "[added] to a thoughtful and growing, but still limited, literature on how to design

and measure community building or comprehensive community change initiatives" (Connell et

al., 1995). These studies counter the widespread outcome-oriented evaluations of the past.

Briggs, Mueller, and Sullivan (1997) write most studies have focused on challenges to, and

successes in, housing development and management Claims about social effects have been

largely rhetorical, and based on anecdotal evidence about quantifiable CDC success in particular

contexts (pierce and Steinbach 1987). Based largely on program records, interviews with CDC

staff and funders, and CDC self-reports, previous research has informed us about what CDCs

produce, not how residents and communities benefit (Briggs et al, 1997).

The Community Development Research Center of the New School for Social Research

issued two reports on a major effort to understand the social effects of CDCs on urban

community. These studies took place in two phases and utilized a mixed methods approach.

The first report, "More Than Housing: How CDCs Go about Changing Lives and Neighborhoods

(Sullivan, 1993) examined the practices through which twelve leading CDCs were attempting to

revitalize the physical and social fabric of their target areas" (Briggs et. al.1997). While the

twelve CDCs featured in the Phase I report varied widely in their specific programs, as well as

their untested theories (i.e., theories without empirical data) about how to change their)

neighborhoods, the findings revealed that successful CDCs shared certain characteristics.

Specifically, they all realized that in order for housing programs to remain viable, they had to

pursue revitalization activities beyond housing (i.e., property management, organizing, social

services, advocacy) (Briggs et. al, 1997).

The second phase focused on measuring the contributions of CDC outcomes on three.

dimensions (housing satisfaction, neighborhood safety, and community building), and key

K,Hogan 13

findings revealed four themes. The first two themes related to strategies and resources. There

was virtually no variation in these strategies and resources, but the external context was

significant across the board. The third and fourth theme related to community building and

resident perceptions. The third theme was more specific than the first two and reflected struggles

to change and enhance citizenship among community residents and groups, despite persistent

barriers to community building that included crime, isolation due to joblessness, and resident

transience. A major distinction was that CDC residents viewed their housing as a "move up"

among members of the comparison group (Briggs, et. al, 1997).

Another study utilized a broad operational definition to relate success directly to the

CDCs' contribution to the well being of its constituents (target population) (Gittell and Wilder,

1999). These researchers attempted to capture the range of CDC experiences and outcomes and

called for contextual analysis in identifying success. The study found four key factors that

influenced CDC success: mission, political capital, organizational capacity, and funding (Gittell

and Wilder, 1999). The researchers concluded by noting the importance of considering the direct

influence of conditions that exist within the local context on the key factors identified. In each of

the case studies, the local economic, social, and political climate had a direct impact on the form

and effectiveness of CDC initiatives (Gittell and Wilder, 1999).

Numerous analysts, including CDC advocates, continue to search for evidence that CDCs

have enough impact to reverse neighborhood decline or that the development they produce

would not have happened anyway (Stoecker, 1997). The lack of evidence does not indicate that

CDCs have not made an impact, but rather, that the art or science of measuring the impact of

CDC outcomes is in its infancy stage (Bratt, 1997). The strongest significance of these studies

lies within their conclusions and recommendations. Each one identified the merits of traditional

K,Hogan 14

CDCs as a viable strategy for community revitalization, the amelioration of blight, and poverty.

There also were strong similarities in findings on the influence of social, economic, and political

contexts. However, none of the studies addresses the issue of why these similarities exist.

LIMIT ATIONS OF CDC EVALUATION

While researchers and practitioners from various disciplines have all weighed in to define

and advise CDCs, the current base of knowledge is incomplete. Despite a long tradition and a

multitude of studies, the impact of CDCs contribution to alleviating blight, poverty and other

urban problems remains elusive. Various disciplines and many stakeholders have developed

multiple definitions of CDCs; yet, no one has reached a consensus about how to measure the role

and function of these organizations. The absence of a formal defmition has implications for

CDCs and evaluation of their work. It is difficult if not impossible to measure undefined

variables, which is why researchers often have had to rely on factors that are easy to quantify.

CDCs have a long tradition, as indicated throughout the research literature. Methods and

measures to evaluate organizational outcomes must consider the intimate connection between

processes and outcomes. A recent trend in social scientific research counters the use of the

large-scale experimental design approach of the past. Problems with CDC evaluations may be

attributed to methodological constraints related to quantifying outcomes, wide variability in CDC

efforts, changes in external environments (e.g., social economic, and political), and other factors.

Inherent environmental changes exacerbate CDCs risk for not just failure, but also extinction

(Hasenfeld, 1992). Changes in external environments are only part of the problem with CDC

evaluations. Additional case studies are needed on CDCs that have failed, downsized, and

merged so that factors contributing to these changes can be assessed and generalized to other

relevant factors (Bratt and Rohe, 2003). Without studies that focus on why CDCs succeed or

fail, the contribution of CDCs in urban communities will remain unclear.

K,Hogan 15

In addition to exploring how these organizations fare under varying social, economic, and

political circumstances, evaluation research should also focus on "contextual analysis" of these

factors (O'Conner, p.53). CDC studies are lacking comprehensive analyses that carefully track

and detail evidence of the ways in which strings attached to outside funding restricts,

undermines, and impedes CDC performance, goals, and objectives and overall contribution in

urban communities.

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE TRADITIONAL CDC MODEL

THE TRADITIONAL CDC MODEL

Since the emergence of the CDC movement, the role and activities of the traditional

model has changed and expanded (Vidal, 1992). According to a national census of CDCs

conducted by National Congress for Community Economic Development (http://www.ncced.org/

March 2004), there is an estimated 3,600 CDCs across the United States. A CDC is a type of

not-for-profit entity; it is similar to any other not-for-profit entity organized under state law and

holds a federal tax exemption (section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code), which enables

the entity to organize and be recognized as a CDC. According to the NCCED, there is no legal

definition for CDCs. These organizations define themselves by their mission statement,

community-based leadership efforts, and work on housing production or job creation.

Traditionally, residents, small business owners, congregations and other local

stakeholders form CDCs to revitalize a low and/or moderate-income community (according to

the definition given by the NCCED). Typically, these organizations function as producers of

affordable housing and create jobs for community residents. CDCs create employment

opportunities through micro business enterprises (e.g., micro lending) or commercial

development projects. For example, BSRC provides financial assistance through the Restoration

Capital Fund (RCF). Founded in 1998 to provide financial assistance and business development

K,Hogan16

services to under-served communities in Brooklyn, New York, RCF is a certified Community

Development Financial Institution (CDFI), and a subsidiary of BSRC (Bedford Stuyvesant

Restoration Corporation Website, http://www.restorationpJaza.ondabout/March2004).In

addition, many CDCs provide a variety of social services tailored to the needs of their target

population. For example, at Bethel New Life, community organizing is a key element of the

organization. The Community Building division of the organization, created in 2001, provides

social services related to helping residents with home ownership, school reform, advocacy, and

legislation (http://www.bethelnewlife.ondcom building.htmI2004).

There is ongoing speculation among CDCs, advocates, social scientists, and researchers

about the appropriate role, purpose, and impact ofCDCs (see Stoecker, 1997, Bratt, 1989). The

positions held by proponents who weigh in on the discussion about CDCs argue for strategic

changes to the traditional CDC model. However, contenders argue for changes in public policy

and hold to the belief that greater public support for physical development in urban communities

and a "revamped and rejuvenated" public housing program provides a sounder solution. Both of

these perspectives highlight crucial questions but neither considers the potential of evaluation

research to answer the question that is the impetus for the debate: whether the impact ofCnes'

contribution is enough to revitalize and ameliorate blight and poverty in urban communities

(O'Conner, 1995).

There are several adaptations to the CDC model, which vary significantly from

organization to organization (Gittell and Wilder, 1999). Non-traditional approaches to

community development (e.g., non-local housing development and mergers) make adaptations to

the traditional CDC model. According to Stoecker (1997), community organizations might

function more efficiently and increase capacity if they utilized a different approach. He proposes

K,Hogan 17

to first disentangle the acronym-laden fog of organizational definitions and labels (i.e., CDCs

(Community Development Corporations), CBOs (Community- Based Organizations), CBDOs

(Community-Based Development Organizations), etc. which only serve to confuse the

distinction between community organizing, advocacy and community development. He

recommends reserving the name "CDC" for those organizations that build buildings,

"community organizer" or "advocacy group" should be assigned to those that build community

power. He suggests the mergers of "multi-local CDCs" to increase capacity and calls for

removing the community-based myth because he contends "individual communities no longer

need nor should they wan, their own CDC" (Stoecker, 1997, p.19). CDCs should combine

collective talent to produce physical redevelopment that exceeds community deterioration.

Stoecker (1997) criticizes the traditional CDC model and proposes an alternative model

of urban redevelopment that emphasizes community organizing, community-based planning, and

high capacity multi-local CDCs (e.g., organizations that increase capacity through partnerships

with other groups to expand their jurisdiction to multiple locations) to increase accountability

through a strong community organizing process. Stoecker (1997) asserts that CDCs playa

crucial role in the production of affordable housing. However, he contends that absent is a

theoretical understanding of the ways in which CDCs "interact" with the contradictions of

community and capitalism in America, and the political-economic forces that impinge on the

CDC, potentially hindering its effectiveness (Stoecker, 1994, p.3). According to Stoecker, the

CDC model should change; his model calls for compartmentalizing the CDCs' role (e.g., housing

development organization) and function (e.g., housing production and organizing/advocacy).

Lenz (1988) cites free-market assumptions about urban problems. "Given their

organizing roots, why have [CDCs] not responded more aggressively to the economic and social

K, Rogan 1~

decline of their communities in the 1980s? Are [CDC] leader's corrupt sell-outs, or the

stereotypical poverty pimps portrayed by the new right?" (Lenz, 1988, p.25) His reply to the

last question is "for the most part no" (Lenz, 1988, p.25). "Professionals [CDC advocates and

practitioners] are good people with bad theory; rather in the absence of theory on the steady

decline of the political economy in communities they adopt the free market wisdom of economic

decline and rebirth" (Lenz, 1988, p.25). This perspective provides evidence of the need for

improved evaluation methods.

Rachel Bratt (1997) suggests that Stoecker's (1997) alternative diminishes the value of

the traditional CDC and compounds vulnerability, meaning observers tend to attribute ''weak

performance to systematic causes" (e.g. political, social, and economic). Bratt (1997) opposes

changes to the CDC model and advocates for policies that promote increased public support,

placing responsibility for addressing serious problems in low-income communities on federal

and state policies and suggests demanding an increase in public resources for CDCs. "The

problem is at least minimally due to the. conflicts and contradictions facing CDCs. The real

locus of responsibility rests with a public sector that is reluctant to regulate the private for-profit

enterprises that wreak havoc on low-income communities and spend as little as possible on

programs for the poor" (1997, p.27). This perspective also provides additional support for the

claim that improvements in evaluation methods and measures will enhance knowledge about the

contribution of CDCs.

CHANGING THE TRADITIONAL CDC MODEL AND IMPROVING EVALUATION METHODSOF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The problems that permeate the traditional CDC model are no more challenging than the

problems in any other complex HSOs fighting the battle against poverty and capitalism. Every

HSO struggles with the "contradictions of urban capitalism" and the "political economic forces"

K,Hogan 19

that hinder effectiveness (Stoecker, 1997, p.3). These organizations reflect the altruistic nature of

society and are manifestations of societal obligations to the social welfare and well being of its

cizitens. However, they are also a product of the American economic system that thrives on

capitalism and are seen by some as wasteful, fostering dependence, obtrusive and controlling

(Hasenfeld, 1992). "To understand these questions, we must look at [the] urban political

economy and how the CDC model of urban redevelopment interacts with it" (Stoecker, 1997,

p.3). Problems mayor may not justify changing the traditional CDC model. Bratt (1'997)

indicates that due to a new generation of "comprehensive community initiatives" funded by

private foundations, a number of organizations are already following the non-traditional model

that Stoecker (1997) recommends. However, evaluation research does not neccesarily reflect

these changes. The benefit of adopting Stoecker's (1997) alternative is that it calls for a

distinction between role and function, which will provide operationalized definitions and account

for the dimensions that would likely be added from such a change (e.g., property management,

social services). These dinstinctions and subsequent operational definitions would likely lead to

improvements in measurement to evaluate CDC performance.

The current perspective held by research scholars about traditional CDC models and

public policies that support them is more prescriptive than instructive. The question remains

unanswered as to whether CDCs have a significant effect on ameliorating urban blight and

poverty in urban communities. Many of the problems in the community and in anti-poverty

efforts are local in origin, but many others originate outside the community, city, or state (Lenz,

1980). Lenz (1980) suggests well-organized groups contribute to the political process. They can

make that contribution by confronting the problems with traditional evaluation methods and

developing improved measures that account for the details of political involvement. The current

K,Hogan 20

perspective on the traditional CDC model is not the answer. Change is necessary and has

historically been a prerequisite to the advancement of trends in community development

activities.

Nicholas Lemann's (1994) highly controversial article initiated the ongoing discourse

regarding the contribution of traditional CDC models. However, it is extremely difficult to find

statistical evidence that attributes revitalization of any inner-city neighborhood to the work of

CDCs. Instead, we get many anecdotal revitalization success stories, such as the building of

"festival markets" like in South Street Seaport in New York, or [the] shoring up of an area that is

blue-collar rather than poor and residential rather than industrial, like in South Shore in Chicago

(Lemann, 1994). While such cases provide proof that revitalization of urban communities is

possible, they also support the claims made that improvements in evaluation research is needed.

Scholars, academic researchers and various stakeholders freely point out problems with

traditional CDC models. In order to gain a clearer perspective on the benefit and contribution of

CDCs, it is important to begin to seek evaluation methods that measure useful planning and

implementation strategies.

As stated in the Current Base of Knowledge and in the History of CDCs sections of this

paper, fluctuations and modifications to federal public policy and CDC programs stimulated

adaptations to traditional CDC models. Organizations began to customize their strategies to

make the transition into the affordable housing industry. The two timelines below illustrate

changes in government federal public policies and evolutions in community-based initiatives

from 1930 to 2000 (see Fisher, 1994; NCCED, 1995; Trattner, 1999; Vidal, 1992, 1997).

CDCs have an extensive thirty-year history, well documented in the literature as a viable

entity for change; and their ability to adapt to environmental fluctuations has always been the

impetus for those changes. Withoutstudies that speak to the contributions CDCs make in

ameliorating poverty in the urban community, the possibility that analyses underestimate or

overestimate their potential is great. This may lead to government misappropriation and negative

impacts associated with their failure (Bratt and Rohe, 2003). CDCs have historically sustained

themselves in a turbulent "environment that renders them completely dependent and vulnerable

to challenges that threaten the authority and legitimacy of the organization and their very

existence" (Hasenfeld, 1992). However, the impact ofCDCs' contribution then, or now, is up

for debate. Improved methods for evaluating CDC performance may lead to analysis of the

"contradictions" of community and capital. For example, evaluation focused on process can

identify the effects of constant changes in social, economic, and political environments as means

for analyzing the conditions under which these organizations can thrive and more effectively

achieve goals and objectives.

Problems with the traditional CDC model cannot be accounted for simply in terms of

changing the approach or federal public policy; rather, they must be seen as having complex

antecedents that range from internal struggles and responses to external pressure. The shared

traits between the traditional CDC model and its adaptations should be considered before

criticizing and reducing the problems associated with the model down to an easy

recommendation to expand capacity or federal public spending. Furthermore, we need to

understand better what characteristics unify the traditional CDC model and adaptations to this

approach. Traditional CDCs focused on community development in a single, low to moderate-

income neighborhood with an emphasis on maintaining and strengthening indigenous networks

and organizations (Fisher, 1994). Stoecker (1997) suggests subtracting housing from the

community development equation. However, does this mean that housing developers are no

K,Hogan 11

K,Hogan 22

longer doing community develop~ent? As these adaptations take place, new evaluation methods

are needed to better define and advise them. Efforts to improve methods of evaluating CDC

performance can provide a viable alternative to the current perspective if it also allows for a clear

analysis of current non-traditional models.

The following case study aims to improve our understanding of the characteristic

similarities and differences in the traditional CDC model and its adaptations, and to develop

better methods for evaluating the impact of "non-traditional" CDCs. The Interfaith Housing

Development Corporation (IHDC), incorporated in 1992, represents this new form of housing-

focused non-local organization that Stoecker (1997) proposes and that Bratt (1997) notes are

already in existence. This organization is considered non-traditional because it does not serve a

specific location but rather its mission aims to help a specific under served population, namely

those who are homeless or at risk of homeless ness, by providing permanent affordable housing

for them in the city of Chicago. IHDC is also considered an "adaptation" to the traditional model

since it is a CDC that collaborates with other developers to produce housing that meets the needs

of their homeless client population. While IHDC has several other partners, this analysis focuses

on its relationship with the Interfaith Council for the Homeless (IC) since IHDC evolved in

response to the need for a developer who could produce housing for the homeless.

RESPONDING TO HOMELESSNESS IN CHICAGO IN THE 19805

Despite substantial increases in spending on social programs from 1968 to 1980, the

poverty rate failed to decrease (Wilson, 1987), and the plight of the nations destitute, hungry, and

homeless citizens worsened (Trattner, 1994). In November 1984 at a national conference,

Catholic bishops presented "Economic Justice for All: A Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social

Thinking" and called poverty in America a "social and moral scandal that must not be ignored.

Works of charity cannot and should not have to substitute for humane federal public policy"

(United States Catholic Conference, 1986, as cited by Trattner, 1994). Traditionally, care for the

homeless and others on the margins of society had come from private citizens, churches, and

non-profits.

During this time, the Interfaith Council for the Homeless (lC) formed, garnering support

from religious leaders helped to form a membership organization with a focus on homelessness

and related issues (Hasenfeld, 1992). Leaders in the religious community led the initial

membership; however, IC did not adopt a particular faith orientation or affiliation. According to

the Executive Director, (Personal interview, March 2,2004): "IC, the organization, nor any of its

affiliates espouse ,any one particular religious, creedal, philosophical, or theological

denomination. The most important impetus for membership and collaboration was and is a

concern and interest in homelessness and impacts of poverty." At that time, the organizational

goal centered on providing advocacy and referrals for homeless individuals.

From 1984 to approximately 1986, IC collaborated with religious congregations

throughout the city of Chicago to provide referral, advocacy, and support for the homeless.

Initially, the Chicago Department of Human Services (CDHS) contracted IC to provide service

linkages (i.e., no direct-services) between Warming Centers and homeless clients. The Warming

Center Program expanded into the largest emergency shelter program in Chicago. Even though

the program provided 1300 beds per night, the numbers of homeless individuals entering the

emergency shelter program increased and consequently so did the Warming Center Program.

At the height of the Warming Center Program, it provided 208,670 man-nights (annually)

of emergency shelter to 22,230 new (non-repeating) homeless men, women and children. In

response to the increasing numbers of men, women, and children entering the emergency shelter

system, three new transitional shelters opened to provide service exclusively for women and

K, Hogan 23

Despite the response and substantial use of the Warming Center Program, the prevalence

K,Hogan 24

children. The three new transitional facilities provided an additional 1,165 shelter beds and

served on average 2,080 meals per day. The housing shortage went unattended, and the

homeless population steadily increased. In 1989, the city contract for the Warming Center

Program went to another service provider.

of the citywide homeless problem and the absence of affordable housing was largely unaffected

by the insurgence of the emergency shelter program. The IC membership group adopted a

position taken by many social welfare scholars, acknowledging that the causes of social

problems of dependency, mental illness, and chronic diseases are just as important as treatments

(Trattner, 1994). In response, according to a member of the original membership group, an

assessment of the affordable housing situation in Chicago led the organization to assemble a

collaboration that would blend traditional and non-traditional approaches to community

development. "We brought in someone with a background in finance, the current IHDC

Executive Director who has an accounting background and business knowledge to coordinate

development finance" (Personal interview, February 24, 2004). Initially IC provided advocacy

and referral to the homeless population but lacked "a formal program to intervene in the cyclical

effects of poverty and homelessness" according to the board chairperson (Personal interview,

February 2, 2004). The interest was not in providing medical treatment of chronic disease or

illnesses because, as the board chairperson explained (Personal interview, February 24, 2004):

"you have a whole set of rules as a hospital [medical facility]." Instead, IC positioned itself as a.,

service connector, providing supportive social services that are difficult to administer to the

homeless population.

K,Hogan 25

Since IC no longer had the fiscal contract from CDHS, they had to identify a new

organizational role. IC added an educational and advocacy program coordinator to the staff to

establish and facilitate a policy and practical agenda that addressed the systemic causes of

homelessness. Already providing outreach, organizing, and advocacy, IC began identifying

additional partners to address the homeless problem. "Equipped with a building and a plan

written on paper," IC solicited input from colleagues in the health and human services sector to

develop policy and procedures for their first undertaking in the affordable, supportive housing .

industry. At that time, social services began to playa prominent role in the emergency shelter

programs. IC decided to switch its focus from service connector/facilitator to service provider.

For the next two and a half years, IC provided supportive social services (e.g., resource referral,

case management, crisis intervention, support groups, and meetings) inside emergency shelters.

IHDC incorporated in 1992 and that same year it collaborated with IC and other religious

community leaders to address the escalating needs of the homeless population. IHDC is a

partner in an interfaith conglomerate that proclaims to center all of its activities, programs, and

initiatives on social justice and homelessness. IHDC is an independent Illinois not-for-profit

corporation with a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization designation from the Internal Revenue

Service. IHDC operates as a strategic planning subsidiary created to provide permanent housing

for very low-income individuals (i.e., individuals whose yearly income is less than half of the

official poverty line- $7,412 for a family of three) or those with a particular preexisting

conditions that confine them to the margins of society (e.g. chronic or mental illness, and drug

addiction).

Interfaith House was the first major undertaking of the two organizations. Interfaith

House opened in 1994; its co-owners Interfaith House, Inc. operate the sixty-bed respite care

• In 1998, the fourth project, Cressey House was opened. Cressey House is ownedand operated by IImC's partner The Cathedral Shelter of Chicago and hastwenty-seven multi-family units for individuals and families recovering fromsubstance abuse.

K,Hogan 26

facility whose yearly count serves approximately eight-hundred homeless individuals discharged

from hospitals. Nearly 10 years later, IHDC opened Sanctuary Place, which provides housing

for women and families who are disabled and formerly homeless. Currently, IC maintains its

operation at Sanctuary Place. IC has two programs that operate simultaneously with very similar

functions: 1) intensive case management and supportive services for 63 female residents and 6

families at Sanctuary Place; and 2) intensive case management, referral, and advocacy for 20

families living independently in scattered site subsidized housing throughout the city of Chicago.

IC provides supportive social services for a total of 160-170 people.

In between these two developments, IHDC has produced other viable community

development projects and generated close to forty-million dollars in development capital:

• Inner Voice Veterans House, opened in 1993, was the first. Co-owners InnerVoice, Inc. operates the fifteen unit transitional housing facility that servicesveterans who have completed chemical dependency programs. '

• Interfaith House was the second development project, opened in 1994, was thefirst collaboration between IC and IHDC. A sixty-bed respite care facility.

• Vision House the third development, is a twenty-five unit multi-family supportivehousing structure that serves individuals and families affected by mV/AIDS.

• The fifth project completed in 1999, Ruth Shriman House is an eighty-two unitlow-income senior housing facility.

• The Children's Place at Vision House, the sixth development project, started in2002, is incomplete. Upon completion (scheduled for later this year), the facilitywill provide an array of social services that include full-service day care, mentalhealth counseling, play therapy, and parental support for the parents and familiesof Vision House.

• Independence House is currently still in construction and incomplete. Thisfacility will have twenty-five family units and will serve recovering parents andtheir children.

K,Hogan 27

• Sanctuary Place is the seventh project and is a sixty-nine unit development thathas sixty-three efficiency apartments and six three-bedroom town homes forformerly homeless women and children.

• Casa Kirk Apartments is a partnership with Claretian Associates, and is a twenty-six multi-unit complex that serves mixed-income (i.e., low-income and affordablerent) families.

In total, when these projects are completed, IHDC will have produced over three hundred units

of affordable housing throughout the city of Chicago in about 10 years - a significant number for

anyCDC.

IC-IHDC INTERFAITH PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY

Today, IC and IHDC work in tandem with each other and additional faith-based

organizations. In combination, this collaboration represents the supportive housing model

mandated in the 10-year "Housing First" plan to end homelessness. Each subsidiary has its own

501 (c) (3) with different roles and responsibilities and unique functions but all profess

commitment to homelessness and related concerns. This collaboration also establishes the

organization as a non-traditional adaptation to the traditional CDC model. Figure 2 summarizes

the history and evolution of the partnership, while Figure 3 shows the expansion oflHDC as a

housing producer since its inception in 1992, and provides a visual overview of organizational

capacity and dates and function of other collaborations and development projects.

K,Hogan28

FIGURE.2 IC-IHDC DEVELOPMENT PATH

ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY

1984The Interfaith Connctl CortheHomeless (IC) was organizedto work collaboratively within

the religious community ofmetropolitan Chicago

1986The Warming Center Program

is inItiated a collaborativeeffort with the city to fund

emergency shelters

1989Education and advocacy

became an important part ofthe the IC mission

1992The Interfaith Housing

Development Corporation(llIDC) is formed to provide

low-income housing

19994Interfaith House

The first major collaborationbetween IC and IHDC

2003Sanctuary Place collaboration

between IC and IHDC

K,Hogan 29

FIGURE. 3 IC-IHDC CROSS-SECTIONAL FLOWCHART

InterfaithHousing

DevelopmentCorporation

IHDC

InterfaithCouncil for the

HomelessIC

rancHousing

Developments

HousingDeveloper

Incorporated,1992

Formed,Supportive

Social Service1984

Inner VoiceTransitional

Housing1993

Vision HouseSupportiveHousing

1997Interfaith House

Respite Care1994

Cressey HouseSupportiveHousing forSubstanceAbusers

1998

Sanctuary PlaceSupportive Housing

2003

Ruth ShrimanSenior Housing

1999

The Children'sPlace at Vision

HouseProjected

Incomplete

Casa KirkApartments

Mixed IncomeProjectedIncomplete

IndependenceHouse

SupportiveHousingProjected

Incomplete

I

K,Hogan 30

ANALYZING THE IC'AND IHDC NETWORK

The Interfaith Housing Development Corporation professes that the impetus for its work

is to collaborate with faith-based community groups and other community partners with a

concern and interest in homelessness and the impacts of poverty. The role of both Ie and IHDC

is indicative of their supplemental functions to one another. IC's overall plan has a diverse set of

objectives, and attempts to create a collective voice through policy and practice with a social

conscious. IC-IHDC participates in a city funded housing program that imparts ideals,

regulations and stipulations to which the organization attempts to comply. Strategic planning

enables IC-IHDC to transform the ideal of the mission into viable ventures and opportunities to

serve the homeless population throughout the city.

Each organization has a clearly defined function that illustrates the non-traditional

approach: 1) IC provides intensive case management, supportive services, advocacy, and

referral; and 2) IHDC provides housing development. Together, they are community partners

that provide an array of resources that serve to promote the mission, goals and objectives of each

organization. Collaboration with community partners coupled with the fact that neither IHDC

nor IC are bounded by a specific neighborhood, provides both increased mobility and latitude to

execute its mission of providing services for the homeless throughout the city of Chicago.

EXTERNAL PRESSURES ... INTERNAL STRUGGLES

External pressures exist and relate to the need for consistent donations and sponsors,

according to the IC's Executive Director, "[Ie] we are constantly soliciting religious

organizations for financial contributions and other resources" (Personal interview, March 2,

2004). The organization has a number of religious congregations that provide annual financial

support and donations. The organization has sixty annual contributors and thirty-five other

social service agencies in the network of service providers.

K, Hogan 31

The research literature focuses attention on the fact that CDCs manage to achieve goals.;.

and visions while working against tremendous odds in constantly changing external

environments. For example, the IC Executive Director acknowledged that IC "works on

systemic issues" (Personal interview, March 2, 2004). The organization attempts to "better the

service delivery" and "change the system that perpetuates homelessness." The Executive

Director indicated that IC strives to "spread the message" about homelessness-"I [the Executive

Director] conduct seminars, speeches, and serve on the Chicago Continuum of Care executive

board, governing board and the implementation committee." Similarly, the goal ofIHDC aims

to produce models of quality, state-of-the-art housing for low-income people as a means to

demonstrate that affordable housing can be an asset to the community.

In 2002; the Mayor of Chicago approved a ten-year plan to end homelessness. "Housing

First" is the cities new model for homeless service delivery. The program philosophy mandates

housing and supportive social services in permanent residences, not in shelters. The Chicago

Department of Human Services (CDHS) commissioned IC as a supportive service model for the

"Housing First" pilot program. IC transformed into a "Housing First" service delivery model

and collaborated with other organizations throughout the city to locate rental subsidies and

Housing Choice Vouchers (i.e., Section 8) to establish a permanent residence for their homeless

clients. After securing a permanent residence, IC would then provide the supportive services.

CDHS administers the public contract, and IC receives a line item in their budget to provide

supportive services at Sanctuary Place and in scattered site subsidized housing throughout the

city. Initially, IC assisted in assessments for apartment readiness, transition to subsidized

housing, resource location (e.g., furniture, security deposits, etc). Now.the organization provides

services to Sanctuary Place, which is an example of the "Housing First" approach.

K,Hogan 32

The change in the homeless service delivery system to "Housing First" is significant

because it led the collaboration between IC and IHDC. Both the affordable housing shortage and

the cyclical nature of homelessness served to motivate this collaboration. The new homeless

service delivery system supported the non-local development-centered focus ofIHDC.

Collaboration with IC enabled IHDC to concentrate on its mission of providing affordable,

permanent housing. This systems-level change enabled IC to provide service to individuals in

their own home, not in shelters.

The Board of Directors ofIC and IHDC arekey actors bridging both organizations. The

Board members and Directors makeup the IC-IHDC network that links social service, advocacy,

and education with affordable housing development to formulate a comprehensive program. As

IC's Executive Director stated, "Case managers are housing retainers and are expected [to help]

with any issue that is standing as a barrier for clients to move forward. One of the visions and

goals for the housing and supportive service model of the "Housing First" Program is community

assessment, housing retainers refer clients to the Mayor's Office on Workforce Development,

and other specialized, technical programs in the community" (Personal interview, March 2,

2004). On-site supportive services include addiction support groups and life enhancement

groups for clients.

The IC-IHDC collaboration is a non-traditional adaptation to the traditional CDC model

because it compartmentalizes the function of housing production and social services. The

current political environment supports this approach as it makes the organization less vulnerable

to changes in the external environment In particular, the philosophy of the current political

environment is stated in the cities' housing policy, housing first, and social services in the home.

Economic changes can also have implications on CDCs and can cause external pressure. Ie and

.~.:

In contrast to advocates who believe that CDCs are doing a good job at community

K,Hogan 33

IHDC are not a unified whole despite ~ome overlap in goals and objectives, so organizational

behavior may differ; yet collaboration requires cooperation and the ability of these two separate

units to work together and be mutually supportive of each other.

DISCUSSION: COMPARING THE TRADITIONAL CDC MODEL TO THE MULTI-LOCAL CDCMODEL

IHDC evidences elements of Stoecker's (1997) proposed alternative CDC modeL The

chief components that distinguish IHDC as a non-traditional adaptation to the CDC model are its

primary function (i.e., housing development) and its "multi-local" approach to community

development (e.g., mergers via partnerships). IHDC resembles the merging approach to capacity

building (e.g., political and capital capacity) by collaborating with other faith-based groups to

expand their jurisdiction to multiple locations throughout the city. Although it is not religiously

oriented, IHDC collaborates with faith-based organizations to produce housing development

projects in multiple locations throughout the city of Chicago. The traditional role of faith-based

organizations as indigenous community service providers created potential for collaboration with

IHDC. Gittell (1980) showed that lower class voluntary organizations were more likely than

middle class organizations to shift from advocacy to service because of problems maintaining

long-term organizing efforts and financial support.

development others believe that it is not enough to reverse blight and poverty. Critics contend

that CDCs have become another developer attempting to cash in on the big business of housing

subsidies following supply-side free market economics (Lenz, 1988). The IHDC non-traditional

approach blends the business approach with service and advocacy by converging with the

religious sector. IC and IHDC form a large interfaith conglomerate, a multi-dimensional

organization with a number of smaller corporations that serve a variety of different functions

(e.g., housing production, social services, education and advocacy, etc.). The Interfaith Council

for the Homeless, the parent organization, provides advocacy, referral, and supportive services,

while IHDC produces affordable supportive housing. Adaptation to internal limitations (e.g.,

capacity, efficiency) and external vulnerabilities (e.g., environmental change) is essential

element to the survival of all HSOs. A key determinant of the organization's service delivery

system is that of the environment in which it is embedded (Hasenfeld, 1992). IHDC functions as

a traditional CDC in that the survival of the organization is contingent on its ability to obtain

resources from the external environment. Strategy is what sets IHDC apart; multi-local mergers

enable this unit to maximize efficiency, build political and capital capacity, and establish a

hybrid method that combines traditional and non-traditional approaches.

IHDC is the affordable housing developer of the interfaith conglomerate. IHDC does not

administer or facilitate the supportive social programs. "They only do housing," as the

Executive Director of'K' stated. "[Housing] is a very important part." (Personal interview,

March 2, 2004) IC is the social service arm, which administers and facilitates the social

programs for the larger organization. Housing development is the major function ofIHDC; this

is consistent with Stoecker's (1997) definition in his alternative to the traditional CDC model.

Yet, the question remains unanswered: how do we evaluate the effects of this strategy? As

Stoecker (1997) suggests, a multi-local CDC approach may increase political and capital

capacity. However, he does not provide insight into ways of examining or implementing this

approach. This is essentiai to the development of generalized knowledge about the multi-local

approach and its successful implementation,

The traditional CDC model and its adaptations share similar characteristic traits related to

strategy, resources, and differences in approach to community development. Comparison of

K,Hogan 34

------------------------ ~

K,Hogan 35

both similarities and differences reveal shared traits that reflect consistency between the

traditional model and non-traditional adaptations. These shared traits help to distinguish the role

and function of the traditional CDC model from its adaptations. For example, traditional CDCs

focused on community development and job creation in one single low-income neighborhood

with indigenous community members. While non-traditional adaptations do not necessarily

share this trait, they share other factors such as advocacy, housing development, funding, and

service to low-income populations.

Traditional models were one-dimensional where non-traditional models are multi-

dimensional. Each has its own unique strengths and weaknesses innate to its individual function.

For example, one of the strengths of the traditional CDC model is that it is designed to spur .

indigenous community members to become enterprising and create economic opportunities for

themselves. However, a weakness is its one-dimensional approach to community development

in a single location with only indigenous community members, which increases vulnerability to

changes in the external environment. Vulnerability to the constant fluctuations and

modifications in federal and municipal housing policy, and funding resources can result in

decreased capacity and CDC failure.

Alternatively, one of the strengths of the non-traditional multi-local approach is its multi-

dimensional nature. The multi-local approach allows non-traditional adaptations to diversify

their portfolios. These organizations can participate in a variety of different physical

development projects. For example IHDC, has collaborated with various community partners to

facilitate housing development for different constituencies ranging from homeless veterans to

senior citizens. Diversity provides more stability and makes the organization resilient to changes

in the external environment. If funding in one-area ends, diversity reduces the threat of

----.~

..~-- --- ~ -----=--~---~ -

K,Hogan 36

organizational survival because the organization can refocus on another area. Diversification can

also be a weakness and contribute to lost focus. The organization can become consumed in the

process of garnering support and maintaining partnerships, inattention to the organizational

mission, goal and objectives can be detrimental. Inattention and preoccupation with appealing to

additional partners can cause the organization to neglect its responsibilities. Sustaining

partnerships can become the organizational focus, diverting attention away from the

organizational mission of providing affordable housing for the homeless.

Non-traditional adaptations share the goal of physical development with the traditional

CDC model, but take a different approach. Utilizing the same funding sources as other

traditional CDCs, IHDC provides physical development for low-income populations throughout

the city of Chicago with different partners Within indigenous communities, which is a non-

traditional adaptation to the traditional approach. Social service administration, client advocacy,

education, and organizing are traits that non-traditional adaptations share with the traditional

CDC model. However, IHDC takes a distinctly different approach to these as well. IHDC

contracts with IC to provide supportive social service, advocacy, and education.

The single focus of the traditional CDC model on one community limits capacity. One of

the characteristics of HSOs is that these organizations experience cyclical legitimacy crises, the

social awareness of the problems in indigenous communities and the legitimacy of the traditional

CDC model have eroded due to disappointments about its contributions in ameliorating blight

and poverty (Hasenfeld, 1992). Consequently, due to its one-dimensional approach, the

traditional CDC model may not survive. The following table illustrates shared traits and

providesa basis for analyzing traditional and non-traditional adaptations.

more than just quantitative measures of success. Quantitative data that measures success based

K,Hogan 37

FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND NON-TRADITIONAL CDCS

Traditonal CDCs Non-Traditional CDCsShared TraitsAdvocacy(community organizing, education,outreach)

x x

Affordable Housing Development(low-income housing)Community EconomicDevelopment in one SingleLocalized Area

x x

x

Funding Resources(private and Public Funding)

x x

xIndigenous Community Members

xJob Production

x xLow-income Populations

Origin (Community Organizations,Grassroots Organizing, Reform)

x

Purpose (Create jobs and housing inon Single Localized Area)

x

xRegional Development

xSupportive Social Service

Shared traits between traditional and non-traditional adaptations have implications on

evaluation of these approaches. Evaluation ofIHDC's non-traditional approach must consider

on outcomes alone would be insufficient. Quantitative data would not assess changes in the

external environment that provide a c?ntext for analyzing changes within the organization. Such

as the shift to "Housing First" and supportive service approach to addressing the needs of the

homeless in the city of Chicago, evaluations would have to consider the contextual factors,

quantitative data would not convey.

Non-traditional approaches to community development necessitate adaptations to

traditional evaluation methods. Improved evaluation methods would need to consider the effects

of partnerships and collaborations (e.g., reconsider variables of interest to particular

organizations). In the case of a multi-functional conglomerate like IC-IHDC, evaluation

methods should consider the "synergy" effects of partnerships in order to measure the extent to

which the sum of the individual parts (i.e., social service and housing development) function

better or worse as a whole. Such methods would provide insight into the individual and

collective contribution of these separate and distinct organizations in alleviating the social

problem of poverty and homelessness and community revitalization. The linear one-dimensional

perspective of quantitative measurement of outcomes in terms of performance would then

change to include qualitative measurement of benefit to the community and target population.

Refocusing the current goal of research from quantitative measurement on how to

achieve outcomes to include qualitative measurement of impacts may provide a means for

examining the benefit and contribution of traditional and non-traditional approaches to

community development. The evolution oflC is a direct response to changes in external

environments. The organization adapted to the change a new service delivery system by

reframing itself as a ''housing retainer." IC operates as a "moral entrepreneur," and acts to shape

to the external environment through its practices (Hasenfeld, 1992). In other words, IC

experienced a "legitimacy crisis" when the service delivery system changed from supportive

K,Hogan 38

• .jo, ,.~" •••, '.~ a ,

K,Hogan 39

services in shelters to services in the home. The organizations' response to this systems level".'.

change was to reframe its service delivery to housing retainer. These and other "contextual"

factors must be considered in evaluation of the IC-IHDC adaptation to the traditional CDC

model. Both are working on changing the "systemic issues" related to poverty and

homelessness, but each organization has its own unique method. Evaluation of the IC-IHDC

approach must consider the benefits of each organizations individual contribution in order to

understand the impact of the organization as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, one of the strengths of the non-traditional approach is that the multi-local

adaptation increases organizational capacity. Specifically, the multi-local adaptation expands

jurisdiction to multiple areas throughout the city and creates opportunities for additional

collaborations. For IHDC, the strongest area of collaboration appears to be with other

community service agencies. Apparently the organization has established "appropriate"

partnerships (i.e., each partner plays to its unique strength) with outside service providers. As a

large organization with smaller corporations that focus on different functions, each is enabled to

maximize capacity. The combination of housing and social service has likely reduced property

management problems (e.g., evictions) that may divert organizational development and hinder

capacity maximization.

A weakness of the non-traditional approach is that the multi-local. model and

collaborations involve trust and a certain amount of expertise among key actors. Although the

multi-local approach and collaborations play to each organization's strengths, these can also

create new challenges, as the organization must constantly nurture and protect the relationship.

The extent to which partnerships with outside service providers creates constraints is another

K,Hogan40

area for further exploration. Creating and maintaining amenable relationships with outside

service providers who may have different priorities (e.g., different organizational

goals/mission/objectives) may create constraints or limits collaborations over time.

It is unclear whether the collaboration between IC and IHDC yields positive affects for

the organization or the "systemic issues" of homelessness. While this collaboration enables each

organization to capitalize on its individual strengths, it remains to be seen if this approach

significantly reduces homelessness and poverty. This could be measured with methods that

combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Future research would focus on evaluating the ways in which IHDC balances the

opportunities and constraints of collaborations and multi-local mergers. Clearly, a new direction

for examining CDCs is necessary and the research presented here begins the process of

identifying potential limitations innate to evaluating traditional and non-traditional adaptations

(i.e., the multi-local model). Furthermore, it is necessary to consider the relationship between

contextual factors (i.e., drug dependence and homelessness) in order to better understand the

ways in which contexts affect organizational approaches to service delivery, its homeless

constituency, capacity, and efficiency. A combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluation

methods will not only gauge CDC performance, but also the impact of community development

strategies and efforts to reduce blight and poverty.

K,Hogan41

REFERENCESAbt Associates (1973). An Evaluation of the Special Impact Program: Final Report. Cambridge,Mass.: Abt Associates.

Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation Overview (n.d.). Retrieved March 8, 2004, fromhttpJ/www.restorationplaza.org/about/.

Bethel New Life Community Development (n.d.) Retrieved March 8, 2004, fromhttp://www.bethelnewlife.orglcom building.html.

Bratt, R G. (1989). Rebuilding a Low-Income Policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bratt, R G. (1997). CDCs: Contributions Outweigh Contradictions, a Reply to Randy Stoecker.Journal of Urban Affairs. 19:1,23-28.

Briggs, X.D., Mueller, E.J., and Sullivan, M.L. (1997). From Neighborhood to Community:Evidence of the Social Effects of Community Development. Community Development ResearchCenter, Robert 1. Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy. New School forSocial Research.

Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs forResearch. Chicago. Rand McNally.

Center for Community Change. (1991). Housing Bill Calls for Big Changes, More Money, ButAdministration Says No.: Community Change, Issue 10, Winter/Spring, 7-10.

Connell, J.P. and Kubisch, A.C. and Schorr, L.B. and Weiss, C.H. (1995). Roundtable onComprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families, New Approaches toEvaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts, The Aspen Institute.

Drucker, E F. (1990), Lessons for Successful Nonprofit Governance. Nonprofit Management &Leadership, 1:1, 7-14.

Fisher, R (1994). Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America. UpdatedEdition New York~Twayne Publisher.

Gittell, R and Wilder, M. (1999). Community Development Corporations: Critical Factors ThatInfluence Success. Journal of Urban Affairs, 21:3, 341-362.

Halpern, Robert (1994). Rebuilding the Inner City: A History of Neighborhood Initiatives toAddress Poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hasenfeld, Y. 1992. The Nature of Complex Human Service Organizations. (Ed.), HumanServices as Complex Organizations. Newbury Park, Ca. Sage pp 3-24.

____ _ _ ~ ••.•• :;c ~~~

K,Hogan42

Lemann, N. (1994). The Myth of Community Development. New York Times Magazine.January 9, 27-31, 50, 54, 60.

Lenz, T.J. (1988). Neighborhood Development: Issues and Models. Social Policy, spring. 24-30.

National Congress for Community Economic Development (NCCED). (1995). Tying It AllTogether: The Comprehensive Achievements of Community-Based Development Organizations.Washington, D.C: NCCED.

National Congress for Community Economic Development (NCCED) My CDC (n.d.). RetrievedMarch 18,2004, from http://wyv\v.ncced.orgl.

O'Conner, A. (1995). Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives: A View from History.Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families, NewApproaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. The AspenInstitute, 23-63.

O'Conner, A. (1996). Community Action, Urban Reform, and the Fight against Poverty: TheFord Foundation's Gray Areas Program. Journal of Urban History. 22:5,586-625.

Pierce N.R and Steinbach, C. (1987). Corrective Capitalism: The Rise of America's CommunityDevelopment Corporations. New York The Ford Foundation.

Rohe, W. M. (1998). Do Community Development Corporations Live Up to Their Billing? AReview and Critique of the Research Findings. C. T. Koebel (Ed.), Shelter and Society: Theory,Research, and Policy for Nonprofit Housing. Albany: State University of New York Press.pp.177-201.

Stoecker, R (1997). The CDC Model of Urban Redevelopment: A Critique and An Alternative.Journal of Urban Affairs. 19:1, 1-22.

Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. M. (1998). Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability: An EmpiricalInvestigation. Housing Policy Debate, 9:1, 61-88.

Twelvetrees, A. (1989). Organizing for Neighborhood Development Avebury. Brookfield, VT

Twelvetrees, A. (1996). Organizing for Neighborhood Development: A Comparative Study ofCommunity Based Organizations. Community Development Foundation-United States.

Trattner, W.1. (1994) From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America.Sixth Edition. The Free Press.

Vidal, A.C. (1992). Rebuilding Communities: A National Study of Urban CommunityDevelopment Corporations. Community Development Research Center=Graduate School ofManagement and Urban Policy-New School for Social Research.

-.,.

K,Hogan 43

Vidal, A. (1997). Can Community Re-Invent Itself? Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 63:4, 429-438.

Wilson, W.J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and PublicPolicy. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS-FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS

(J. Starks, Board Chairman, Interfaith Housing Development Corporation of Chicago, (Retired)Executive Director; Interfaith House, personal communication, February 24,2004)

(J. Hobbs, Executive Director, Interfaith Council for the Homeless, personal communication,March 2,2004)

(S. Gates, Project Manager, Interfaith Housing Development Corporation of Chicago, personalcommunication, January 23, 2004)