Posts About Community Change

2014 Neighborhood Revitalization Conference: Call for Proposals

· Natasya Gandana

The Alliance for Children and Families and the Center for the Study of Social Policy are pleased to announce a Call for Presentations for the 2014 Neighborhood Revitalization Conference. Now in its fourth year, the conference will bring together stakeholders in comprehensive community building and will focus on leveraging federal, philanthropic and local investments to ensure success and sustainability. The conference will take place July 24-25 in Washington, DC and will include 20 workshops, three plenary sessions and two keynote speakers.

Want to highlight the work going on in your community? The NRI Conference is currently accepting proposals for workshop presentations that address one or more of the following areas of interest:

Measuring that Matters

  • Exploring approaches to using data for learning and accountability
  • Generating evidence to support and sustain neighborhood revitalization 
  • Sharing data and systems for making meaning from data & analysis

Frontiers of Knowledge

  • Presentations on innovative solutions in comprehensive neighborhood building informed by recent research
  • Areas of interest include brain science, two-generation approaches, green technology, job creation, sustainability, food systems, etc.
Engaging All Voices
  • Neighbor/resident engagement, with an emphasis on how engagement leads to better results, sustainability and resiliency of the work
Innovative Financing Approaches
  • Neighborhood initiatives partnering with philanthropy and government to form innovative and sustainable approaches to financing
  • Projects that draw on the long history of neighborhood building while harnessing the current momentum for place-based initiatives
Partnering With Purpose
  • Insights into how diverse partnerships are structured and governed at the neighborhood level
  • Incorporating diverse stakeholder audiences and diverse investors
Other
  • Other relevant topic areas not listed above
Proposals must be submitted in PDF or Word format to Maureen Richey at [email protected] no later than March 21, 2025. Workshop proposals will be rated on their relevance to the field, the extent to which they address issues of equity, target audiences, clarity, originality and collaboration with other presenters and content experts. You will be notified no later than Monday, April 7 if your workshop has been selected for inclusion in the conference. 

Check out the Call for Proposals for more information about the conference and proposal submission requirements.
Posted In: Community Change

A Look at the 2012 American Community Survey Data & Three Cities

· Megan Martin

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Community Population Survey, in 2012 46.5 million people lived in poverty – 16.1 million of them children. The report showed that Black and Hispanic families continue to have disproportionally higher poverty rates and lower incomes than White families.

While the national data provide a sense of the magnitude of poverty and disparities in the U.S., it is often difficult to imagine what that means for communities. However, the subsequent American Community Survey (ACS) data - which was released today - provides a more detailed look at demographic characteristics in cities and states. 

CSSP believes that place matters and strongly impacts the health, safety, educational and employment opportunities of children and families. We work in a number of communities that face significant challenges due to years of disinvestment, including unemployment, failing schools and housing instability. These communities are trying to take a more comprehensive approach to addressing these issues. The ACS data highlight some of the significant obstacles in place.

  • California is one of only three states that has seen an increase in poverty since 2011. In 2012Fresno, CA – a recipient of Promise Neighborhoods planning grant and a Building Neighborhood Capacity Program (BNCP) grant – faced a poverty rate of 31.5 percent, up from 28.8 percent in 2011. In Fresno, nearly half of all Black residents (47.1 percent), 30.1 percent of Asian residents and 38.1 percent of individuals identifying as Hispanic lived in poverty.
  • Though median incomes in the state of Wisconsin remain unchanged in 2012, residents of Milwaukee, WI – a BNCP grant recipient –  continue to experience an unacceptable level of disparity. More than 42 percent of Milwaukee’s children lived in poverty, including 55.2 percent of Black children. An immense gap remained across income levels as the median household income for Black families was $24,994, compared to $45,268 for White families.
  • Tennessee’s poverty level in 2012 was not statistically different from the 2011 rate. In Memphis, TN – also a BNCP grant recipient – 28.3 percent of residents lived in poverty including more than a third (33.6 percent) of Black residents and 14.7 percent of White residents. In Memphis 27.1 percent of households relied on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) benefits at some point in 2012. 

The data released today provide a snapshot across several indicators and capture information that can be used to make informed public policy and funding decisions – critically important in the midst of sequester cuts. State and local poverty rates can only be significantly and sustainably reduced if opportunity gaps are addressed. A growing number of communities are learning how to help policymakers better understand what is actually happening in their neighborhoods and the kinds of resources required to address local needs.

Posted In: Community Change, Federal Budget, Poverty and Economic Stability

Where we are now 50 years later–The March on Washington

· Natasya Gandana
The 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington that took place last Wednesday highlighted significant areas of progress, while also drawing attention to the advancements that still need to be made. Although there are many reasons to celebrate, including equal access to public accommodations, laws against racial discrimination and employment and African American voting rights as a result of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the hard economic goals of the march that were critical to transforming the life opportunities of African Americans have not entirely been achieved.

In fact, there are growing economic divides, and despite the important protections established through the law, discrimination has taken new forms. Fifty years after the march, and 45 years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, major banks still discriminate on the basis of race through predatory practices and lending activities. For example, an investigation into the nation’s largest home mortgage lender, found that the bank charged higher fees and rates to more than 30,000 minority borrowers across the country than they had to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk. Another concern related to housing can be seen when you look at the population in homeless shelters. African Americans make up 40 percent of the population living in homeless shelters, while comprising of only 13 percent of the U.S. population.

The inequality extends to other areas of financial security – including other types of assets and income. In the last 30 years, there has been no significant progress in closing the gap between the income of African Americans or Hispanics and white Americans. In 2011, the median income for African American families was $40,495, just 58 percent of the median income of white families. By 2009, the median wealth of white families was 20 times that of African American families. The Great Recession also had a disproportionate impact on African Americans—the median wealth among African American households dropped by 53 percent between 2005 and 2009, and the poverty rate increased to 27.6 percent by 2011, 3 times the poverty rate for white households that year at 9.8 percent. About 65 percent of African-American children live in low-income families—45 percent of which live in communities with concentrated poverty, as opposed to 12 percent for white children. Living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty can significantly impact the lives of children and their families.  Concentrated poverty is closely linked with many social and economic challenges, including behavioral problems in young children, higher crime rates, and environmental hazards that impact health.

Discrimination is also still prevalent in the job market. Research shows that applicants with “African American sounding” names get 50 percent fewer calls for interviews, and are twice as likely to be unemployed. In 2012, the African American unemployment rate was 14.0 percent, 2.1 times the white unemployment rate at 6.6 percent, and even higher than the national unemployment rate during the Great Depression from 1929 to 1939 (13.1 percent). 

Despite being the land of opportunity, many young children growing up in America are dependent on their parents’ income and education to determine the probability of their success into adulthood. Unfortunately, discrimination and lack of education and job opportunity is often persistent from one generation to the next, which limits the opportunities for improving future outcomes. The good news is – there are ways for public policy to begin to address the inequities that still exist. In keeping with the progress that has already been made, improving equitable access to decent housing, maintaining high-quality, integrated education, creating opportunities for equitable early childhood initiatives and creating a federal jobs program for full employment are all policy options aimed at advancing equity. To read the report on The Unfinished March by the Economic Policy Institute, click here. 
Posted In: Education, Poverty and Economic Stability, Community Change, Results

Promise Zones and Policy Implications

· Natasya Gandana
The Center for the Study of Social Policy is excited to release a new policy brief on the Obama Administration’s plans to launch “Promise Zones.”  Promise Zones, the latest addition to a continuum of place-based strategies, will foster partnerships between the federal government and communities, leverage local investments, and increase access to tools and resources to help in community revitalization efforts.

Over the next four years, the administration will designate 20 communities as Promise Zones, including up to five in 2013. The communities will be designated in urban, rural, and tribal communities with poverty rates over 20 percent. This place-based program will target local needs by helping communities focus on job creation, increasing economic activity, improving educational opportunities, reducing violent crime, and leveraging private investment.
 
Although Promise Zones will not receive direct funding, selected communities will have access to several resources, including tax incentives. If enacted by Congress, private businesses will receive tax incentives for hiring and investing in Promise Zones. The tax incentives are intended to spark job creation and attract private investment in high poverty neighborhoods, and because these tax incentives are targeted to the communities in greatest need, they have the potential to both create jobs and reduce poverty.
 
Similar tax incentives have been utilized previously through Empowerment Zones and the Renewable Communities Program as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agriculture. Under the Empowerment Zones and Renewable Communities programs, qualifying businesses are eligible for billions of dollars in tax incentives through employment credits, low-cost loans, increased tax deductions, partial-exclusion of tax on capital gains upon the sale of certain assets, as well as other incentives.
 
However, there can be unintended consequences for tax incentive programs if not implemented as intended. Tax incentives for Empowerment Zones have previously received criticism for not specifically targeting distressed areas enough to attract investments, and many states have loosened their zone criteria to encompass any area within the state to qualify—therefore no longer serving their original anti-poverty intent. Moving forward, it is essential to maintain the anti-poverty goal of the tax incentives included in the Promise Zones proposal—that is the surest way to benefit communities with the highest need and to transform our nation’s highest-poverty areas.
 
To read CSSP’s policy brief on Promise Zones, click here.
 
To access CSSP’s Investing in Community Change blog, click here.
Posted In: Federal Budget, Community Change

The Ongoing Impacts of the Sequester on Communities

· Andrea Barnes

The government-wide spending cuts known as the sequester took effect on March 1, forcing $85 billion in federal budget reductions by the end of September. As we previously described, these cuts, which only affect discretionary programs (i.e. programs for which Congress must annually appropriate dollars) have reduced the budgets of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Justice and Labor, among others. As the months have progressed we are increasingly seeing how these cuts at the federal level trickle down to impact states and communities, causing multitudes of reductions in services and programming.

A map from the Center for American Progress shows how the sequester is impacting states, including Head Start programs, public schools, housing assistance, tribal programs and programs for seniors. These stories from across the nation reveal just how much states and local governments depend on federal funds to maintain their levels of service. Head Start programs have been forced to develop longer waiting lists, cut children from the program, eliminate or reduce transportation for children to centers, and lay off staff. Some school districts have been forced to sell offices, reduce teacher personal days, lay off teachers and support staff, and eliminate arts, music and physical education programs. The consequence of these moves are larger classroom sizes and a lower quality of education. The sequester is also causing longer waiting lists for housing choice vouchers, and in some places leading to vouchers being taken back and current voucher holders being reverted to a waiting list if they have not yet secured a lease with a landlord.
 
Funds for tribal programs have also faced extreme cuts, including 21 percent cuts in tribal housing grants; a 23 percent cut to Native job training; and a 35 percent cut to Energy Assistance. The sequester is being felt much heavier in tribal lands because unlike states, tribes cannot levy property taxes on lands held in trust, or gain significant revenues from income taxes, given the chronically low incomes of most residents on Indian reservations. Although the federal government pays about 10 percent of the budget for a typical U.S. public school district; on federal lands, it contributes as much as 60 percent. This can translate to the reduction or elimination of education programs and services, including the elimination of summer school, vocational training for high school youth, and can lead to the inability to fill vacant teacher and support staff positions (such as school guidance counselors and mental health counselors). The effects of cuts for mental health programs in tribal schools can have devastating consequences for tribal communities because research shows that Native American children and youth have disproportionately high rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide.
 
The across-the-board cuts of the sequester are reducing services for people who immediately need them, but they also have long-term fiscal consequences.  For example, states have had to roll back on theMeals on Wheels program, reducing the number of visits seniors receive, and creating a waiting list for seniors in need of delivered meals.  This is a crucial service that enables seniors to remain in their homes. Not only does the delivery of meals provide nutrition assistance to seniors, but it serves as a check-up and social interaction for those who live by themselves and are sometimes otherwise socially isolated. Cutting these services actually costs taxpayers more money in the long term, because a tax dollar spent providing support services to someone at home can prevent having to spend many more tax dollars on providing full-time care to the same person in a nursing home or an assisted-living facility.
 
To deal with these, and likely future cuts to the federal budget, states will need to focus on policies that maximize their use of federal funds and intelligently and efficiently prioritize their own funds.  To make the best use of funds during tough fiscal times, it becomes increasingly important to budget using a results-based public policy framework. First, states should set priorities for budget decisions by engaging stakeholders and focusing on measurable results.
 
State and local policymakers are being forced to do more with less, and innovative strategies are needed to make this happen. Facing the current fiscal year of sequestration as well as other budget cuts, it will be ever more important for policymakers to support policies that maximize federal dollars, maximize return on investment and generate savings to invest in what works. This includes maximizing funds for theSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, utilizing the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program, taking advantage of the flexibility of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funds to target priority areas, and ensure that families are aware of the benefits of filing for federal tax credits.    
 
 
Posted In: Federal Budget, State Budgets, Community Change

No New Promise Neighborhoods Grants for FY2013

· Andrea Barnes
On May 17, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement announced there would be no new Promise Neighborhoods grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (ending September 30, 2025). Existing grants awarded in previous fiscal years will continue to be funded according to the terms of the existing grant agreements, allowing communities to continue building and implementing strategies that will improve outcomes for children and families. There are several other place-based initiatives that will continue to be funded, including the Building Neighborhood Capacity Program and Choice Neighborhoods. Furthermore, in President Obama’s FY2014 budget he requested funds for both Promise Neighborhoods and a new program under the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative: Promise Zones. Located in high poverty neighborhoods throughout the nation, federal agencies will engage directly with local leaders within “Promise Zones” in an effort to break down barriers and help them access and coordinate the resources and expertise neighborhoods need to create jobs, leverage private investment, increase economic activity, reduce violence and improve educational opportunities.
 
Place-based initiatives, like Promise Neighborhoods, Choice Neighborhoods and the Building Neighborhood Capacity Program, are important investments in community change because they allow for innovative practices that are responsive to the unique context of each community. The traditional model for delivering services to high-poverty communities has been siloed and fragmented, with implementation of evidence-based practices that do not always fit the needs of the community.  The community contexts in which local initiatives are implemented will have a significant effect on their ability to achieve the desired results. For example, residential mobility, student mobility within and among schools, community safety, unemployment, degree of concentrated poverty, housing insecurity—all these factors directly affect child/family well-being and thus are likely to affect the success of any local initiative. Although these factors may not themselves be core results that the local initiative seeks to change, these factors must be known and taken into account when designing place-based strategies.  
 
Although new Promise Neighborhoods will not be funded in FY2013, there are many ways policymakers can continue to combat intergenerational poverty in their states by following the theory of change that is the foundation of Promise Neighborhoods.  For example, the California Assembly is discussing legislationmodeled after the federal Promise Neighborhoods program.
 
Regardless of whether or not your state is in a position to create legislation funding Promise Neighborhoods, utilizing a results framework is an effective strategy in bringing about community change. Identifying results can serve as a “pathway” to achieving children’s healthy development and academic success. And, these four overarching results communicate simply and clearly what Promise Neighborhoods strives to achieve—assuring that;
  • Children are healthy and prepared for school entry
  • Children and youth are healthy and succeed in school
  • Youth graduate from high school and college, and
  • Families and neighborhoods support the healthy development, academic success and well-being of their children.

Promise Neighborhoods’ theory of change is rooted in the importance of gathering information from the community about their needs and desired outcomes.  This can inform the way governments direct funds to target those specific needs, thereby ensuring that communities have the resources they need to effectively serve the children and families in these community. This increased capacity along with building accountable community partnerships will help to ensure fidelity to financial investments and more effectively lead to improved outcomes for children and families. Though the Promise Neighborhoods program is a major investment of federal dollars, a combination of public and private funding has also been shown to support place-based efforts.  In practice, the best outcomes are built on sustainable financing strategies which often include a mixture of funds that local partners have aligned with their results framework.

State policymakers can take steps to transform high-poverty neighborhoods beginning with engaging community members and bringing multiple stakeholders together, such as human service organizations, schools, child welfare agencies, and businesses. These entities can then work together to come up with a shared set of priority results—policymakers can encourage innovation in achieving these results by allowing for flexibility while at the same time requiring evidence of a strategy’s effectiveness. For more on achieving results through public policy strategies, visit Policyforresults.org.  To learn more about the continuing work of Promise Neighborhoods visit the Promise Neighborhoods Institute at PolicyLink and for information and tools that are useful for undergoing place-based efforts in your community visit CSSP’sInvesting in Community blog. 
Posted In: Federal Budget, Community Change