Community Development Corporations: Critical Factors That Influence Success

Abstract

With federal devolution and the ascendancy of community-based development strategies to center stage, the role of community development corporations (CDCs) has gained significance. This analysis focuses on programmatic and organizational attributes of CDCs that affect community development success. Success is defined as a CDC's contribution to the improvement of residents' access to financial resources, physical resources, human resources, economic opportunities, and political influence. Based on previous studies and our own analysis of three case studies, we posit four key factors in CDC success: mission, organizational competency, political capital, and funding. Analysis of the experiences of the case study organizations reveal the specific ways in which these factors operate and the influence of varied contextual factors.The revitalization of distressed communities has served as a focal point for national and local initiatives for more than four decades. Each policy and program effort has generated a host of experiences and commentary. What is unique about recent discourse is the tacit acceptance of federal devolution and the ascendancy of local community-based strategies to center stage. In this new policy context, community-based organizations in general, and community development corporations (CDCs) specifically, are expected to play more active and central roles in planning and implementing community revitalization efforts. Some commentators suggest that CDCs can serve as the foundation for community-based decision making and policy implementation (Clavel, Pitt, & Yin, 1997;Goetz, 1993).The recent strategic planning activities carried out under President Clinton's Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program (EZ/EC) relied heavily on CDCs to represent and articulate community needs and priorities. Now that the funds for EZ/EC projects have been released to local governments, CDCs are playing a key role in carrying out this national initiative. There is little doubt that these organizations will garner a large share of the praise and criticism that arise from EZ/EC efforts. Nevertheless, it is critical that we develop a better understanding of how CDCs can foster community revitalization. This article seeks to further our understanding of the potential of CDCs to engage in effective community-based initiatives by identifying some of the critical factors that influence successful CDC efforts.

Increasing the capacity of community development corporations for brownfield redevelopment: an inside-out approach

“…CDCs regularly receive technical assistance and training for topics related to housing, economic development, and other traditional functions (Glickman and Servon 1998, Gittell and Wilder 1999, Walker 2002. However, there is limited training or assistance related directly to brownfield redevelopment 3 that is available for CDCs.…”

Beyond Cooptation or Resistance: Urban Spatial Politics, Community Organizations, and GIS-Based Spatial Narratives

“…An increasing number of community organizations, for instance, receive a significant portion of their operating funds through contracts to deliver local state-service programs and from philanthropic agencies, which some researchers argue can limit their capacity to pursue agendas not in line with the priorities of these other institutions (Lake and Newman 2002;Martin 2004). Well documented across the United States, the structure of community organizations has shifted toward professionalized organizations with greatly expanded budgets, ranges of activities, and numbers of paid staff (Vidal 1997;Gittell and Walker 1999;Stoecker 2003). Stoecker (1997Stoecker ( , 2004 contends that this shift in organizational structure is part of a broader change in community organizations' approaches to urban improvement.…”

CDCs and the Changing Context for Urban Community Development: A Review of the Field and the Environment

“…The development of the community development system has led to an emphasis on capacity building within CDCs, often facilitated by other system actors such as intermediaries (Glickman & Servon, 1998;Glickman & Nye, 2000). Shlay 1999 Solitare andGreenberg 2002;Walzer, Hamm and Sutton 2006Frisch 2002Turner 1999Cashin 2000;Bates 2001;Smith 2003Stoecker 1997Warren 1998;Stoecker and Vakil 2000;Clavel, Pitt and Yin 1997;Rubin 2000 CDCs Peirce and Steinbach 1987;Vidal 1992;NCCED 1989NCCED , 1992NCCED , 1995NCCED , 1999NCCED and 2006Glickman and Servon 1998;Gittell and Wilder 1999;Cowan, Rohe and Baku 1999;Vidal 1997, Rohe and Bratt 2003, Bratt and Rohe 2004, Reingold and Johnson 2003 Churches Commercial Development…”