1. Prof. Avis C. Vidal Humanities Center Seminar October 1, 2013

2.  1991 – 2001 - National Community Development Initiative  2001-2007 - Living Cities: The National Community Development Initiative  2007 - present - Living Cities

4.  Inner-city housing abandonment rampant in 1970s  Community development corporations (CDCs) form to respond  High-profile issue in Presidential campaign of 1980  ~1980 – National Community Development Intermediaries founded: ◦ Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) ◦ The Enterprise Foundation ◦ NeighborWorks

5.  Intermediaries successful  CDC Movement Grows ◦ Number of CDCs grows sharply ◦ Some CDCs very successful – ‘housing first’  Most CDCs too small for neighborhood-level impact  Field remains unrecognized  Rockefeller Foundation: “Take CDC movement to scale”

6.  7 philanthropic & corporate funders  $62.5 M for 1 st three years (Goal: 10 years)  Virtual organization ◦ Funder CEOs are the virtual Board ◦ Commitment to collaborative decision-making ◦ Oversight by one consultant (later with a Deputy) as ‘Secretary’ ◦ Administered by LISC and Enterprise in 20 cities (later 23)

7.  Attract new capital by attracting new partners ◦ All sectors  grants and loans ◦ National and local ◦ Goal: $250 M over 10 years  Refine program scope – participating cities have different needs, priorities, and capacities  Build capacity of CDCs  Build local systems of support

8.  HUD becomes partner (Section 4 - 1993)  National partnership grows: 11 foundations + 6 major financial institutions  Total funds committed: $253.7M  Leverages $2.23B in CDC real estate development projects  Parallel growth at local level  ◦ Match for NCDI funds ◦ Key players at table to build support systems

9.  Tailor program focus to meet local needs ◦ Neighborhood needs ◦ CDC capacity ◦ Funder tolerance for risk  Gradually broaden support to include new CDC activities – locally driven ◦ Affordable home ownership ◦ Commercial and industrial real estate ◦ Community facilities

10.  Four strategies ◦ Core operating support programs ◦ Formal capacity building programs ◦ Improved training programs ◦ Greater role for local or state CDC associations  Significant capacity gains ◦ Housing production increases sharply ◦ Number of consistent producers more than doubles ◦ Many CDCs broaden scope of neighborhood work ◦ National standards of practice widely adopted ◦ CDCs’ reputation improves locally

11.  Key problem: financing of affordable housing complex; need many funding sources  Basic strategy ◦ Local funders make decisions (programs & projects) ◦ Deepened understanding of the work ◦ Gradually developed relationships of mutual trust ◦ NCDI covered riskiest parts of projects  Systems outcome (uneven across cities): Private capital more available for CDC housing; productions systems streamlined; new support systems for non-housing activities

12.  CDCs, supported by intermediaries, provide platform for comprehensive neighborhood improvement  Local systems of support critical  Collaboration among funders  more capital, strategic deployment ◦  greater impact ◦  platform to try new approaches  Surprise decision: extend program, formalize organization

13.  Small staff led by formed Deputy Secretary  Funder board, committee structure to give funders leadership roles (“member driven”)  3-year funding cycle continues  Broader goals ◦ Improve lives of people in distressed neighborhoods ◦ Connect urban neighborhoods to regional economy ◦ Better use of information technology ◦ Shape public policy

14.  Structure from NCDI continues  Momentum continues to build ◦ Funding to intermediaries continues to rise – both grants and loans ◦ Loans an increasing share of total funds ◦ “NCDI” share of total development costs falls ◦ Volume of real estate development stimulated increases dramatically, becomes more diverse  Agenda still driven by intermediaries

15.  Pilot Cities Initiative – 4 Cities ◦ Local funders design strategies to align resources (following national LC model) for comprehensive revitalization of neighborhoods ◦ No cross-cutting themes  no lessons  Urban Markets Initiative - Close the urban information gap ◦ Better data on urban assets to simulate investment ◦ Neighborhood data available to CDCs, especially GIS  Policy Advisor

16.  Platform created by collaboration not living up to its potential  Cities Program ◦ Proven record of success ◦ No new opportunities to test approaches to systems change ◦ Not member driven  Major restructuring to support more ambitious agenda needed

17.  Broader Mission ◦ Strengthen neighborhoods by  Strengthening their cities  Changing public and private systems that create and sustain concentrated poverty ◦ Build knowledge  Program development and evaluation/research  Broad, transparent dissemination of information ◦ Develop leadership  New leadership, larger staff  New board structure – include members’ staff on committees and working groups

18.  Catalytic Capital (Private)  Leadership & Influence (Public)  Research & Development ◦ Green Economy ◦ Transit Oriented Development ◦ Asset Building ◦ Education  The Integration Initiative

19.  Ambitious 10-year, 5-city intervention  Build new civic infrastructure: “One table” collaborative leadership  Combines targeted neighborhood initiatives with broad systems change ◦ Move beyond delivering programs to changing systems ◦ Mainstream disruptive innovations  ‘new normal’ ◦ Drive private market to serve low-income people  $83M for first 3 years - $13.75M grants

20.  Anchor Strategy (Live, Buy, Hire Local)  New Housing & Real Estate Development  Land Use Policies & Practices  Education  Business development and regulation  Access to capital  Capacity & Leadership  Data & Evaluation