- Email: [email protected]
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States RM Silverman and KL Patterson, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Glossary Common-interest community A housing development or planned neighbourhood where common areas and other amenities are mutually owned. Individual property owners are often required to be members of a homeowners’ association and pay dues or assessments to maintain common areas and other shared amenities or improvements. Intermediary organisation An organisation that facilitates linkages and transactions between other organisations. In relation to community-based organisations, intermediaries often connect local nonprofit developers with financial and other resources from larger institutions in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Kibbutz A collective community in modern Israel based on cooperative enterprise. These communities represented the merging of socialism and Zionism. Initially, people lived and worked in communities that were engaged in agricultural production. Over time, other communities were organised around industry, technology, and other economic activities. Low-income housing tax credit The LIHTC Program is an indirect federal subsidy used to finance the
Grassroots Advocacy and Community Development Community- and neighbourhood-based organisations found in urban and rural settings may be considered central to the development of sustainable housing practices. They emanate from grassroots networks as well as formal orga nisations in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Community- and neighbourhood-based organisations can have a significant impact on social cohesion and housing development. The success of such organisations often depends on their ability to build capacity by leveraging human, financial, political, social, and cultural capital. Although community- and neighbourhood-based organisations can be found across the globe, this article focuses on organisations found in the United States,
186
development of affordable rental housing for lowincome households. The programme allows for proceeds from the sale of tax credits to private investors to be transferred to nonprofit organisations. These funds are used to develop affordable rental housing. Neoliberal policies Policies that seek to transfer part of the control of the economy from the public to the private sector. These policies are based on the belief that private sector activity will produce a more efficient delivery of services. In terms of housing policy, neoliberalism focuses on eliminating public housing and other affordable housing programmes delivered directly through the government and replacing them with programmes that are delivered through private and nonprofit organisations. Special assessment district A designated geographic area in a municipality where special purpose fees or taxes can be applied to property for public services or improvements not otherwise provided by the government. Sweat equity A nonmonetary contribution made to a project or activity by people, usually in the form of work or time individuals commit directly to the completion of tasks.
although many similar organisations and models for com munity-based housing development discussed here are found in other countries. Thus, this article provides a framework for approaching the study of such organisa tions which can be applied to other settings. Community- and neighbourhood-based organisations are subdivided into two broad categories in this article. The first focus is on grassroots organisations that derive from neighbourhood contexts. These types of organisa tions tend to emerge organically in response to local demands for improvements in housing and neighbour hood conditions. They are often led by residents and other indigenous groups. Grassroots organisations are also philosophically distinct. They tend to subscribe to decision-making models based on enhancing participa tion, local control, and neighbourhood governance.
INSTITUTIONS
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
In contrast to grassroots organisations, this article also identifies a group of community-based organisations that are designed to stimulate housing and economic develop ment. These organisations are more formal in structure and are often sponsored by agencies in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Community development organi sations link communities with resources and technical assistance from larger organisations in society, but this is sometimes at a cost. Because community development organisations are dependent on outside institutions for resources, local control of development can be diluted. Consequently, sustainable models for community-based housing development often rely on the presence of both types of organisations. Grassroots organisations fill a cri tical role in empowering residents and advocating for their interests, while community development organisa tions provide vital links to external resources and institutions.
Neighbourhood-Based Organisations Grassroots and Neighbourhood-Level Organisations There are a number of different types of grassroots and neighbourhood-level organisations found in communities across the United States. They include organisations such as block clubs, tenant associations, merchants associations, neighbourhood watch organisations, recreational and ath letic clubs, community gardening clubs, parent–teacher associations, faith-based organisations, and a variety of informal groups organised by residents to improve hous ing and neighbourhood conditions. What unifies these groups is their geographic focus as well as their approach to decision-making and governance. Grassroots and neighbourhood-level organisations are characteristically parochial in their focus. They empha sise tangible issues that impact the immediate surroundings of residents and basic concerns about hous ing maintenance, public amenities, and the general quality of life in communities. In many respects, the identity of a grassroots organisation is inseparable from the neighbourhood context. The definition of what con stitutes a neighbourhood and its boundaries grows out of the manner in which residents use their physical sur roundings to meet daily needs. Neighbourhood boundaries are defined in relation to housing, household consumption, recreation, education, social engagement, and spiritual and personal enrichment. From this perspec tive, the neighbourhood is both a distinct physical setting and a focal point for social interactions. At the same time, neighbourhood boundaries are porous. Unlike the bound aries of settlements that are demarcated by larger institutions in society for administrative purposes, organic
187
neighbourhood boundaries are easily adjusted to meet the immediate needs of residents. Closely related to local perceptions of, and identifica tion with, ‘neighbourhood’ is the manner in which decision-making is approached in grassroots organisa tions. Governance is typically a deliberative process based on consensus building. Decision-making takes place in a fluid environment that encompasses both struc tured meetings and neighbourhood deliberations, as well as informal interactions in the community. Unlike more formal organisations, neighbourhood-based organisations practise democracy through a variety of mechanisms that include debating issues, voting on initiatives, and enga ging in and crossing between public and private spheres. Grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations also have a broad view of enfranchisement. Organisational membership encompasses most inhabitants of a commu nity irrespective of age, gender, property ownership, income, or other distinctions. In contrast to more forma lised institutions, the criterion for membership in grassroots organisations is tied to an individual’s engage ment in a community and his or her participation in the life of a neighbourhood. Like the definition of what con stitutes a neighbourhood’s boundaries, the decisionmaking and participatory processes in grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations are relatively porous and fluid (Figure 1). Grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations essentially mobilise around parochial issues that are salient to community members. Many of these issues fall into the category of the mundane. For instance, block clubs engage in activities such as organising community dinners or social events. Merchants’ associations advocate for the upkeep and beautification of community infrastructure. Recreational and athletic clubs sponsor sporting events and act as stew ards for parks and open spaces. In a similar manner, other everyday activities are supported by faith-based organisa tions, parent–teacher associations, and other organisations. In addition to mundane activities, grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations can often serve as the first line of defence when neighbourhood threats emerge. These organisations typically identify and respond to parochial issues related to community threats such as crime, pollution, the deterioration of housing and infrastructure, inadequate public services, and other con ditions that erode the quality of life. For instance, neighbourhood-based organisations in the Love Canal community of Upstate New York were the first to raise concerns about health risks due to hazardous waste. At a less extreme level, block clubs and other grassroots orga nisations often alert municipal officials when neighbourhood housing is in disrepair, parks require maintenance, crime is on the rise, and other immediate issues require attention at the neighbourhood level. Many of the issues that are salient to grassroots organisations are
188
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
Figure 1 Lawn sign and flower planter, the Andover Block Club in Buffalo, NY.
not often anticipated by larger institutions in society. In the absence of advocacy at the neighbourhood level, many of these issues would go unaddressed and contri bute to the destabilisation of communities.
Neighbourhood Governance A great deal of attention has been paid to the develop ment of governance structures that are complementary to grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations. In order to be truly grassroots in nature, these decisionmaking models must be based on expanding public parti cipation and local control. During the 1960s, a body of scholarly writing emerged that examined the nature of grassroots governance and advocated for achieving it in urban neighbourhoods. In his seminal work Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life, Milton Kotler outlined a model for neighbourhood government. His model envisioned a neighbourhood government structure based on the creation of democratically con trolled neighbourhood corporations with the power to make local policy, veto municipal decisions, regulate land use, raise revenue, deliver services, and implement programmes. In essence, Kotler and others envisioned a system of autonomous, self-governing neighbourhoods that would come to define American cities. Over time, many of the elements articulated in the model for neighbourhood government have been applied to decision-making in local communities. In many cities across the United States, neighbourhood council systems have been created that formalise the role of neighbour hood-based organisations in the official decision-making processes of local government. The creation of neighbour hood council systems has promoted increased coordination
between municipal governments and neighbourhoodbased organisations, as well as greater grassroots influence over community and economic development policies. For example, the City of Los Angeles created a system of neighbourhood councils as a component of its 1999 charter reforms. This system incorporates 120 neighbourhoods into the City’s policy-making process. Each neighbourhood receives funding and technical support from the City’s Office of Neighborhood Empowerment (Figure 2). Another example is the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program, which coordinates community development efforts and public participation across 67 neighbourhoods in the City of Minneapolis. Similar efforts to augment neighbourhood control have been promoted through the creation of special assessment districts such as community benefit districts (CBDs) and business improvement districts (BIDs). In both cases, property owners agree to pay special assessments for enhanced services in their neighbourhoods. These services include things such as neighbourhood beautifica tion, street and sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, special lighting, holiday decorations, special community fairs and
Figure 2 Logo of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment in Los Angeles, CA.
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
events, tree maintenance, upkeep of public parks, and other improvements aimed at enhancing the quality of life. CBDs and BIDs are created through state enabling legislation and local ordinances. They are financed by property owners with additional taxes or fees, and are self-governing. The first BID was created in 1970 to improve the condition of Chinatown in Los Angeles. Since then, over 1000 BIDs have emerged across the United States. They have also been influential in the development of similar organisations in other countries. Some examples of BIDs include the Times Square BID in New York City, the Metropolitan Improvement District in Seattle, and the Downtown Denver BID in Denver. CBDs function like BIDs, but focus on enhancing neighbourhood amenities as well as commercial districts. The City of Baltimore began incorporating CBDs in the early 1990s, and San Francisco followed suit in 2004. In both cases, numerous neighbour hoods voted to create CBDs and adopt special assessments that would be used to enhance the quality of life at the neighbourhood level. Privatisation In contrast to governance models based on the develop ment of partnerships between local government and neighbourhoods, another trend that has emerged in the contemporary period has been the growing privatisation of neighbourhood-based organisations. This trend has been most visible with the emergence of gated commu nities across the United States. These communities are often referred to as common-interest communities and governed by homeowners’ associations. Homeowners’ associations manage common property in housing devel opments such as green space and recreational facilities. In addition to managing community amenities, they main tain storm drainage systems, streets, building facades, and other infrastructure. Homeowners’ associations also provide private security and enforce neighbourhood covenants. Most controversially, they assess dues to prop erty owners and establish rules and regulations pertaining to architectural standards and the use of private property. Homeowners’ associations have been a growing phenomenon in the United States since the 1970s. Today, more than 15% of housing units in the United States are located within common-interest communities. In a growing number of communities across the country, homeowners’ associations fill a central role in the govern ance of neighbourhoods. The proliferation of commoninterest communities represents an ongoing shift from public to private government. Among other things, this shift entails the privatisation of basic neighbourhood ser vices. In 2000, over 126 000 homeowners’ associations were registered with the United States Internal Revenue Service. For each of these communities, private
189
government supplants a portion of the decision-making process related to how neighbourhood amenities are developed. Although homeowners’ associations represent a form of grassroots government, they have been criticised for their tendency to disenfranchise segments of local com munities in decision-making and circumscribe local democratic processes. In most cases, participation in the governance of common-interest communities is limited to property owners. As a result, renters and other commu nity members are blocked from participating in local decision-making. Because common-interest communities are private organisations, they do not have to represent broad public interests, pursue equity goals, or protect the rights of indigent groups, as many public sector agencies do. Private homeowners’ associations are primarily focused on protecting property values and advancing parochial interests. As a result, they have been criticised for promoting the commoditisation of neighbourhoods and reducing their social function.
Nonprofit Community Development Organisations Community Development Corporations Another group of community-based organisations focuses on stimulating housing, workforce, and economic devel opment in neighbourhoods. Although this group of organisations includes a variety of nonprofit developers and social service providers, individual organisations are often categorised as community development corpora tions (CDCs). These organisations are classified in this manner because their missions encompass a comprehen sive focus on community development. CDCs often have formalised structures, bylaws, bureaucratic rules, profes sional staff, and implement a variety of programmes focused on neighbourhood revitalisation. Many of the programmes that these organisations implement are funded by outside agencies in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Because of these funding arrangements, CDCs are sometimes argued to be co opted by their sponsors due to resource dependence. This is one reason that these organisations are not con sidered to be as grassroots oriented as other communitybased organisations. Another reason CDCs are considered to be less grassroots in their orientation is because their work is heavily influenced by professional staff. While residents and grassroots organisations emphasise empow erment and neighbourhood advocacy, professional staff tend to focus more on administering community devel opment programmes. Consequently, many CDCs have begun to make concerted efforts to connect with the communities they serve and expand opportunities for public participation (Figure 3).
190
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
Figure 3 The Cleveland Housing Network’s Community Training Center in Cleveland, OH.
The tension between programme administration and advocacy can be traced to the history of CDCs in the United States. These organisations were initially rooted in urban communities and the Black Power movement during the 1960s. As an extension of this political move ment, they were intended to play a pivotal role in levelling racial hierarchies, promoting black capitalism, and expanding grassroots control in black neighbour hoods. By 1966, the CDC model received national attention and federal funding was made available to support this approach to community development through the Special Impact Program sponsored by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. From that point onwards, these organisations shed much of their radical agenda and became more focused on the promotion of compre hensive community-building efforts in low-income neighbourhoods. CDCs became more narrowly focused on programme implementation during the 1970s, with many organisations specialising in affordable housing development and management. In the 1980s, CDCs began the process of restoring some of their comprehen sive focus by adding economic development and social service programmes to their existing housing activities. Yet, through this transition, CDCs struggled to sustain their traditional advocacy functions. Many organisations had to scale back their community-organising activities in order to implement a broader range of programmes and services. As a result, CDCs became more institutionalised and less radical in their orientation. Despite growing pressure to make trade-offs between grassroots advocacy and programme delivery, the CDC model flourished in the United States. In the late 1960s,
there were fewer than 100 organisations in the United States. By the mid-1980s, the number of CDCs exceeded 1000 and by the early 1990s, there were over 2000 orga nisations. The number peaked at over 4600 in 2005. Much of the growth in the number of CDCs was driven by government retrenchment and the contracting out of public programmes. This shift in the relationship between government agencies and nonprofit organisations accel erated in the 1980s and continues to shape community development activities in the contemporary period. The growth in the number of CDCs was a reflection of this broader trend towards the privatisation and nonprofitisa tion of public programmes, which was driven by neoliberal policies. The general expansion of CDCs has also masked some of the weaknesses in this approach to community development. Often larger and more productive orga nisations are cited by scholars and in the media as exemplifying the benefits that CDCs bring to neigh bourhoods. For example, well-established organisations like the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, the Dudley Street Initiative, and the Cleveland Housing Network are cited by boosters of the CDC movement. Despite the successes of a select group of high-capacity organisations, which some scholars have labelled the ‘CDC Greats’, the vast majority of CDCs are small with limited capacity. Moreover, the aggre gate growth in the number of CDCs masks the fiscal instability of many smaller organisations, as well as a relatively high failure rate. In essence, a few high-capacity CDCs flourish, while smaller organisations remain relatively stagnant.
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
There have been incremental efforts to address weak nesses in the CDC model and build the capacity of these organisations. An early approach involved the creation of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) in 1978 by the US Congress. The NRC was renamed NeighborWorks� America in 2005. It serves as an inter mediary organisation for a national network of CDCs. NeighborWorks America provides operating support and technical assistance to these local nonprofit develo pers in order to strengthen their affordable housing activities. Similar intermediary organisations have been created by sponsors in the nonprofit and private sectors. For example, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) was organised by the Ford Foundation in 1979 to provide financial and technical support to CDCs. Among other activities, LISC has emerged as the largest syndi cator of low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) for nonprofit developers in the United States. Similarly, the Enterprise Foundation was founded in 1982 by the pri vate developer James Rouse and his wife Patty to function as an intermediary. Like LISC, the Enterprise Foundation provides financing and technical assistance to CDCs, and it is one of the largest syndicators of LIHTCs in the United States. Other Models There continues to be a great deal of experimentation with community-based organisations in the contempor ary period. Beginning in the 1990s, faith-based organisations became more engaged in neighbourhood and affordable housing development. Churches, synago gues, and mosques began to form their own CDCs and pursue housing and economic development in order to revitalise declining neighbourhoods. Interest in faithbased development expanded in 2001 when President
191
George W. Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This initiative expanded access to federal funding for religiously spon sored community development organisations. The neighbourhood focus of this initiative was strengthened in 2009 by the Obama administration. This was symbo lised with the renaming of the initiative as the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In addition to the growing presence of faith-based organisations in the areas of housing and community development, other approaches to neighbourhood revita lisation have emerged. One example is cooperative housing. Under this model, people purchase a group of homes, community buildings, and common spaces. A planned neighbourhood is created where individuals own their dwellings, but share common facilities. Cooperative housing is also governed democratically, with decision-making taking place through participatory processes. For example, residents contribute sweat equity in order to maintain common property. In some respects, the cooperative housing movement is a scaled-down ver sion of the early Kibbutz movement in Israel, although it is exclusively focused on the shared management and governance of residential communities without agricul tural or industrial components. In 1990, the first modern cooperative housing community was developed in the United States. This community was named Muir Commons in honour of the environmentalist John Muir. This cooperative community is located in Davis, CA (Figure 4). Another approach to affordable housing development has been based on the community land trust (CLT) model. Under this approach, the ownership of land and housing is separated in order to reduce overall housing costs. While individuals own their homes, the land on
Muir Commons Site Plan 1. Common House 2. Terrace 3. Tot Lot 4. Garden 5. Gathering Nodes 6. Wood and Auto Shop 7. Orchard Figure 4 Site plan for the Muir Commons Cohousing Community in Davis, CA.
192
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
which the housing units are placed is held in trust by a tax-exempt, nonprofit organisation. Individuals lease the land their housing is placed on from the nonprofit trust for a nominal fee. The advantage of this arrangement is that land values are held relatively constant and are not included in the overall value of property when it is assessed for tax purposes by local jurisdictions. CLTs also operate under democratic governance structures, allowing residents to participate in decisions about how property held in trust is managed and developed over time. Some of the better-known CLTs are the Burlington Community Land Trust in Burlington, VT; the Sawmill Community Land Trust in Albuquerque, NM; and the Durham Community Land Trust in Durham, NC.
Future Directions From a historic perspective, the development of commu nity- and neighbourhood-based organisations is in its infancy. Nonetheless, many of the trends that have emerged in the evolution of these organisations have been shaped by neoliberal policies that have led to the retrenchment of public institutions and services in the contemporary period. In many instances, grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations have rallied around issues tied to the quality and scope of public services. These organisations have advocated for improved public services. When the government had retreated from deli vering such services, grassroots organisations developed partnerships between public, nonprofit, and private sec tors to address their concerns. As the magnitude of neighbourhood revitalisation needs expanded, more for malised mechanisms to pursue community development have been adopted. In the area of housing, the CDC model has emerged as a mainstay in the United States. Despite its inherent advantages in increasingly priva tised and nonprofitised affordable housing markets, some scholars have begun to speculate about whether the CDC model has reached its limits. In response, efforts to build capacity among CDCs have been expanded. In addition, there is increased interest in new approaches to community-based affordable housing such as the development of cooperative housing and the use of the CLT model. At a broader level, affordable housing is increasingly being linked to societal debates about neoliberal policies. In response to these policies, there are growing demands to link community development to progressive agendas for cities. This perspective is clearly articulated in the emerging ‘right to the city’ movement, which defines housing and popular access to public amenities as basic human rights. This perspective has a direct relationship to discussions of community- and neighbourhood-based
organisations, since it highlights the underlying purpose of such organisations. Rights to public participation and input in neighbourhood governance are central to the development of sustainable communities. In short, this perspective argues that community- and neighbour hood-based organisations are at their best when they maximise the quality of life and expand opportunities for work, domestic pursuits, leisure, intellectual growth, and social development. See also: Democracy and Accountability; Homeowners’ Associations in Post-Socialist Countries; Neighbourhood Governance; Resident and Neighbourhood Movements; Social Movements and Housing.
Further Reading Barton SE and Silverman CJ (1994) Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press. Brower S (2000) Good Neighborhoods: A Study of In-Town and Suburban Residential Environments, by Sidney Brower. Westport, CT: Praeger. Frisch M and Servon L (2006) CDCs and the changing context for urban community development: A review of the field and the environment. Community Development 37(4): 88–108. Glickman NJ and Servon LJ (1998) More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community development corporation capacity. Housing Policy Debate 9(3): 497–539. Hyde C, Meyers M, and Cook D (2002) A new twist in nonprofit, for profit, and public sector relationships: The community benefits district. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 22(11/12): 55–76. Kotler M (2005) Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life. New York: Lexington Books. Marcuse P (2009) From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City 13(2/3): 185–197. McKenzie E (1996) Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Medoff P and Sklar H (1999) Streets of Hope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood. Boston, MA: South End Press. Patterson KL and Silverman RM (2007) Building a better neighborhood housing partnership. Housing and Society 34(2): 187–211. Rohe WM and Bratt RG (2003) Failures, downsizing, and mergers among community development corporations. Housing Policy Debate 14(1/2): 1–46. Silverman RM (ed.) (2004) Community-Based Organizations: The Intersection of Social Capital and Local Context in Contemporary Urban Society. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Smith DH (2000) Grassroots Associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stoecker R (1997) The CDC model of urban redevelopment: A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs 19(1): 1–22. Vidal A (1992) Rebuilding Communities: A National Study of Urban Community Development Corporations. New York: Community Development Research Center.
Relevant Websites www.restorationplaza.org – Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation. www.chnnet.com – Cleveland Housing Network. www.caionline.org – Community Association Institute.
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States www.dsni.org – Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. www.enterprisecommunity.org – Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. www.livingcities.org – Living Cities. www.lisc.org – Local Initiatives Support Corporation. www.lacityneighborhoods.com – Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. www.nrp.org – Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
193
www.muircommons.org – Muir Commons. www.cltnetwork.org – National Community Land Trust Network. www.ncced.org – National Congress for Community Economic Development. www.nhtinc.org – National Housing Trust. www.nw.org – NeighborWorks� America. www.righttothecity.org – Right to the City.
Glossary Common-interest community A housing development or planned neighbourhood where common areas and other amenities are mutually owned. Individual property owners are often required to be members of a homeowners’ association and pay dues or assessments to maintain common areas and other shared amenities or improvements. Intermediary organisation An organisation that facilitates linkages and transactions between other organisations. In relation to community-based organisations, intermediaries often connect local nonprofit developers with financial and other resources from larger institutions in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Kibbutz A collective community in modern Israel based on cooperative enterprise. These communities represented the merging of socialism and Zionism. Initially, people lived and worked in communities that were engaged in agricultural production. Over time, other communities were organised around industry, technology, and other economic activities. Low-income housing tax credit The LIHTC Program is an indirect federal subsidy used to finance the
Grassroots Advocacy and Community Development Community- and neighbourhood-based organisations found in urban and rural settings may be considered central to the development of sustainable housing practices. They emanate from grassroots networks as well as formal orga nisations in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Community- and neighbourhood-based organisations can have a significant impact on social cohesion and housing development. The success of such organisations often depends on their ability to build capacity by leveraging human, financial, political, social, and cultural capital. Although community- and neighbourhood-based organisations can be found across the globe, this article focuses on organisations found in the United States,
186
development of affordable rental housing for lowincome households. The programme allows for proceeds from the sale of tax credits to private investors to be transferred to nonprofit organisations. These funds are used to develop affordable rental housing. Neoliberal policies Policies that seek to transfer part of the control of the economy from the public to the private sector. These policies are based on the belief that private sector activity will produce a more efficient delivery of services. In terms of housing policy, neoliberalism focuses on eliminating public housing and other affordable housing programmes delivered directly through the government and replacing them with programmes that are delivered through private and nonprofit organisations. Special assessment district A designated geographic area in a municipality where special purpose fees or taxes can be applied to property for public services or improvements not otherwise provided by the government. Sweat equity A nonmonetary contribution made to a project or activity by people, usually in the form of work or time individuals commit directly to the completion of tasks.
although many similar organisations and models for com munity-based housing development discussed here are found in other countries. Thus, this article provides a framework for approaching the study of such organisa tions which can be applied to other settings. Community- and neighbourhood-based organisations are subdivided into two broad categories in this article. The first focus is on grassroots organisations that derive from neighbourhood contexts. These types of organisa tions tend to emerge organically in response to local demands for improvements in housing and neighbour hood conditions. They are often led by residents and other indigenous groups. Grassroots organisations are also philosophically distinct. They tend to subscribe to decision-making models based on enhancing participa tion, local control, and neighbourhood governance.
INSTITUTIONS
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
In contrast to grassroots organisations, this article also identifies a group of community-based organisations that are designed to stimulate housing and economic develop ment. These organisations are more formal in structure and are often sponsored by agencies in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Community development organi sations link communities with resources and technical assistance from larger organisations in society, but this is sometimes at a cost. Because community development organisations are dependent on outside institutions for resources, local control of development can be diluted. Consequently, sustainable models for community-based housing development often rely on the presence of both types of organisations. Grassroots organisations fill a cri tical role in empowering residents and advocating for their interests, while community development organisa tions provide vital links to external resources and institutions.
Neighbourhood-Based Organisations Grassroots and Neighbourhood-Level Organisations There are a number of different types of grassroots and neighbourhood-level organisations found in communities across the United States. They include organisations such as block clubs, tenant associations, merchants associations, neighbourhood watch organisations, recreational and ath letic clubs, community gardening clubs, parent–teacher associations, faith-based organisations, and a variety of informal groups organised by residents to improve hous ing and neighbourhood conditions. What unifies these groups is their geographic focus as well as their approach to decision-making and governance. Grassroots and neighbourhood-level organisations are characteristically parochial in their focus. They empha sise tangible issues that impact the immediate surroundings of residents and basic concerns about hous ing maintenance, public amenities, and the general quality of life in communities. In many respects, the identity of a grassroots organisation is inseparable from the neighbourhood context. The definition of what con stitutes a neighbourhood and its boundaries grows out of the manner in which residents use their physical sur roundings to meet daily needs. Neighbourhood boundaries are defined in relation to housing, household consumption, recreation, education, social engagement, and spiritual and personal enrichment. From this perspec tive, the neighbourhood is both a distinct physical setting and a focal point for social interactions. At the same time, neighbourhood boundaries are porous. Unlike the bound aries of settlements that are demarcated by larger institutions in society for administrative purposes, organic
187
neighbourhood boundaries are easily adjusted to meet the immediate needs of residents. Closely related to local perceptions of, and identifica tion with, ‘neighbourhood’ is the manner in which decision-making is approached in grassroots organisa tions. Governance is typically a deliberative process based on consensus building. Decision-making takes place in a fluid environment that encompasses both struc tured meetings and neighbourhood deliberations, as well as informal interactions in the community. Unlike more formal organisations, neighbourhood-based organisations practise democracy through a variety of mechanisms that include debating issues, voting on initiatives, and enga ging in and crossing between public and private spheres. Grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations also have a broad view of enfranchisement. Organisational membership encompasses most inhabitants of a commu nity irrespective of age, gender, property ownership, income, or other distinctions. In contrast to more forma lised institutions, the criterion for membership in grassroots organisations is tied to an individual’s engage ment in a community and his or her participation in the life of a neighbourhood. Like the definition of what con stitutes a neighbourhood’s boundaries, the decisionmaking and participatory processes in grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations are relatively porous and fluid (Figure 1). Grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations essentially mobilise around parochial issues that are salient to community members. Many of these issues fall into the category of the mundane. For instance, block clubs engage in activities such as organising community dinners or social events. Merchants’ associations advocate for the upkeep and beautification of community infrastructure. Recreational and athletic clubs sponsor sporting events and act as stew ards for parks and open spaces. In a similar manner, other everyday activities are supported by faith-based organisa tions, parent–teacher associations, and other organisations. In addition to mundane activities, grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations can often serve as the first line of defence when neighbourhood threats emerge. These organisations typically identify and respond to parochial issues related to community threats such as crime, pollution, the deterioration of housing and infrastructure, inadequate public services, and other con ditions that erode the quality of life. For instance, neighbourhood-based organisations in the Love Canal community of Upstate New York were the first to raise concerns about health risks due to hazardous waste. At a less extreme level, block clubs and other grassroots orga nisations often alert municipal officials when neighbourhood housing is in disrepair, parks require maintenance, crime is on the rise, and other immediate issues require attention at the neighbourhood level. Many of the issues that are salient to grassroots organisations are
188
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
Figure 1 Lawn sign and flower planter, the Andover Block Club in Buffalo, NY.
not often anticipated by larger institutions in society. In the absence of advocacy at the neighbourhood level, many of these issues would go unaddressed and contri bute to the destabilisation of communities.
Neighbourhood Governance A great deal of attention has been paid to the develop ment of governance structures that are complementary to grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations. In order to be truly grassroots in nature, these decisionmaking models must be based on expanding public parti cipation and local control. During the 1960s, a body of scholarly writing emerged that examined the nature of grassroots governance and advocated for achieving it in urban neighbourhoods. In his seminal work Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life, Milton Kotler outlined a model for neighbourhood government. His model envisioned a neighbourhood government structure based on the creation of democratically con trolled neighbourhood corporations with the power to make local policy, veto municipal decisions, regulate land use, raise revenue, deliver services, and implement programmes. In essence, Kotler and others envisioned a system of autonomous, self-governing neighbourhoods that would come to define American cities. Over time, many of the elements articulated in the model for neighbourhood government have been applied to decision-making in local communities. In many cities across the United States, neighbourhood council systems have been created that formalise the role of neighbour hood-based organisations in the official decision-making processes of local government. The creation of neighbour hood council systems has promoted increased coordination
between municipal governments and neighbourhoodbased organisations, as well as greater grassroots influence over community and economic development policies. For example, the City of Los Angeles created a system of neighbourhood councils as a component of its 1999 charter reforms. This system incorporates 120 neighbourhoods into the City’s policy-making process. Each neighbourhood receives funding and technical support from the City’s Office of Neighborhood Empowerment (Figure 2). Another example is the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program, which coordinates community development efforts and public participation across 67 neighbourhoods in the City of Minneapolis. Similar efforts to augment neighbourhood control have been promoted through the creation of special assessment districts such as community benefit districts (CBDs) and business improvement districts (BIDs). In both cases, property owners agree to pay special assessments for enhanced services in their neighbourhoods. These services include things such as neighbourhood beautifica tion, street and sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, special lighting, holiday decorations, special community fairs and
Figure 2 Logo of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment in Los Angeles, CA.
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
events, tree maintenance, upkeep of public parks, and other improvements aimed at enhancing the quality of life. CBDs and BIDs are created through state enabling legislation and local ordinances. They are financed by property owners with additional taxes or fees, and are self-governing. The first BID was created in 1970 to improve the condition of Chinatown in Los Angeles. Since then, over 1000 BIDs have emerged across the United States. They have also been influential in the development of similar organisations in other countries. Some examples of BIDs include the Times Square BID in New York City, the Metropolitan Improvement District in Seattle, and the Downtown Denver BID in Denver. CBDs function like BIDs, but focus on enhancing neighbourhood amenities as well as commercial districts. The City of Baltimore began incorporating CBDs in the early 1990s, and San Francisco followed suit in 2004. In both cases, numerous neighbour hoods voted to create CBDs and adopt special assessments that would be used to enhance the quality of life at the neighbourhood level. Privatisation In contrast to governance models based on the develop ment of partnerships between local government and neighbourhoods, another trend that has emerged in the contemporary period has been the growing privatisation of neighbourhood-based organisations. This trend has been most visible with the emergence of gated commu nities across the United States. These communities are often referred to as common-interest communities and governed by homeowners’ associations. Homeowners’ associations manage common property in housing devel opments such as green space and recreational facilities. In addition to managing community amenities, they main tain storm drainage systems, streets, building facades, and other infrastructure. Homeowners’ associations also provide private security and enforce neighbourhood covenants. Most controversially, they assess dues to prop erty owners and establish rules and regulations pertaining to architectural standards and the use of private property. Homeowners’ associations have been a growing phenomenon in the United States since the 1970s. Today, more than 15% of housing units in the United States are located within common-interest communities. In a growing number of communities across the country, homeowners’ associations fill a central role in the govern ance of neighbourhoods. The proliferation of commoninterest communities represents an ongoing shift from public to private government. Among other things, this shift entails the privatisation of basic neighbourhood ser vices. In 2000, over 126 000 homeowners’ associations were registered with the United States Internal Revenue Service. For each of these communities, private
189
government supplants a portion of the decision-making process related to how neighbourhood amenities are developed. Although homeowners’ associations represent a form of grassroots government, they have been criticised for their tendency to disenfranchise segments of local com munities in decision-making and circumscribe local democratic processes. In most cases, participation in the governance of common-interest communities is limited to property owners. As a result, renters and other commu nity members are blocked from participating in local decision-making. Because common-interest communities are private organisations, they do not have to represent broad public interests, pursue equity goals, or protect the rights of indigent groups, as many public sector agencies do. Private homeowners’ associations are primarily focused on protecting property values and advancing parochial interests. As a result, they have been criticised for promoting the commoditisation of neighbourhoods and reducing their social function.
Nonprofit Community Development Organisations Community Development Corporations Another group of community-based organisations focuses on stimulating housing, workforce, and economic devel opment in neighbourhoods. Although this group of organisations includes a variety of nonprofit developers and social service providers, individual organisations are often categorised as community development corpora tions (CDCs). These organisations are classified in this manner because their missions encompass a comprehen sive focus on community development. CDCs often have formalised structures, bylaws, bureaucratic rules, profes sional staff, and implement a variety of programmes focused on neighbourhood revitalisation. Many of the programmes that these organisations implement are funded by outside agencies in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Because of these funding arrangements, CDCs are sometimes argued to be co opted by their sponsors due to resource dependence. This is one reason that these organisations are not con sidered to be as grassroots oriented as other communitybased organisations. Another reason CDCs are considered to be less grassroots in their orientation is because their work is heavily influenced by professional staff. While residents and grassroots organisations emphasise empow erment and neighbourhood advocacy, professional staff tend to focus more on administering community devel opment programmes. Consequently, many CDCs have begun to make concerted efforts to connect with the communities they serve and expand opportunities for public participation (Figure 3).
190
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
Figure 3 The Cleveland Housing Network’s Community Training Center in Cleveland, OH.
The tension between programme administration and advocacy can be traced to the history of CDCs in the United States. These organisations were initially rooted in urban communities and the Black Power movement during the 1960s. As an extension of this political move ment, they were intended to play a pivotal role in levelling racial hierarchies, promoting black capitalism, and expanding grassroots control in black neighbour hoods. By 1966, the CDC model received national attention and federal funding was made available to support this approach to community development through the Special Impact Program sponsored by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. From that point onwards, these organisations shed much of their radical agenda and became more focused on the promotion of compre hensive community-building efforts in low-income neighbourhoods. CDCs became more narrowly focused on programme implementation during the 1970s, with many organisations specialising in affordable housing development and management. In the 1980s, CDCs began the process of restoring some of their comprehen sive focus by adding economic development and social service programmes to their existing housing activities. Yet, through this transition, CDCs struggled to sustain their traditional advocacy functions. Many organisations had to scale back their community-organising activities in order to implement a broader range of programmes and services. As a result, CDCs became more institutionalised and less radical in their orientation. Despite growing pressure to make trade-offs between grassroots advocacy and programme delivery, the CDC model flourished in the United States. In the late 1960s,
there were fewer than 100 organisations in the United States. By the mid-1980s, the number of CDCs exceeded 1000 and by the early 1990s, there were over 2000 orga nisations. The number peaked at over 4600 in 2005. Much of the growth in the number of CDCs was driven by government retrenchment and the contracting out of public programmes. This shift in the relationship between government agencies and nonprofit organisations accel erated in the 1980s and continues to shape community development activities in the contemporary period. The growth in the number of CDCs was a reflection of this broader trend towards the privatisation and nonprofitisa tion of public programmes, which was driven by neoliberal policies. The general expansion of CDCs has also masked some of the weaknesses in this approach to community development. Often larger and more productive orga nisations are cited by scholars and in the media as exemplifying the benefits that CDCs bring to neigh bourhoods. For example, well-established organisations like the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, the Dudley Street Initiative, and the Cleveland Housing Network are cited by boosters of the CDC movement. Despite the successes of a select group of high-capacity organisations, which some scholars have labelled the ‘CDC Greats’, the vast majority of CDCs are small with limited capacity. Moreover, the aggre gate growth in the number of CDCs masks the fiscal instability of many smaller organisations, as well as a relatively high failure rate. In essence, a few high-capacity CDCs flourish, while smaller organisations remain relatively stagnant.
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
There have been incremental efforts to address weak nesses in the CDC model and build the capacity of these organisations. An early approach involved the creation of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) in 1978 by the US Congress. The NRC was renamed NeighborWorks� America in 2005. It serves as an inter mediary organisation for a national network of CDCs. NeighborWorks America provides operating support and technical assistance to these local nonprofit develo pers in order to strengthen their affordable housing activities. Similar intermediary organisations have been created by sponsors in the nonprofit and private sectors. For example, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) was organised by the Ford Foundation in 1979 to provide financial and technical support to CDCs. Among other activities, LISC has emerged as the largest syndi cator of low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) for nonprofit developers in the United States. Similarly, the Enterprise Foundation was founded in 1982 by the pri vate developer James Rouse and his wife Patty to function as an intermediary. Like LISC, the Enterprise Foundation provides financing and technical assistance to CDCs, and it is one of the largest syndicators of LIHTCs in the United States. Other Models There continues to be a great deal of experimentation with community-based organisations in the contempor ary period. Beginning in the 1990s, faith-based organisations became more engaged in neighbourhood and affordable housing development. Churches, synago gues, and mosques began to form their own CDCs and pursue housing and economic development in order to revitalise declining neighbourhoods. Interest in faithbased development expanded in 2001 when President
191
George W. Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This initiative expanded access to federal funding for religiously spon sored community development organisations. The neighbourhood focus of this initiative was strengthened in 2009 by the Obama administration. This was symbo lised with the renaming of the initiative as the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In addition to the growing presence of faith-based organisations in the areas of housing and community development, other approaches to neighbourhood revita lisation have emerged. One example is cooperative housing. Under this model, people purchase a group of homes, community buildings, and common spaces. A planned neighbourhood is created where individuals own their dwellings, but share common facilities. Cooperative housing is also governed democratically, with decision-making taking place through participatory processes. For example, residents contribute sweat equity in order to maintain common property. In some respects, the cooperative housing movement is a scaled-down ver sion of the early Kibbutz movement in Israel, although it is exclusively focused on the shared management and governance of residential communities without agricul tural or industrial components. In 1990, the first modern cooperative housing community was developed in the United States. This community was named Muir Commons in honour of the environmentalist John Muir. This cooperative community is located in Davis, CA (Figure 4). Another approach to affordable housing development has been based on the community land trust (CLT) model. Under this approach, the ownership of land and housing is separated in order to reduce overall housing costs. While individuals own their homes, the land on
Muir Commons Site Plan 1. Common House 2. Terrace 3. Tot Lot 4. Garden 5. Gathering Nodes 6. Wood and Auto Shop 7. Orchard Figure 4 Site plan for the Muir Commons Cohousing Community in Davis, CA.
192
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States
which the housing units are placed is held in trust by a tax-exempt, nonprofit organisation. Individuals lease the land their housing is placed on from the nonprofit trust for a nominal fee. The advantage of this arrangement is that land values are held relatively constant and are not included in the overall value of property when it is assessed for tax purposes by local jurisdictions. CLTs also operate under democratic governance structures, allowing residents to participate in decisions about how property held in trust is managed and developed over time. Some of the better-known CLTs are the Burlington Community Land Trust in Burlington, VT; the Sawmill Community Land Trust in Albuquerque, NM; and the Durham Community Land Trust in Durham, NC.
Future Directions From a historic perspective, the development of commu nity- and neighbourhood-based organisations is in its infancy. Nonetheless, many of the trends that have emerged in the evolution of these organisations have been shaped by neoliberal policies that have led to the retrenchment of public institutions and services in the contemporary period. In many instances, grassroots and neighbourhood-based organisations have rallied around issues tied to the quality and scope of public services. These organisations have advocated for improved public services. When the government had retreated from deli vering such services, grassroots organisations developed partnerships between public, nonprofit, and private sec tors to address their concerns. As the magnitude of neighbourhood revitalisation needs expanded, more for malised mechanisms to pursue community development have been adopted. In the area of housing, the CDC model has emerged as a mainstay in the United States. Despite its inherent advantages in increasingly priva tised and nonprofitised affordable housing markets, some scholars have begun to speculate about whether the CDC model has reached its limits. In response, efforts to build capacity among CDCs have been expanded. In addition, there is increased interest in new approaches to community-based affordable housing such as the development of cooperative housing and the use of the CLT model. At a broader level, affordable housing is increasingly being linked to societal debates about neoliberal policies. In response to these policies, there are growing demands to link community development to progressive agendas for cities. This perspective is clearly articulated in the emerging ‘right to the city’ movement, which defines housing and popular access to public amenities as basic human rights. This perspective has a direct relationship to discussions of community- and neighbourhood-based
organisations, since it highlights the underlying purpose of such organisations. Rights to public participation and input in neighbourhood governance are central to the development of sustainable communities. In short, this perspective argues that community- and neighbour hood-based organisations are at their best when they maximise the quality of life and expand opportunities for work, domestic pursuits, leisure, intellectual growth, and social development. See also: Democracy and Accountability; Homeowners’ Associations in Post-Socialist Countries; Neighbourhood Governance; Resident and Neighbourhood Movements; Social Movements and Housing.
Further Reading Barton SE and Silverman CJ (1994) Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press. Brower S (2000) Good Neighborhoods: A Study of In-Town and Suburban Residential Environments, by Sidney Brower. Westport, CT: Praeger. Frisch M and Servon L (2006) CDCs and the changing context for urban community development: A review of the field and the environment. Community Development 37(4): 88–108. Glickman NJ and Servon LJ (1998) More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community development corporation capacity. Housing Policy Debate 9(3): 497–539. Hyde C, Meyers M, and Cook D (2002) A new twist in nonprofit, for profit, and public sector relationships: The community benefits district. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 22(11/12): 55–76. Kotler M (2005) Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life. New York: Lexington Books. Marcuse P (2009) From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City 13(2/3): 185–197. McKenzie E (1996) Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Medoff P and Sklar H (1999) Streets of Hope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood. Boston, MA: South End Press. Patterson KL and Silverman RM (2007) Building a better neighborhood housing partnership. Housing and Society 34(2): 187–211. Rohe WM and Bratt RG (2003) Failures, downsizing, and mergers among community development corporations. Housing Policy Debate 14(1/2): 1–46. Silverman RM (ed.) (2004) Community-Based Organizations: The Intersection of Social Capital and Local Context in Contemporary Urban Society. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Smith DH (2000) Grassroots Associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stoecker R (1997) The CDC model of urban redevelopment: A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs 19(1): 1–22. Vidal A (1992) Rebuilding Communities: A National Study of Urban Community Development Corporations. New York: Community Development Research Center.
Relevant Websites www.restorationplaza.org – Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation. www.chnnet.com – Cleveland Housing Network. www.caionline.org – Community Association Institute.
Community- and Neighbourhood-Based Organisations in the United States www.dsni.org – Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. www.enterprisecommunity.org – Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. www.livingcities.org – Living Cities. www.lisc.org – Local Initiatives Support Corporation. www.lacityneighborhoods.com – Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. www.nrp.org – Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
193
www.muircommons.org – Muir Commons. www.cltnetwork.org – National Community Land Trust Network. www.ncced.org – National Congress for Community Economic Development. www.nhtinc.org – National Housing Trust. www.nw.org – NeighborWorks� America. www.righttothecity.org – Right to the City.