R RY

' {

J

‘ I

t

Cu

O u

,Wb

 

 

cm s

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#
2/05 WWW”

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY-BASED HOUSING
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS

A PLAN -B PAPER SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF URBAN & REGIONAL
PLANNING
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF URBAN & REGIONAL PLANNING-URBAN STUDIES

BY
LAYNA ELAINE GARDNER

E. LANSING, MICHIGAN
DECEMBER 1996

Acknowledgments
Introduction
Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Bibliography

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Housing in the US.

Community-based Housing Organizations
Community Development

The Relationship Between Community-based
Housing Organizations and the Community

Development Process

Case Studies of Community-based Housing
Organizations in Detroit, Michigan

Analyses of Case Studies

Conclusion

13

3O

43

53

62

69

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to give thanks to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for
blessing me with the opportunity to become the first person in my immediate family to
receive a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree. Thank you, Jesus!

I would also like to thank my parents, Glen and Joyce Gardner, for their love and
support throughout my college years. I would not have been able to become successful
without your continuous encouragement and guidance.

Thank you, Quentin Lott! Your words of wisdom and patience were appreciated
during my last year in graduate school. You have been a wonderful fiiend, confidante,
and boyfriend.

I would like to send a special “thank you” to Rex LaMore, Ph.D. for serving as
my Plan B Advisor. You have been so helpful to me. In return, I am thankful for having
an opportunity to work with you and learn about the wonderful world of “community and
economic development”. Also, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Alvin Wigley of
Genesis Community Development Corporation and Mr. Scott Ellis of United Community
Housing Coalition of Detroit, Michigan for providing the necessary information included
in the case studies.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the assistance and advisement of Fran
Fowler, Secretary for the Center of Urban Affairs, and Dawn Brown, Secretary for the

Urban and Regional Planning Program during my graduate studies at MSU.

In memory of the late Mr. and Mrs. Albert Thompson, Sr.
and
the late Albert Thompson, Jr.

ii

INTRODUCTION

There is a housing crisis in the US. and federal housing policies alone have been
insufficient in assisting disadvantaged people and families (e.g., low- and moderate-
income citizens) find safe, decent, and affordable homes. Community-based housing
organizations (i.e., CBHOs) are institutions which can provide assistance to these citizens
who are seeking safe and affordable housing. CBHOs provide nondevelopmental and
developmental activities to meet the housing needs of low- to moderate-income citizens.
In addition, CBHOs empower citizens with knowledge about legal issues related to
housing (e.g., landlord / tenant laws, pre-homeownership issues, mortgage counseling,
etc.). Also, CBHOs help to develop communities because CBHOs involve local residents
in the process of social change and CBHOs improve the well-being of communities.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the purpose it to determine the
relationship between CBHO functions and the community development principals and
concepts in addressing the needs of low— and moderate-income citizens. Second, the
purpose of the paper is to determine if CBHOs and the community development process
in the Detroit case studies address the housing needs of low- and moderate-income
citizens.

There is evidence that supports the premise of this research, too. For instance, it
is very difficult for people to purchase and maintain a home in the United States.
Housing problems afflict people of different races, socioeconomic backgrounds, genders,
and ages. “High housing prices and low incomes are the cause of our present housing
crisis in the US. For the poor, finding affordable housing has become a disaster. Most

of the poor pay more than half of their income for housing, forcing them to chose

between shelter or food. Low-income households outnumber the inexpensive apartments
by two to one. Out of 13.8 million renter households eligible for federal housing
assistance, only 4.1 million (29%) currently, receive it. That leaves 9.7 million
households to fend for themselves in the private marketplace” (Drier and Atlas, 1992: 4-
5).

The US. federal housing policies have been insufficient in assisting
disadvantaged people and families (e. g., people who cannot afford to buy or rent a home).
The US. can provide opportunities for safe, decent, and affordable housing by
strengthening social institutions, especially CBHOs. With the emergence of the National
Affordable Housing Act of 1990, CBHOs have been capable of providing assistance to
citizens who have been negatively affected by past and present housing policies and
programs.

To date, no analysis has been completed to determine if there is a relationship
between CBHOs and the community development process in general. In addition, this
research would benefit urban planners in understanding the importance of community
development principles and practices.

Why is the issue of CBHOs important for Urban and Regional Planners? First of
all, “housing” is an aspect of urban planning. “Urban and regional planning is a
systematic, creative approach to influence and manage the social, economic, and physical
change of neighborhoods, small towns, cities, suburbs, metropolitan areas, regions, and
states. Planners create plans and policies to meet the social, economic, and physical
needs of communities” (Kelly and Jensen, 1989: 4). Second, urban planners are

responsible for creating efficient communities and developing safe and affordable homes

in our society. Urban planners are also responsible for enhancing the “quality of life “
throughout urban areas. “As housing and community development specialists, urban
planners assist in alleviating housing problems by meeting the social, economic, and
physical needs of communities. These planners analyze housing needs and compare
those to an existing supply. Housing and community development planners develop
strategies to ameliorate existing housing deficiencies and to provide new and affordable
housing opportunities for low— and moderate-income citizens. In addition, these planners
tend to work for community development organizations, especially CBHOs” (Kelly and
Jensen, 1989: 7)

Since housing and community development specialists tend to work with and
often for CBHOs, it is important for urban planners to understand the principles and
approaches of the community development process. CBHOs tend to adhere to the
principles, practices, and approaches of the community development theory since CBHOs
are a version of community development organizations. It is also necessary for housing
and community development specialists to understand the relationship between CBHO
functions and the community development process because these planners are conducting
community development work. Therefore, these planners should understand community
development theories, approaches, practices, and principles in order to effectively develop
communities with safe, decent, and affordable housing .

There are some problems which need to be addressed, too. What are the various
types of relationships between CBHOs and community development? Do CBHOs
adequately address problems and/or concerns of low- and moderate-income residents?

The research paper will address these issues.

The first chapter of the paper discusses US. federal housing policy and goals
related to housing. The second chapter of the paper discusses “community-based housing
organizations” (or CBHOs). This chapter will define CBHOs and state the characteristics
of CBHO. In addition, this chapter will describe the purpose, goals, and objectives of
CBHOs .

In the third chapter of the paper, the focus is on “community development”. The
formation and history of community development is described in great detail. Also, there
are various approaches to community development which are used by CBHOs. They are
self help, technical assistance, and conflict. The chapter ends with a discussion about the
six principles of community development are highlighted.

The fourth chapter describes the relationship between CBHOs and “community
development” goals. CBHOs incorporate the principles of “community development” in
their efforts to assist clients alleviate housing problems. For instance, CBHOs use the
various approaches to community development when empowering low-income
homeowners and/or renters to alleviate housing problems in their communities. Due to
the relationship of CBHOs and community development, clients are able to locate and
obtain affordable housing. In addition, communities are able to provide diverse housing
types for everyone within a community. This relationship also alleviates other
community-related problems. For instance, the relationship between CBHOs and
community development enhance economic development in communities (e. g.,
increasing property values or enhancing economic stability).

The fifth chapter will discuss the housing status in Detroit, Michigan. In addition,

it will provide real-life examples of CBHOs and discuss the characteristics (e. g., goals,

objectives, mission, services) of each case study. For example, the paper will mention the
difl‘erent methods of “citizen participation” and “empowerment” issued by each case
study. The sixth chapter will provide an analysis of the case studies. The seventh chapter
provides a “conclusion” of the research on CBHOs and the community development
process.
Summary

Community-based housing organizations provide assistance to low- and
moderate-income citizens who are seeking safe, decent, and affordable housing. These
organizations provide development and nondevelopment activities to meet the needs of
these citizens, too. The purpose of CBHOs is to determine the relationship between
CBHOs and the community development process. Also, this research illustrates how two

Detroit CBHOs address the housing needs of low- and moderate-income citizens.

CHAPTER 1
HOUSING POLICY IN THE U.S.

The heart of the American dream consists of owning your own home.
Unfortunately, it is becoming difficult for people to purchase and maintain a home in the
United States. Housing problems afflict people of different races, socioeconomic
backgrounds, genders, and ages (e.g., senior citizens, single parents, Whites, young
families, etc.). “High housing prices, low incomes, and high rent costs are the causes of
our present housing situation in the United States. For the poor, finding affordable
housing has become a disaster. Most of the poor pay more than halfof their income for
housing, forcing them to chose between shelter or food. In addition, the affordable
housing stock is also disappearing. For instance, low-income households outnumber the
inexpensive apartments by two to one. Out of 13.8 million renter households eligible for
federal housing assistance, only 4.1 million (29 %) currently, receive it. That leaves 9.7
million households to fend for themselves in the private marketplace” (Drier and Atlas,
1992: 4-5).

The U.S. federal housing policies alone have been insufficient in assisting
disadvantaged people and families (e.g., people who cannot afford to buy or rent a home).
“For instance, the Reagan and Bush administrations, slashed federal housing funds by
over 70% during the 19803. To balance their budgets and pay for needed services, local
governments had to increase regressive real estate taxes on the middle class” (Drier and
Atlas, 1992: 4-5). The U.S. can provide opportunities for safe, decent, and affordable
housing by strengthening social institutions, especially CBHOs. Before discussing

CBHOs, let’s take a look at the history of federal housing policy.

“The history of federal housing policy has traveled a rocky road. It has focused
on several goals, too. One goal of federal housing policy had been to create jobs and .
stimulate the economy in times of economic recession allowing interests rates to rise
which depress new housing starts, during periods of inflation. The second goal consisted
of expanding homeownership in the inner cities and suburbia. The third goal consisted of
the revitalization of inner cities (e.g., destroying low-income housing and working class
neighborhoods). Unfortunately, this strategy has been responsible for supposedly
improving low-income neighborhoods in inner cities by providing better housing and
creating higher housing costs that displace the poor and minority families. The fourth
goal consisted of providing the poor with low-cost housing. Unfortunately, the end result
has been the isolation of the poor in insufficient public subsidized housing units. A final
goal consisted of reducing segregation by increasing opportunities for minorities to live
in predominantly white areas. However, the results of the final goal was discrimination
against minorities in the implementation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
insurance programs by failing to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act” (Drier and
Atlas, 1992).

“In the 19th and 20th centuries, housing reformers focused attention on the
housing conditions of the poor who lived in substandard and inhabitable housing within
industrial cities. These poor housing conditions consisted of “overcrowding”, “poor
construction” and “unsanitary” conditions. In the 19303, the attention of these poor
housing conditions in industrial cities turned to federal intervention. Until the 193 Os, no

national housing policy existed. Unfortunately, only housing movements were in

existence . Various interested constituencies (e. g., homebuilders, banking industry, trade

unions, unemployed workers, minorities, etc.) pushed Washington to establish the first
home financing program and the first public housing program to help with both housing
and jobs” (Drier and Atlas, 1992).

The Federal Housing Act of 1934 set up the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). The FHA gave
private mortgages to new homeowners. The FSLIC guaranteed savings and loans for
individual accounts (i.e., individual mortgages are guaranteed against default and banks
are given the confidence to offer long-tenn mortgages of 30 years). The FSLIC gave
people with moderate “means” of income an ability to purchase housing. In addition, the
Veterans’ Administration (VA) housing program offered similar help to veterans.

“The Public Housing Act of 1937 set up the framework of entire housing program
for the U.S. and it was limited for public housing to the poor. Public housing authorities
were suppose to run rental subsidy programs under this act (e. g., Section VIII rental
assistance) and voucher programs (e.g., housing certificates). Unfortunately, public
housing was sabotaged and only 1.3 million units were built” (Drier and Atlas, 1992)..

After WWII, the Housing Act of 1949 emerged on the scene. Its declared goal
was to create and maintain decent homes and suitable environments for America citizens.
The act set in place the Urban Renewal Program which was suppose to “renew” areas but
it destroyed housing instead of revitalizing housing. In other words, it destroyed many
poor neighborhoods instead of revitalizing areas. In doing so, urban renewal pushed the
poor out of poor neighborhoods at the expense of commercial development and market -

rate housing. “Other policies promoted low-income housing but, gave priority to high-

rise projects, concentrated in existing low-income neighborhoods, and removed ‘housing’
from the commercial revitalization efforts” (Drier and Atlas, 1992: 8).

“The civil rights movement and the urban riots of the 19608 triggered a new round
of federal housing initiatives” (Drier and Atlas, 1992: 8). The Civil Rights Act of 1964
allowed access of various housing types to minorities and banned discrimination in
housing sales or rentals. In addition, the Housing Act of 1965 created the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to improve housing conditions of
minorities, low-income persons, and the poor. “Model Cities” was a program created
under HUD to make housing decisions in local communities. This program was
combined with physical improvements and social services but it only lasted a few years.

Even though HUD existed in the U.S., the status of ghetto housing was still
considered to be a major problem. In response, the Housing Act of 1968 set a goal to
create housing to meet the needs of low-income minorities. “This act created a target of
26 million units within ten years. In actuality, houses were not being built fast enough by
the federal government to meet the housing needs across the nation. Congress provided
incentives to the private sector for building affordable housing. These incentives included
tax incentives (e. g., tax breaks or accelerated depreciation of property) and money (e. g.,
loans, grants, or private donations) for housing rehabilitation.

The Housing Act of 1974 established two major programs: Section VIII and
community development block grants (i.e., CDBGs). “In 1974, a number of urban-
oriented programs were folded into community development ‘block grants’ (CDBGs)
distributed directly to cities targeted under a needs formula, on the theory that mayors

understood local needs better than Washington” (Drier and Atlas, 1992: 8). The purpose

of CBDG funds were to pay for public facilities, housing needs, and infrastructure.
Unfortunately, CDBG ftmds also gave permission for some cities to ignore the housing
needs of the poor since some communities spent money on infrastructure alone or the
communities least controversial housing projects.

Along with the Housing Act of 1974, the Section VIII Certificate Program was
created. This is a subsidy program for rental housing and housing in the private sector.
With Section VIII, recipients only pay 30% of an income on housing. Then the Section
VIII Certificate is an indicator that the government will pay the rest of your housing
expenses.

“The 19703 witnessed the continued exodus to the suburbs, the steady growing
potential of homeownership, and uneven housing construction tends. In return, several
federal policy changes influenced lending institutions to get involved with housing
issues” (Drier and Atlas, 1992: 8). Neighborhood groups pressured the federal
government to review lending practices in 1977 and the government passed the
Community Reinvestment Act. Under this act, banks are required to demonstrate that
banks are indeed providing credit to low-income areas that had historically been unable to
secure capital (e.g., black neighborhoods, ghetto areas, low-income areas etc.). Banks
mortgage records are examined on a regular basis. This policy was used to ensure or
force banks to invest in all types of communities. “Unfortunately, Congress in 1980
passed the first of many lending deregulation laws which would contribute significantly
to the decline in homeownership rates in the 19803” (Drier and Atlas, 1992: 8). In

return, these actions affected the progress of the CRA.

10

During the Reagan and Bush administrations, Reagan and Bush launched a major
assault on federal support for low-income housing. The Reagan and Bush
administrations experienced a dry period where no construction or re-construction of low-
income federal housing occurred. The HUD budget was cut from $30 billion to $8
billion in a six year period (i.e., 1981 - 1987), In addition, homelessness occurred due to
cuts in the HUD budget and a lack of new affordable housing projects.

“In light of President Reagan and Bush’s neglect, Congress and housing activists
stepped in. Following the recommendations of its housing task force, Congress in 1990
enacted the National Affordable Housing Act (N AHA) which slightly increased overall
HUD funding levels for the first time since the late 19703 and created a new ‘block grant’
program called HOME. This program directs federal funds to each state, and to many
cities and counties, by means of a formula based on need for creative and innovative
projects. The federal HOME program has been used as a tool by community development
agencies, nonprofit agencies and for-profit private developers. HOME funds are best able
to expand and improve the living environments of low- and moderate-income
households. An example of categories of HOME projects that are frequently used include
the following: rehabilitation of owner -occupied and rental units, housing acquisition
with rehabilitation, and tenant based rental assistance. A minimum of 15% of HOME
funds is targeted for community-based nonprofit organizations” (Drier and Atlas,
1992: 10).

Since the 19703, most CBHOs have been providing assistance to those citizens
who have been negatively affected by past and present housing policies and programs.

CBHOs have received CDBG funds, HOME funds, and other firnds to carry out measures

ll

related to safe and affordable housing. CBHOs have been geared towards providing
assistance to those affected by the U.S. housing crisis by helping citizens find, finance,
and maintain safe and affordable housing. Therefore, CBHOs need to be discussed and
defined in greater detail in order to understand their impact and importance to U.S.
citizens.
Summm

The U.S. federal housing policies alone have been insufficient in assisting low-
and moderate-income citizens find safe, decent, and affordable housing. It is difficult for
people to purchase and maintain homes in the U.S., too. The U.S. can provide
opportunities for safe, decent, and affordable housing by strengthening social institutions
like CBHOs. Fortunately, CBHOs have been able to provide assistance to low— and
moderate-income persons due to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990.

The next chapter will discuss the concept of community-based housing
organizations. The purpose of the chapter is to define CBHOs and its components. This
chapter will also discuss the organization of CBHOs along with the challenges and

outcomes of CBHOs.

12

CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY-BASED HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS

A community-based housing organization (i.e., CBHO) is usually a nonprofit
organization that provides housing assistance to residents of low— to moderate-income
areas. Its purpose is transform distressed neighborhoods into healthy and safe
communities. CBHOs tend to focus on the private housing sector as opposed to
subsidized housing. CBHOs generally serve a geographic area. “These organizations
tend to operate in economically depressed areas although there may also be activity in
middle class areas as well. CBHOs are initiated locally by local residents (e.g.,
neighborhood residents, businesses, and other organizations) in low— and moderate-
income areas. (Williams, 1985: 78). Furthermore, CBHOs receive funding from local
state, and/or federal government grants (e.g., Neighborhood Opportunity Funds, HOME
block grants, Community Development Block Grants). In addition, CBHOs may receive
funds from banks, universities, businesses, private foundations, or private donations (e.g.,
First Chicago-NED, Comerica, Kellogg Foundation, Ford Foundation, Detroit Edison).

CBHOs also implement development and / or nondevelopment activities. Some
development activities consist of housing rehabilitation, redevelopment, and production.
An example of a housing rehabilitation project would consist of housing weatherization.
An example of a redevelopment activity would consist of converting a single-family
dwelling into a multi-family dwelling. Nondevelopment activities would consist of
landlord/tenant counseling, community organizing, emergency shelter assistance,

mortgage counseling, down payment assistance, and other human services related tasks.

13

As development entities, CBHOs may be referred to as “community development
organizations” (e.g., CDCs) or “ community housing development organizations” (e.g.,
CHDOs). CDCs are nonprofit organizations who are involved with community and/or
economic development activities. These organizations may or may not provide housing
services. If a CDC does conduct housing activities, then it is also considered a CBHO.

On the other hand, community housing development organizations (e.g., CHDOs)
are CBHOs which are recognized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development as housing agencies. The main purpose of these agencies is to produce,
rehabilitate, or redevelop housing instead of providing nondevelopment activities (e. g.,
housing counseling and human services activities). In addition, these agencies receive
HOME block grants from the federal government to develop housing for low- and
moderate-income residents. Therefore, CBHOs may consist of the following: (1) CDC
with housing programs; (2) CHDOs; or (3) nonprofit agencies solely dedicated to
nondevelopmental activities.

The organizational characteristics of CBHOs have several elements. CBHOs tend
to have full-time, paid, professional staff and a well-developed fundraising capacity.
Also, CBHOs have support of a network of umbrella groups, technical assistants, and a
coalition of interest groups. For instance, a CBHO staff would consist of the following:
(1) executive director; (2) housing director; (3) secretary, receptionist, or administrative
assistant; (4) community organizer; (5) construction / property manager; (6) fundraisers;
(7) technical assistants (e.g., surveyor, proposal writer, architect, etc.); and (8) volunteers.
Furthermore, CBHOs have the political thrust and concern for a public interest (Williams,

1985).

14

There are six goals of community-based housing organizations. The first goal
deals with the community renewal process. This goal can be achieved in several ways.
One way of shaping community renewal is by creating community-based housing
developers and nonprofit community development organizations (i.e., CDCs or CHDOs).
“The nonprofit housing sector displays a remarkable diversity of organizational forms
attested to nonprofit housing development agencies: community development
corporations, nonprofit development organizations, community housing development
organizations, etc. Compared with other types of nonprofit agencies, CDCs may also
take on nondevelopment roles (e.g., social service provision, etc.)” (Walker, 1993: 371).
In addition, the largest producers of affordable housing in the nonprofit sector are
citywide, metropolitan, and regional nonprofit developers.

Nonprofit housing developers’ corporations, regional developers, and CDCs
devise and implement two (comprehensive) community renewal strategies. One strategy
involves housing unit production. “The basic performance test of the nonprofit
development sector, for both CDCs and other types of development entities, is the
number of units it produces. The term ‘production’ entails financial arrangements, levels
of development, and private financial institutions. The level of development can include
the creation of new units, substantial rehabilitation of units no longer in stock, moderate
rehabilitation to preserve existing units, and emergency repair and other light
rehabilitation. Moreover, unit types can consist of homeowner units, single-family rental
properties, and medium- and large-scale rental buildings and cooperatives. Finally,
nonprofit development can be done on a project-by-project basis or can involve

participation in ongoing program management” (Walker, 1993: 372).

15

There are no historical data on total units produced by the nonprofit sector.

However, it is possible to estimate the amounts of federally supported subsidized housing

 

production and preservation through the nonprofit housing sector. “Total cumulative
nonprofit housing production between 1960 and 1990 under federal production and
preservation programs is an estimated 14 percent of all subsidized unit obligations
(excluding public housing), amounting to approximately 36,000 units (Walker, 1993:
373). Nonprofit sponsorship of “preservation program” units - programs largely devoted
to light to substantial rehabilitation of structures - largely has been supported under the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Once again, it is impossible to
give an accurate number of units produced by the nonprofit sector but it is possible to
obtain a best guest estimate.

Another “community renewal” strategy consists of restricting housing
development to certain areas. CBHOs tend to self-identify with particular neighborhoods
and restrict development activity to those neighborhoods and otherwise undertake
community-building activities that typically serve only those neighborhoods. By
restricting development, CBHOs show loyalty and commitment to particular areas. This
practice illustrates an organization’s commitment to help a community change its
environmental situation. By identifying with a community, CBHOs show dedication
towards enhancing an area and the lives of those residents within the area.

Furthermore, “community reinvestment” tends to be a community renewal
technique. “Community reinvestment” involves community development mustering the
political strength necessary to influence local and/or community economic conditions.

An organization’s strength and competence can make the difference between a thriving

16

neighborhood and one that is besieged by economic distress and decay. An effective
community reinvestment plan is one which truly involves active leadership of residents as
equal partners who are capable of addressing the fundamental concerns of the
community. By using this approach, residents within a community become active
decisionmakers who are steering the courses for their neighborhoods. “Community
reinvestment which truly benefits the neighborhood is the result of an organized and
politically skilled resident population, one which recognizes that the community’s
strength lies in the ability to articulate and advocate a vision of the neighborhood’s
function and future” (Lansberry, Litvvin, Slotnik & Vaughn, 1995: 13). An effective
CBHO or community development organization requires the development and nurturing
of a neighborhood vision and the growth of an organization’s capacity that is dedicated to
seeing that the resident-determined vision, mission, and goals are brought to life.

With CBHOs, “community reinvestment” involves insertion of capital into the
local area. Houses get fixed-up and new ones are built. It means houses are free from
potential intruders and the streets are safer to walk. For residents and community

J members, the image of the neighborhood has improved, it feels better to live there.
Neighborhood rebirth means that the area is becoming more fashionable. For instance,
stately old homes, once in despair and split into several crowded apartments begin to sell
at higher prices. Finally, reinvestment must be accomplished in a equitable way,
producing the least possible harm and disruption. The basic issue is determining how the
community would be involved in the land use planning process and an agreement on

what is equitable is not easy to achieve, even if there is to be reinvestment. Therefore, the

17

decision-making process ought to be broad-based as it can involve all elements of the
community.

The second goal of CBHOs is to create and maintain safe, affordable, and
accessible rental housing for low-income residents through counseling and educational
techniques. CBHOs can create and maintain safe and affordable housing in several ways.
CBHOs provide some type of nontraditional code enforcement techniques where the
organizations provide counseling to tenants with rental problems (i.e., maintenance and
health / hazard problems). Other CBHOs offer some type of “rental assistance” education
through community advocacy or outreach projects. For instance, a CBHO may use rental
housing counselors to provide assistance to landlords and tenants involved in
landlord/tenant disputes. These counselors may counsel the landlords and tenants about
their rights and responsibilities under a state’s landlord and tenant laws. In addition,
these counselors may serve as “rental housing educators” who conduct presentations to
interested groups within a community. As educators, presenters would conduct classes
and/or sessions about “renting” property. The topics could cover every aspect of
landlord/tenant laws, too (i.e., leasing, eviction, security deposit, maintenance problems,
and housing discrimination).

The third goal of CBHOs would be to enhance current living conditions of rental
housing. This goal may be accomplished by using several techniques. One technique
involves “empowerment” where CBHOs provide residents with knowledge and tools to
rectify disputes with their landlords. For example, CBHOs may provide informational
materials at a nominal cost about the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants

under Michigan’s landlord/tenant laws. Another example would be a CBHOs may assist

l8

a rental client with writing a letter which legally demands repairs to an apartment. Again,
“empowerment” may include a CBHO worker conducting a one-on-one session with a
rental client and the worker may guide the client through the letter-writing process. This
CBHO worker may inform the client about the legal consequences involved in a legal
dispute if the landlord fails to take any action.

Another “empowerment” techniques entails CBHOs possibly providing financial
assistance to low-income renters or renters with difficult circumstances. For instance, a
CBHO may assist a client of a battered woman’s shelter obtain her first month’s rent and
security deposit. It is safe to assume that this client may not have an abundance of money
to pay all of the fees at the beginning of a rental agreement.

Some CBHOs are also known for providing emergency referrals for the homeless
and providing emergency shelter grants. For example, a CBHO may provide a daytime .
telephone number for anyone in need of emergency housing. When a client calls the
CBHO, a counselor may assess the situation and determine the client’s eligibility for
housing. Emergency shelter grants may consist of one month’s rent or a mortgage
payment where that payment will prevent an eviction or foreclosure.

In addition, a CBHO may provide housing lists for renters. These listings may
provide information about low-cost rental units from local newspapers and landlords.
These lists may be offered at a nominal cost or no charge at all.

The fourth goal of CBHOs is to increase homeownership opportunities for
individuals and families by reducing the costs of homeownership. Many of the low-priced

single-family homes are old and may not currently provide a quality homeownership

l9

opportunity. These homes may require major repairs and renovations. Therefore, it is
difficult for low-income families and individuals to obtain the money to fix them.

In addition, some of these homes are located in unsafe and unattractive
environments. Poor quality of public services may also be a detriment to investing in a
home in these areas. Also, low-income families and individuals may not qualify for the
purchase of a home. The purchaser of a home will most likely need to qualify for some
type of financing. The accumulation of a down payment and closing costs is difficult for
very low and low-income households. Furthermore, some very low— and low-income
homeowners lack the financial for repairs to keep their homes safe and habitable.

CBHOs make an effort to increase homeownership in various ways. CBHOs may
provide “pm-homeownership” counseling where counselors present an educational series
of workshops to help familiarize participants with the process of buying and owning their
own home. This program provides potential homeowners with information and training
on how to shop for a home and qualify for a mortgage. Budget counseling may also be
included. On the other hand, some CBHOs may provide mortgage counseling where
counselors assist clients in default to assess their situations to save their homes. Also,
CBHOs may provide emergency mortgage grants. For example, the CBHO provides an
emergency grant of one month’s mortgage payment where that payment can stop a
foreclosure from occurring. Some CBHOs may provide “down payment” assistance to
low-income families who could possibly qualify for mortgage financing, too.
Furthermore, a CBHO may have some type of homebuyers’ club and/or program where
low and moderate income individuals or families are empowered with information to

become homeowners.

20

The fifth goal of CBHOs is to create partnerships with public, nonprofit and
private entities. “Public-private partnerships refer to a variety of activities in which the
public sector induces the private sector to behave in desired ways” (Lyons and Hamlin,
1991: 55). According to history, cities in the U.S. relied on the federal government for
assistance in effecting the development of urban areas until the 19803. This reliance
dates back to the urban programs of the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal and it
lasted through the community development block grant and revenue-sharing programs of
the Nixon era. These programs were used to clear slums, upgrade housing, improve
infrastructure, and create jobs for the unemployed. “The 19803, however, have brought a
very different order for addressing the revitalization of U.S. cities. Federal budget cuts in
the programs most directly affecting urban areas have mandated that new avenues for
urban development be explored. ‘New Federalism’ of the Reagan administration placed
the burden of urban revitalization squarely on the shoulders of the cities themselves.
These local entities have become more creative in their search for funds to fill the void
created by federal departure” (Lyons and Hamlin, 1991: 56). In addition to this change
in funding pattern, structural changes the national economy have caused firms to leave
central cities. Therefore, central cities have been left to cope with social and economic
problems at the same time their tax bases have declined.

Housing and urban renewal programs have traditionally set up nonprofit
development corporations to assemble land, improve infrastructure, and sell improved
property at below cost to private developers. “Before the Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA), the participation of lending institutions in housing programs was often based

upon reducing the exposure of the lending institution to a comfortable level if the

21

property were in the ‘right neighborhood’, or, at the very least, in marginal
neighborhoods. With CRA, the involvement of lending institutions has become
increasingly more visible throughout most neighborhoods” (Dmevich, 1995: 10).

“CBHOs have been involved in mixed partnerships, too. These partnerships tend
to involve a government, the private sector, and other nonprofit organizations and may be
either single-purpose or multipurpose in their functions. For instance, one mixed-
partnership may be formed to deal solely with marketing or promoting the area, while
another may be involved in overall planning, research, and community development”
(Lyons and Hamlin, 1991: 64). CBHOs join partnerships with community residents,
local nonprofit developers, human service providers, lending institutions, banks, national
foundations, etc. to identify and define problems and solutions related to housing.

There are several activities of public-private housing partnerships, too. The
purposes of the partnerships include: (1) influencing housing development and
rehabilitation; (2) maintaining and create affordable housing; and (3) providing
emergency housing programs. The benefits brought to such a partnership by the public
sector include the legislative, political, and large-scale service-provision advantages not
available to the private sector working alone. The private sector brings the needed
investment in labor and capital sought by a CBHO. “The public-private partnership
relationship is simply a matter of each entity carrying out the tasks for which it was
created in harmonious concert for mutual and community-wide benefit” (Lyons and
Hamlin, 1991: 72). These CBHO partnerships need local initiative which include Mg
civic foundations and strong leadership abilities. “Strong civic foundations” include

community-wide concern, citizen participation, community vision, networking, etc.

22

There are several activities of CBHO partnerships. For instance, one activity may
include land acquisition assistance where the public sector of a CBHO partnership assists
a private developer in acquiring land in a variety of ways (e. g., locating suitable parcels
of land, providing an inventory of suitable land, etc.) Another activity involves land
assembly where housing partnerships buy land through eminent domain with the sole
purpose of promoting private development. Other activities include:

-Excess condemnation: a policy of taking, by the right of eminent
domain, more property than is actually necessary for the creation of
public improvement and subsequently selling or leasing of this access.
-Land readjustment: the redrawing of property lines in a given re-
development area so as to produce more rational and functional parcels
of land (Lyons and Hamlin, 1991: 75-76).

Housing partnerships bring together public, private, and nonprofit parties to
develop or foster development of affordable low-income housing. In the U.S., housing
partnerships are generally concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest. “Over 70% of
housing partnerships are found in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North
Central regions” (Walker, 1993: 397).

The sixth and final goal of CBHOs is to redevelop or rehabilitate houses for low-
and moderate-income residents. For instance, CBHOs may promote minor home repair
programs where qualified residents may have the exteriors of homes and garages painted
for minimal or no cost. Another example would consist of a CBHO program where

qualified residents may have “porch” steps replaced or repaired for minimal or no cost.

23

What are the challenges of CBHOs? “CBHOs’ abilities to attract involvement,
support, and cooperation from a variety of actors are critical in achieving project success”
(Mayor & Blake, 1981: 23). The aspects of relations to community members and
outsiders that are especially important consist of the following:

-Roots in the community;

-Personal relations with funding sources;

-Politiea1 clout;

-Early aid from risk takers;

-Aspects of funding; and

-Citizen participation” (Mayer and Blake, 1981 : 23).

In the community, CBHO roots and support are related to the staff and board
commitment to the community and the strength of its roots is significant to project
success in many ways (e. g., staff and volunteer energy for hard work, fundraising, etc.).
“A CBHO’s roots and support in the community may help to identify projects of genuine
use to the neighborhood, design them to meet residents’ needs, attract program
participants, and successfully implement program activities (Mayer & Blake, 1981: 24).
Also, community support may aid in attracting financial aid and technical assistance.

It is very important for CBHOs to create and maintain positive, personal relations
with funding sources. Good relationships are a significant element in fundraising for
projects and general support. It may be beneficial for CBHOs to develop relationships
with funding sources early in the organization’s life instead of waiting for its FIRST

project to be funded. In many cases, executive directors consciously pursue personal

24

relationships with funding sources as part of a long-range strategy. Furthermore, it is
very important for CBHOs to create these relationships if they desire success.

“Political clout has significant impact on CBHOs’ ability to attract and maintain
funding, obtain other services from the local government, and protect themselves from
attack by outsiders By electoral vote, residents can replace local elected officials with
people friendly to the CBHO (Mayer & Blake, 1981: 26). Political clout influences
local government in two ways. First of all, local government agencies may support
CBHOs with political contacts at the national level party. This is necessary to gain
information or political support for city projects at the federal level. Second, political
clout may change the behavior of less supportive administrators.

CBHOs should work with private project developers, too. This process helps
CBHOs with development work. In addition, the knowledge gained from this
relationship may enhance a CBHO. CBHOs may also need to find early aid from private
risk-takers. Early risk-takers involve churches or local foundations who are able to
provide early assistance to aspiring CBHOs. “Assistance” may entail volunteer staff,
meeting places, financial resources, work crews, etc. This aid from early risk-takers is
important because it allows CBHO to build tracks in the community and it meets the
immediate needs of CBHOs.

“Funding” for CBHOs is extremely limited. The funding for CBHOs consists of
operating and investment funds to implement community development projects. Funding
may have an impact on organizational survival, the development of key aspects of major
projects, the growth of CBHO capacities, the raising of other needed funds, or the

productivity of funds that are already available.

25

“There are four aspects of funding to consider: (1) early funding, before a
CBHOs track record is established; (2) sources of flexible and continuing funds; (3)
leveraging funds; and (4) cycling financial resources within the community. (Mayer and
Blake, 1981: 7-10).

CBHO should seek funding support at its early stages of work in addition to any
federal funds it may receive. Also, federal support tends to be minimal. Therefore,
CBHOs need funds at the outset of their programming efforts in order to hire staff,
purchase supplies, etc. Also, CBHOs need flexible and continuing funds. These funds
can be used for administration and project development. Also, CBHO funds may be used
to hire and maintain a good core full-time staff and allowing for specialized firnds may
save time and effort in fimdraising. These funds help relieve executive directors’
workloads and attract staff and other support funders who are concerned with CBHO
viability.

In numerous occasions, obtaining one initial set of funds was a key catalyst in
enabling a CBHO to secure other funds for major projects. This technique is referred to
as “leveraging funds”. CBHOs are able to increase the willingness of their prime funding
source to continue to support them by obtaining new sources of funding.

The “cycling of financial resources within the community” refers to money
brought into a CBHO’s community for the purpose of generating jobs, incomes, and other
benefits when it is repeatedly represented there. This new money is considered to be
valuable for the economic future of an area. In addition, money that has historically

flowed out of the community can be redirected within by the CBHO.

26

Finally, “citizen participation” is an another challenge of CBHOs. Community
participation entails using community residents as an information source on planning
issues and actively involving citizens in a planning process. As an information source,
residents are used as a decisionmaking body whose main purpose is to provide input
regarding the future of communities. Active citizens in communities are citizens who
actually construct plans, implement projects, and work in the community.

“Citizen participation is important for three reasons: (1) the greater the
participation of residents in the making of a plan, the more likely it is that the plan will
accurately reflect their needs and concerns; (2) the greater the participation, the greater is
the sense of ownership that people have about the plan, which translate into a greater
determination on their part to see that the plan gets implemented; and (3) the greater the
participation, the harder it is for others, such as public officials, to ignore the plan”
(Jones, 1990: 12).

There are some general guidelines to community organizing and participation.

I “First, community people need to be involved from the very beginning of the planning
process before the crucial decisions that frame everything else are made. Second, the
roles of the residents should be developed and defined. Community residents should be
fully aware of the contributions of the parties involved in the planning process. Third,
conduct ‘teambuilders’ or ‘group-building techniques’ to form community solidarity.
Also, these exercises will give a planner / consultant and residents an idea about the
background experiences of people. Fourth, stakeholders should be continuously updated
about the progress of a project. Fifth, offer a smorgasbord of ways to get residents

involved so there is no excuse for not getting involved. For example, offer a variety of

27

techniques to get the community’s input or participation on projects (e.g., meetings,
surveys, formal/ informal dinner meetings, etc.)”. (Jones, 1990: 12-13).

In addition, there are alternative methods of obtaining citizen participation and /
or input. Personal contact involves door-to-door visits and phone calling. It is probably
the most personalized method and it is the most time consuming method. Phone trees
may save some time and energy during this process, too. The media can run public
service announcements, and press releases through radio stations, newspapers, TV
stations, etc. about CBHO progress. A field office or drop-in center can be created and
utilized for the community to drop-in and learn about the planning process. Existing
community-based organizations can serve as channels of communication for letting
residents know of the planning process (i.e., through meetings and newsletters) of
CBHOs. Finally, “displays” can be used at key settings (i.e., vacant lots, street comers,
local stores, churches, malls) to educate the public about a CBHO in a community. These
displays can include such things as written information, photos, maps, etc.

What do CBHOs achieve? First of all, CBHOs create affordable housing
opportunities. Second, CBHOs are capable of empowering residents with information to
resolve housing problems. Third, CBHOs may provide human services related to
housing (e.g., landlord/tenant counseling or mortgage counseling). Finally, CBHOs make
an effort to involve citizen input and participation while constructing housing plans or
policies.

SurnmgLry
A CBHO is a nonprofit organization that provides assistance to low- and

moderate-income residents. Its purpose is to transform distressed neighborhoods into

28

healthy and safe communities. This type of organization conducts nondevelopment
and/or development activities. Its organizational characteristics consist of full-time and
part-time professional staff members along with community volunteers. In addition,
CBHOs have six goals and several challenges. Overall, CBHOs have several
accomplishments. For example, CBHOs are responsible for creating affordable housing
opportunities and empowering residents about housing issues.

Chapter 3 will discuss “community development” (i.e., CD). This chapter will
provide a definition of CD and the history of CD will be discussed. In addition, the three
approaches of CD will be identified in this chapter. These approaches are self-help,
technical assistance, and technical assistance. The chapter will conclude with a

discussion regarding the principles of CD.

29

CHAPTER 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Community development (or “CD”) is defined as “a group of people working
together in a community setting on a shared decision to initiate a process to Me their
economic. socia_1, cultura_l, and/or environmgtal situation” (Christenson & Robinson,
1989: 14). It represents an approach that facilitates individual and community
capabilities and/or attacks more than one problem at one time. It is primarily concerned
with people as stimulators and social action processes. Also, community development
fosters citizen efforts and citizen influence in decision making.

The formation of community development began in 1908 by Theodore
Roosevelt’s Country Life Commission. The commission’s major recognition involved
the need to improve _rur_al life. “Its work resulted in strengthening rural sociology,
creating the Cooperative Extension Service, and improving the financial institutions that
serve rural America” (Booth & Fear, 1985: 28). Since 1908, community development
projects and processes appeared everywhere. For instance, “a U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) research program provided funding for much of the early rural
sociologists’ work on community organization following World War I” (Booth & Fear,
1985: 28).

In 1914, the Cooperative Extension Service was established by the Smith - Lever
Act. Its work involved addressing community-wide concerns and community
development-related work (e. g., leadership development training, conflict management,
etc.). Urban institutes were established around the U.S. in the sixties and seventies and

these institutes became involved in community development work. The purpose of urban

3O

institutes were to study urban problems and propose solutions. The CD concept was also
promoted by the emergence of city and state department during the 19603 and 19703. In
1996, community development activities are utilized by rural towns, inner cities, faith-
based institutions, community groups, CBHOs, and universities in efforts to make
America a better place to live for everyone.

There are three approaches to community development. These approaches consist
of the following: (1) self-help; (2) technical assistance; and (3) conflict mediation. The
self-help approach to CD is the oldest approach, one that has survived the longest, and
still pervades practice and the literature. Self-help is defined as “an approach whereby
people arrive at a consensus about group social and economic well-being of their
community” (Christenson, 1989: 33). In other words, it teaches people how to improve
their own situations.

“There is an interesting and fundamental tension within the concept of self-help.
This tension has to do with the simplicity of the concept as contrasted with the complexity
of its application. As Littrell and Hobbs concluded in an article entitled, ‘The Self-Help
Approach’: The self-help approach to community development is a simple concept:
People have the basic right - and will be well served if they exercise that right - to
collaborate in setting common goals, in organizing themselves, and in mobilizing the
resources necessary to achieve those goals. But despite its simplicity, many more
communities pledge allegiance to that philosophy than actually practice it” (V erberg and
Lichty, 1995).

Self-help has three basic elements, too. One assertion is based on the premise that

people can, will, and should collaborate to solve community problems. “Self-help builds

31

a stronger sense of community and a foundation for future collaboration. Within a
commitment to self-help, a community may exist as a place, an organization, or an
interest group but be lacking the capacity to effectively act on its own behalf” (Littrell &
Hobbs, 1989: 48). The other assertion is that self-help is “process oriented” and “task-
oriented” (Christenson, 1989: 33). However, the “process” aspect is emphasized over
the “task” aspect because development cannot occur if there is no emphasis process. In
other words, the subject matter is not as important as the process through which people
go to achieve a goal. Furthermore, the third assertion is that self-help is “client-centered”
where the client determines what should be done. The client also decides “when” and
“why” something should be done.

Self-help does have some limiting factors. “First, self-help is a strategy (or
philosophy). It is not a theory. It needs to move from a ‘philosophical approach’ to a
theory-based or research-tested procedure. The question that needs to be resolved fiom a
scientific standpoint is whether this procedure works, why it works, and when it is most
successful. For example, is the self-help orientation most appropriate for middle-class
neighborhoods?” (Christenson, 1989: 34).

Second, people fiom disparate backgrounds can affect the self-help planning
process because everyone who is affected by a project does not hale from the same
experiences or mindscape. For instance, “diversity” exits in a community setting and
community residents may belong to groups with different characteristics (e. g., different
socioeconomic backgrounds, etc.). Therefore, citizen ideas behind goals and objectives
may conflict with the interest of other community residents due to differences in citizens’

backgrounds. The third factor deals with the participants’ ability or inability to work in

32

group settings. Finally, the self-help approach is a “sharing” type of process and it is very
time-consuming. Therefore, this process may exhaust the patience of aggressive
community leaders and highly task-oriented members.

The next approach to community development is “technical assistance”. Frank
Fear, Larry Gamm, and Frederick Fisher are the authors of the article entitled, “The
Technical Assistance Approach”. In the article, the authors defrne “technical assistance”
as the “provision of programs, activities, and services to strengthen the capacity of
recipients to improve their performance with respect to a particular function” (Fear, 1989:
69). Advocates of technical assistance work for people rather than with people because it
ignores public input or participation. “Much technical assistance qualifies as technology
transfer. To qualify as community development, technology transfer requires a high
sensitivity to match technical resources congenially not only with social goals but with
infrastructural and cultural and/or social foundations. However, this is not to say that
technical assistance is not intended to help communities define their problems, needs, and
potential solutions and/or allow for some degree of community autonomy, or
‘ownership’, or problem definition and solution” (Fear, 1989: 69). This process should
consider community input in order for technical assistance to be considered “community
development”.

In the technical assistance approach, the scientific method is highly-valued and
technical know-how is assumed to be good (i.e., efliciency is a valued end). “Technical
assistance emphasizes accomplishing a task such as building a bridge, stimulating
economic development, designing homes, etc. The role of the technical expert is to

assess the situation in a locality and, based on the best technical information, to suggest

33

the most economically feasible and socially responsible approaches for the improving
situation. (Christenson, 1989: 35). Also, the official power structure is the sponsor of
technical assistance.

There are two types of technical assistance and classifications are: 1)
classification by auspices and impetus; and 2) classification by nondevelopmental and
developmental technical assistance. When technical assistance is classified as auspices
and impetus, technical assistance relationships may vary according to the auspices under
which they are organized and the impetus (i.e., stimuli) for undertaking technical
assistance. “The auspices can be categorized as: 1) legislative - having power to create,
legislate, and appropriate; 2) administrative - having the power to manipulate resources,
knowledge, and information; 3) educative - having knowledge, skills, and processes of a
specialized nature associate largely with educational and research institutions; 4)
collaborative - creating mechanisms, often mutually, for the specified purpose of
providing or enhancing technical assistance in the recipient’s domain, and; 5)
consultative- generally, performing specific tasks by private consultants” (Fear, 1989:
73)

Also, there is a difference between “nondevelopmen ” and “developmental”
technical assistance. When technical assistance is classified as “nondevelopmen ” or
“developmental”, the classification scheme involves the relationship between the
provider and the recipient of assistance. Generally, technical assistance involves the
desire of the provider to enable the recipients to do what the recipients are unable to do
by themselves. In nondevelopmental technical assistance, the agem decides the

community’s goals and the agency will provide whatever assistance (e.g., equipment,

34

staff, programs, etc.) it thinks are needed to meet the needs or interests of the people it
wishes to help. “For instance, if the assistance is knowledge-induced (knowledge in
search of an application) or profit-induced (knowledge primarily or exclusively
transferred with a profit motive in mind), then development is not likely to be served”
(Fear, 1989: 76).

The developmental aspect of technical assistance is the opposition of the
nondevelopmental approached and it highlights the advantages of technical assistance. In
developmental technical assistance, the community collaborates with an external
technical assistant on a “planned change team”. This approach involves a collaboration
based on an agreeable set of role relationships where decisions are shared between
community residents and the technical assistant. “Developmental technical assistance is
distinguished by:

-the provision of a resource that is needed by the community;
-provider understanding of the community situation;
-commitment by the provider and the receiver to avoid creating a
dependency relationship;
-capacity of the provider to contextualize the provided resource; and
-ability of the receiver to influence in a meaningful way the course and
substance of the resource provision” (Fear, 1989).
In addition, technical assistance practitioners of the developmental approach analyze the
resource from the recipient’s point of view and jointly create an assistance plan. Unlike

nondevelopmental technical assistance, the developmental approach requires high levels

35

of communityness because community capacity building is a goal in the approach to
“planned change”.

There are some disadvantages to technical assistance. There are some political
implications of badly handled citizen participation in the technical assistance approach.
If project participation is not handled effectively, government agencies will not work
cooperatively and responsively with intended beneficiaries in the future. Also, “bad”
relationships between government agencies and beneficiaries could cause a community
project to fail. Furthermore, firture community projects may not be successful if technical
assistants do not “empower” (i.e., teach) community residents the with knowledge in a
particular area, especially if specific knowledge is necessary to carry out other projects.

“Conflict” is the third approach to community development. Community
development work often leads to conflict and professionals (e. g., change agents) may
advocate the use of conflict as “purposeful social intervention”. There are several
definitions of “conflict”, too. “Conflict can be described as a struggle over values and
claims to scarce status, power, and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to
neutralize, injure, or eliminate the rivals. Community conflict is the process of interaction
in which two or more groups are so engaged in thwarting each other’s purpose that their
opposition makes itself felt throughout the community. Finally, social conflict is a
behavior threat by one party directed at the territory - rights, interests, or privileges - of
another party. The threat is usually directed toward Ming or eliminating one party’s
access to some resource or goal” (Robinson, 1989: 89).

The philosophy of the conflict approach has an emphasis on justice and it stresses

that there should be an equal distribution of resources in a society. Also, the conflict

36

theme focuses on societies and people with limited resources and power. The goals of
conflicting parties are incompatible. “This approach emphasizes polarization of groups
between opposing sides” (Christenson, 1989: 37).

There are several types of conflicts. “Most conflicts are struggles for power and
are related to justice and freedom” (Robinson, 1989: 94). Some conflicts involve
external forces against internal community forces (e.g., “court struggles” to get people to
comply with changes). In addition, personal conflicts lead to disagreements between and
within organizations (i.e., conflicts between special interests groups in the organization,
etc.).

Significant and unique events are often sources of conflict. For instance, the
location of a halfway house or group home may touch enough people in a community to
create a conflict. This event will affect different power groups in different ways and
conflict is likely to occur.

Community conflicts are caused by several factors. “Change” is a factor because
it facilitates competition and promotes that adversary system. “Diversity” is another
factor. “Diversity” involves people from “all walks of life” and it brings heterogeneous
values. In a community setting, people belong to various groups with different
characteristics (i.e., different socioeconomic backgrounds, religious affiliations, political
affiliations, etc.). In addition, people within a culture or subculture have a set mindscape
(i.e., their own patterns of planning, reasoning, and decision making). For instance,
citizen ideas behind goals and objectives may conflict with the interest of planners and

city officials when forming a neighborhood plan to revitalize a community.

37

A final factor involves “dissatisfaction” by members of a group large enough to

initiate action. “When the community’s power structure ignores the interests of a

minority, conflicts are likely to occur.

“Conflicts within communities usually follow predictable stages or steps. Here is

a rendition of the conflict cycle:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

TENSION DEVELOPMENT: Parties polarize around issues; persons
begin to “take sides”;

ROLE DILEMMA: Concern grows in groups in terms of what will be
expected of group members is conflict occurs; many persons experience
role conflict;

INJUSTICE COLLECTING: Groups collect and publicize injustices
caused by opponents;

CONFRONTATTON: Incompatible values, goals, or policies that cannot
be comprised lead to direct confrontation that often requires dramatic new
behaviors and/or outside intervention to resolve;

ADJUSTMENT: Compromises and redefinition of territory occur through

direct negotiation or other processes, values, goals, policies, are redefined.

In addition, the fimctions of conflict for groups consist of: (1) allowing important issues

to “surface in order to be discussed; (2) provide a test of strength amongst the parties

involved in a conflict; (3) help to create bonds within and between groups; (4) reduce

individual and group stagnation; and (5) serve as a catalyst for the emergence of new

social structures within groups” (V erBerg and Lichty, 1995)”.

38

In the conflict approach to community development, it is important to effectively
manage conflict in order to guide communities through the conflict cycle appropriately.
The key is to form “win-win” agreements so opposing community interests are satisfied
with the community planning process.

“Conflict” could also be used to help communities organize, collect, and analyze
situations where residents are encouraged to come together and discuss opposing views.
The conflict approach allows people to understand the history of problems and formulate
a plan of action to resolve issues. Furthermore, this approach illustrates the importance of
understanding the appropriate ways of confronting the power structure involved in a
conflict situation (e. g. indirectly) in order to obtain the desired results of a situation.

Finally, there are also six principles of community development in addition to the
approaches of community develOpment. “In 1985, the National Community
Development Society adopted a set of ethical guidelines for practitioners in community
development. These ‘Principles of Good Practice’ ask that those practicing community
development share a commitment to the following principles:

1) Promote active and representative citizen participation so that
community members can meaningfirlly influence decisions that affect
their situation;

2) Engage community members in problem diagnosis so that those
affected may adequately understand the causes of their situation;

3) Assist community members in designing and implementing a plan to

solve agreed upon problems by emphasizing shared leadership and active

39

citizen participation in that process;

4) Disengage from any effort that is likely to adversely affect the
disadvantaged segments of a community; and

5) Actively work to increase leadership capacity (skills, confidence, and
aspirations) in the community development process” (LaMore and
Smith, 1994: 4-5).

Here is an example of how these guidelines could be accomplished by a
community development practitioner. Imagine a community development practitioner is
summoned to revitalize a particular community. The first step of the practitioner would
be to encourage community involvement before any community development activities
could take place in the targeted community. The practitioner could obtain community
involvement by assisting the community members (e.g., residents and business owners)
in creating a vision for the targeted community (Principle 1).

Next, community members would create a community blueprint for its vision
where the community would be responsible for the following: (1) diagnosing community
problems; and (2) establishing goals and priorities to alleviate the community’s problems
(Principle 2). Then, a community development practitioner would assist the community
members by identifying strategies and resources to implement a community plan. Some
of these resources would consist of “human” resources such as community organizers and
technical assistants. In addition, these human resources would be responsible for carrying
out tasks and specific projects of a community that are also critical to the success of a

community’s plan (Principle 3).

4O

Throughout this community planning process, the practitioner would implement
Principles 4 and 5 by encouraging representation from all subcommunities within the
targeted community. For instance, community representation could be accomplished by
the practitioner creating a community board for community planning purposes. This
board would have representation from every sub-population in the targeted community
(e.g., socioeconomic classes, race, religions, ethnicities, and genders) (Principle 4).
Finally, the practitioner would actively work to increase the leadership capacity of
community members by encouraging relationships between resident leadership and
technical expertise. In return, experts and resident leaders could empower one another
with information that could help strengthen and revitalize a community (Principle 5).
For instance, the experts could provide developmental technical assistance where the
experts “teach” resident leaders how to complete particular tasks (e. g., surveying) after
the expert removes himself or herself from the community. Another example would
consist of a resident leader providing socioeconomic information to a technical expert
which could serve as useful information for the expert. Maybe socioeconomic data could
assist the expert in choosing a particular implementation strategy for carrying out a
particular task.

Summary

Community development involves people changing their economic, social,
cultural, and environmental situations. The formation of community development began
in 1908 by Theodore Roosevelt’s Country Life Commission and this theory is still being
utilized by communities and organizations today. Community development can occur

through three different approaches. These approaches are self-help, technical assistance,

41

and conflict. Also, these approaches have unique ftmctions and consequences. Finally,
there are six principles that practitioners should utilize when developing communities.
Chapter 4 will discuss the relationships between CBHOs and the community
development process. This chapter will focus on the relationships between the practices
and principles of community development and CBHO functions. It will also discuss how
CBHOs utilize the three approaches to community deve10pment in order to alleviate

housing problems of low- and moderate-income residents.

42

CHAPTER 4
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CBHOs & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

There are three relationships between CBHOs and community development. First
of all, CBHOs and community development share the same philosophy. Second, CBHOs
(in general) utilize the three approaches of community development. Finally, CBHOs
follow the same principles of community development. Let’s take a closer look.

First of all, CBHOs follow the same philosophy or concepts as community
development. “Community development is defined as a group of people in a locality
initiating a social action process (i.e., planned intervention) to change their economic,
social, cultural, and/or environmental situation” (Christenson and Robinson, 1989: 14).
Like the theory of community development, CBHOs involve people in a particular
locality improving the social, economic, and cultural well-being of an area by providing
safe and decent housing for citizens. Therefore, CBHOs work with and for communities.

As “community” organizations, CBHOs have ties with communities and involve
community residents in the planning activities of these organizations. “Community” can
include a particular place, territory, social interaction, community identification, land, or
geographical boundary. Therefore, CBHOs tend to be locally-initiated and work within
geographical boundaries.

As development organizations, CBHOs also develop communities. “Development
entails the social transformation in the direction of more egalitarian distribution of social
goods such as education, health services, housing, participation in political decision
making, and other dimensions of people’s life chances” (Christenson and Robinson,

1989: 9). Development also entails “community improvement” where efforts are made

43

among residents and organizations to improve communities. CBHOs help community
residents and the community “improve” the environment through the following
development mechanisms: (1) the creation and implementation of housing programs
(e.g., home improvement loans, housing rehabilitation programs, etc.); and (2) the
empowerment of residents within a community about housing issues. Empowerment is a
mechanism in which community residents and communities gain mastery over their
fates. “Empowerment” entails higher competencies, confidence, sense of citizen duty and
lower feelings of helplessness amongst citizens when dealing with housing issues.
Overall, the relationship between CBHOs and the community development
process is evident in the fact that CBHOs benefit the communities they serve. CBHOs
have the ability to bring about major changes in improving neighborhoods and
community areas. Economically, CBHOs revive areas within inner cities by broadening
the city’s tax base through increasing a community’s property values. For instance,
CBHOs can stimulate its residential, commercial, and industrial development since
housing is a viable community resource.“ In return, the property values of the community
may rise. Consequently, housing supports commercial and industrial development by
creating safe, decent, and affordable housing stocks for the employees of businesses.
Culturally, CBHOs provide people with an opportunity to interact with a diverse groups
of pe0ple (e.g., people of different races, ethnicities, socioeconomic classes, etc.) by
providing diverse housing types for all groups of people within a community, especially
low-income residents and minorities who tend to face locational constraints and
transportation disadvantages which keep them in great distances from the workforce.

This technique of CBHOs allow people of different walks of life an opportunity to live in

44

“multicultural” communities. Multicultural communities could consist of citizens from
various socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, ages, races, religions, etc. For
instance, CBHOs may provide citizens with housing programs (e.g., down payment
assistance, housing discrimination lectures, etc.) to empower and educate minorities and
low-income residents on home buying strategies in order to avoid discriminatory
practices (e.g., identifying race and ethnic discrimination tricks, etc.) since these types of
citizens traditionally have had limited housing choices and resources.

Socially, CBHOs may improve the attitudinal environment in a community or
area by enhancing the quality of life. CBHOs may advocate local housing concerns and
bring housing problems and opportunities to the attention of government. Also, CBHOs
encourage resident and/or community input and involvement in the organizations in order
to better serve the community’s needs. By encouraging community input and
participation, CBHOs utilize a principle of community development which involves
promoting active citizen participation so that members can positively affect their
situation. In other words, citizens can make decisions that affect them directly or
indirectly. Environmentally, CBHOs can be responsible for creating an “attractiveness”
of a particular area through the creation of housing rehabilitation programs, home
improvement programs, housing development, etc. By creating an attractive
environment, CBHOs enhance the physical environments of neighborhoods in addition to
providing affordable housing. CBHOs can create a sense of “livability” where visitors
and potential businesses are interested in possibly entering into the community for
business or pleasure. In other words, CBHOs are indirectly responsible for creating a

pleasant community environment.

45

The second relationship between CBHOs and community development involves
the utilization of community development approaches by CBHOs. As it was mentioned
in Chapter 3, there are three approaches to community development. These approaches
are self-help, technical assistance, and conflict.

CBHOs utilize the self-help approach by serving as advocacy organizations. As
advocacy organizations, CBHOs utilize the following concepts of “self-help”: (1)
provide the skills and knowledge needed to facilitate the decision making process of the
people involved; (2) serve as an advisor or counselor for issues; and (3) help people help
themselves. As an advocate, the CBHO is a provider of housing information. It is
responsible to the client and its goal is to transfer housing information (e.g., rental
housing lists, emergency shelter information, mortgage information, etc.) which would
alleviate housing problems for low- and moderate-income residents. The CBHO’s
advocacy role is educational, too. As a “teacher”, the CBHO’s mission is to provide
community residents with planning skills so the residents would be able to make and
implement plans affecting their territory. For instance, a CBHO would empower
residents with “surveying” skills (e.g., through classes, workshops, or seminars) so
residents could perform their own housing surveys. In return, these residents could assist
CBHOs with housing plans, housing inventories, etc.

In an advocacy setting, the CBHO would be responsible for empowering
community residents with knowledge about community resources that could enhance
current living environments or residents. For instance, the CBHO could serve as a
landlord / tenant counselor who is responsible for educating community residents about

Michigan’s landlord and tenant laws. This CBHO would provide counselors or classes to

46

“teach” low-income renters the skills in taking legal action against a landlord or the
agency would teach the renter how to legally make demands toward a landlord (e.g., how
to demand maintenance repairs, etc.).

Overall, this type of CBHO would be responsible for providing educational
opportunities so that citizens are able to take self-initiated actions to alleviate housing
problems. In addition, the CBHO is responsible in encouraging citizens to work
cooperatively with others (e. g., community leaders, organizations, city officials, etc.). and
make informed housing choices.

Another example would the advocacy role would be “community organizing”. A
CBHO would serve as a community organizer and the CBHO would be responsible for
obtaining community input about current and / or future housing programs. This agency
would have the job of informing other groups, including public agencies, of the
conditions, problems, and outlook of the group the advocate represents. The CBHO
would also be responsible for encouraging community participation in CBHO decision-
making processes and encouraging community members in problem diagnosis. When
citizen participation is utilized, citizens have the control of planning the future of a
community. In other words citizens are encouraged to solve problems through the tactic
of community involvement. For instance, the agency would actively involve community
residents in conducting rent strikes or writing “letters of concerns” to management
companies. Another example would be an agency teaching “rental housing counseling”
skills (e.g., landlord / tenant laws) to community residents so these residents could

empower other local residents.

47

Another approach used by a CBHO is “technical assistance”. CBHOs hire or
contract technical assistants to perform various tasks. In CBHOs, technical assistants
would perform tasks that a CBHO may not be equipped to do on its own. For instance, a
technical assistant would write a proposal for a grant if the CBHO did not have a grant
writer on staff. In return, the technical assistant could educate the CBHO staff and
community members about “proposal writing” so the organization could write its own
proposals in the future. Another example of technical assistance would consist of a
technical assistant conducting housing surveys for a neighborhood to determine its
housing stock (e.g., substandard, standard, poor, etc.). Other examples of technical
assistance work include: (1) constructing site plans for housing development or
redevelopment; (2) preparing technical reports; (3) preparing graphic displays of housing
projects, zoning, or current land use; (4) accounting or bookkeeping; (5) fundraising; (6)
financial packaging; (7) legal assistance; etc.

The third approach utilized by CBHOs is the conflict approach where CBHOs
serve as mediators or negotiators. As mediators, CBHOs often resolve issues among
conflicting community interests. In the conflict approach to community development, the
CBHO plays an important role in effectively guiding communities through the conflict
cycle ( see Chapter 3 ) and managing conflict appropriately. The role of the CBHO in the
confrontation approach is not to lead, but to help organize. CBHOs should understand
the basic strategies of conflict. “First of all, CBHOs should use conflict. Second,
CBHOs should prevent conflict. Finally, CBHOs should manage conflict (V erBerg and

Lichty, 1995).

48

CBHOs should use conflict to help communities organize, collect, and analyze
situations. In other words, CBHOs should encourage people to come together and
discuss opposing views. The CBHOs use community organizers to show people how to
understand the history of problems and formulate a plan of action to resolve issues.
Finally, the CBHO use conflict to show communities how to confront the power structure
involved in a conflict situation (i.e., never confront the power structure directly).

CBHOs could show tactics for conflict prevention strategies to communities. For
instance, the community organizer of a CBHO could encourage residents to tackle a
conflict in its beginning stages. The specialists should encourage a community to
fragment the conflict and work with the individual pieces of conflict (i.e., reducing the
proposed project to a series of smaller components). The community organizer can
provide educational programs related to conflict resolution, project management,
leadership training, etc.

In managing conflicts, the community organizer can serve as a “third party” and
the CBHO staff and counselors can help a community cope with conflict. The
community organizer serves as an intervener. As an intervener, the community
organizer’s purpose is to help powerless groups and enable weaker parties to make their
own best decisions. This negotiator or mediator (i.e., community organizer) understands
the nature of the conflict in order to help adversaries develop adjustments. “The mediator
must be fair, alert, objective, skillful, decisive, insightful, and at times forceful”
(Robinson, 1989: 14). The overall goal of the CBHO is to form “win-win” agreements
where the mediator (e.g., a staff member of a CBHO) encourages opposing sides of a

housing issue to constructively voice their opinions independently (i.e., give each parties

49

an opportunity to listen to other parties). After each side listens to all points of view, the
mediator (e. g., CBHO staff member) is responsible in guiding each party to work on
resolutions independently an together. During the process, each side focuses on the
“problem” at hand. The parties do NOT focus on the people involved in the process. The
mediator asks questions and encourage both parties to ask questions during the conflict-
resolution process. Each party discusses proposals and provide constructive criticisms
about the proposals. In addition, the mediator should help both parties see any costs and
benefits associated with the proposals and encourage the parties to formulate alternatives
to any decisions.

Overall, the goal of the CBHO is to formulate a “win-win” situation. In win-win
agreements, every member of each party agrees with the outcome of a decision. On the
flip side, “compromises” involve people agreeing to terms they may be uncomfortable
following on a regular bases. Therefore, CBHOs should not seek compromises (Fisher,
Ury, and Patton, 1981) when settling housing disputes among parties.

Finally, CBHOs follow the principles of community development in various
ways. As it was mentioned in Chapter 3, there are five principles of community
development. CBHOs adhere to Principle 1 by creating and maintaining “volunteer”
staff positions for community residents. These positions may be full-time or part-time,
too. Also, CBHOs follow Principle 1 through “community organizing” efforts where
residents are encouraged to participate, plan, evaluate, discuss, and envision community
plans.

CBHOs adhere to Principle 2, Principle 3, Principle 4, and Principle 5

collectively by empowering citizens with knowledge and tools to resolve their own

50

housing issues. For instance, CBHOs assist community residents in identifying their own
inabilities in renting, purchasing, or maintaining homes. CBHOs help low— to moderate-
income residents identify problems related to rental housing (e.g., no money for security
deposits, first month’s rent, or application fee) and homeownership (e. g., lack of money
for downpayment on a home). In return, CBHOs educate the public and teach citizens
“how” to obtain safe and affordable housing (e. g., landlord/tenant counseling, mortgage
counseling, etc.). Also, CBHOs allow residents to serve as board members of CBHOs in
order to represent the views and ideas of the community regarding housing issues.
Furthermore, CBHOs increase the leadership capacity of community residents by
teaching renters and homeowners legal methods of handling housing problems by

themselves (e. g., how to sue a landlord to small claims court without using a lawyer).

Summm

In conclusion, there are several relationships between CBHO functions and the
community development process. CBHOs utilize the approaches of community
development in order to alleviate housing problems for low- and moderate-income
residents. CBHOs also share the same concepts as community development. Finally,
CBHOs adhere to four community development principles.

Chapter 5 will discuss two CBHOs in Detroit, Michigan. The names of the
CBHOs are the United Community Housing Coalition (i.e., U.C.H.C.) and Genesis
Community Development Corporation (i.e., Genesis). U.C.H.C. is a housing counseling
agency in the city of Detroit and it conducts nondevelopmental activities for Detroit

residents. Genesis is a nonprofit development organization which conducts development

51

and nondevelopment activities within its geographical boundaries. The history, mission,
and functions of each organization will be mentioned in great detail. This chapter will

also provide information about “housing” in Detroit.

52

CHAPTER 5
CASE STUDIES
Overview of Detroit, Michigan

Detroit, Michigan is the eighth largest city in the United States of America. It was
founded in 1701 and it is located in southeastern Michigan. According to the statistics
provided by the City of Detroit’s Planning and Development Department and the Detroit
Economic Growth Corporation, Detroit is known internationally for automobile
manufacturing and trade and it ranks high in the production of machine accessories, metal
fabricating, and plating. The city is at the hub of the metropolitan freeway network and
the railroads provide a link to the region and beyond. It also serves a gateway to Canada.
The city of Windsor, Ontario lies directly across the Detroit River and it is connected to
Detroit by a vehicle tunnel and the Ambassador bridge.

According to the 1990 Census, Detroit has a population of 1,027,794. The Census
also states that approximately 476, 814 of the population are males and 551, 160 of the
population are females. The median age in Detroit is 30.3 years old. The number of
housing writs, according to the 1990 Census, consists of 410,027 units. The number of
owner-occupied housing units are 197,929 whereas the number of renter-occupied
housing is 176,128 units. The median household income in 1990 was $18,742 and the
median family income in 1990 is 22,566. The average annual household income is
$25,662 and the per capita income is $9,443 per year. Only 27.2% of the total population
ages 25+ have a high school diploma and 3.8 of the same population have 4+ years of

college. Finally, the City of Detroit Planning and Development Department reports that

53

the 1994 total labor force participation consists of 387,250 people. The annual average
“employed” labor force of 1994 consisted of 345,625 and the “unemployment”
population consisted of 41 , 625 or approximately 10% of the total labor force.

According to the City of Detroit HUD Consolidated Plan (1995), the city has
373,057 households and approximately 40% are estimated to have at least one housing
problem. As the level of housing need goes up, the income of the “needy” goes down.
The Consolidated plan also states that approximately 83% of total renters and 74% of
total owners have housing problems of some type. “In the very low-income group (0-
30% Median Family Income or “MFI”), 79% of the households have a housing cost
burden of at least 30% (i.e., housing and housing related costs which consume at least
30% of the household income). These percentages include both owners and renters.
Among the households with 31-50% median family incomes the cost burden is somewhat
less severe. Sixty-five percent of all renters and 39% of owners have housing problems.
Of these 58% of all renters and 73% of owners experience a cost burden of at least 30%.
Other low-income households (those with incomes 51-80% MFI) are at a level of 24%
renters and 17% owners with housing problems. The large families in all categories have
the highest percentages of housing problems” (City of Detroit, 1994: 9).

The City of Detroit HUD Consolidated Plan (1995) states that the racial and

ethnic background of the Detroit population, according to the 1990 Census, shows:

Race/Hispanic Origin Number % of Population
Total Population 1,027,974 100

White, non-Hispanic 212,278 22

Black, non-Hispanic 774,529 75

Other races (not Hispanic) 12,694 1

Hispanic Origin (all races) 28,473 2

54

There is an overall 33% poverty rate for the City of Detroit. Obviously, the
number of persons, or families in need will be highest among blacks in the population.
According to the HUD Consolidated Plan, the city also has the largest concentration of
poor households in the metropolitan area.

Finally, there are housing affordability problems in Detroit, too. For instance,
“significant declines in household income, combined with housing cost increases for
renter households and a decrease in the supply of low cost rental units, have contributed
to the growing problem of housing affordability in the Detroit area. The shrinkage of the
low-rent housing supply in the Detroit area is partially a result of a decline in the number
of private low-rent units that do not receive a government subsidy. The housing outlook
for poor households in the Detroit metropolitan area is bleak. Local trends suggest that
the overall improvement in the local economy since 1985 did not lead to significant gains
in housing affordability for the poor. Increases in income were largely consumed by
increases in housing and other costs” (City of Detroit, 1995: 27-28).

CBHOs in the City of Detroit are making an attempt to assist the city with its
housing crisis. The next case studies highlight two CBHOs that are currently active in
the city of Detroit. These CBHOs were chosen for their diverse housing programs
activities. These CBHOs were selected through a snowball sample (i.e., samples chosen
through referrals) where one of the CBHOs (i.e., CHDOs) was referred by the Local
Initiatives Support Corporation (i.e., LISC) of Detroit, Michigan The other CBHO was

referred by the Housing Resource Center of Lansing.

55

Genesis Community Development Corporation is a LISC organization in Detroit,
Michigan. The LISC organizations were investigated and identified as potential CBHOs
for a case study because these organizations are recognized nationally and locally as
CBHOs with nonprofit status. After LISC made referrals for 24 CBHOs in the city of
Detroit, each CBHO was approached with a request (i.e., by letter and phone) to release
and discuss information about its particular organization. Only the Genesis Community
Development Corporation agreed to discuss and release information about the
organization. In addition, Genesis conducts both nondevelopment and development
housing activities. Therefore, Genesis was selected as a case study.

The United Community Housing Coalition was identified through a referral from
the Housing Resource Center of Lansing, Michigan (i.e., HRC). The United Community
Housing Coalition is the only nonprofit housing counseling agency in the city of Detroit.
In addition, this agency is conducts nondevelopmental activities.

Case Study #1 -United Communigy Housing Coalition

The United Community Housing Coalition is a nonprofit housing counseling
agency in Detroit. It is located at 47 East Adams on the eastside of the city. It has been
in existence since 1973 and it has been dedicated to improving housing for low- and
moderate-income people. This agency serves all low- and moderate-income citizens in
the entire city, too. This organization works with tenants, homeowners, community
groups, churches, advocacy organizations, and homeless Detroiters. Its main goal is to
improve and preserve affordable housing for Detroiters. Its services consist of : (1)
tenant organizing; (2) landlord/tenant counseling; (3) housing placement counseling; (4)

housing related legal representation; (5) housing and homelessness related community

56

presentations; (6) tenant escrow account (i.e., a savings account used to collect rent
money for renters while renters withhold rent from “dead beat” landlords) ; and (8)
affordable housing landlord network (i.e., a database with the names of metropolitan
Detroit landlords who assist the U.C.H.C. in finding homes for Detroit citizens).

The United Community Housing Coalition’s mission statement reads: “ The
U.C.H.C. has as its purpose to improve and increase the availability of decent and
affordable housing in the City of Detroit. We will work to: (1) organize tenants,
emphasizing low-income tenants; (2) do crisis intervention, preventing utility shut-offs,
obtaining critical housing repairs and defending against evictions; (3) educate our target
population and the general public regarding the reasons and solutions of the housing
crisis in Detroit, and to find resources, create networks, share information and build
support; (4) empower individuals and groups to become self sufficient in their own
housing and related needs, enabling them to work to effect societal change. We will
strive to cultivate volunteers’ leadership skills in their areas of interests; (5) enforce and
monitor laws at all levels of government to preserve, maintain and improve decent...and
affordable housing; (6) build coalitions among tenants, homeless, community groups and
housing advocates to formulate and impact federal, state, and city housing policies to
insure the availability of decent and affordable housing” (Ellis, 1996).

The staff consists of one full-time Office Manager/Interim Executive Director.
Other staff positions include: (1) two part-time attorneys; (2) two full-time accountants;
(3) one part-time, volunteer secretary; (4) one volunteer Housing Placement Supervisor;

(5) one full-time Housing Placement Counselor; and (6) two full-time Tenant Organizers.

57

 

The U.C.H.C. is funded by CDBGs, Neighborhood Opportunity Funds (i.e., NOF
funds), Children and Youth Services contracts (i.e., CYS), and the Family Independence
Agency. Technical assistance is provided by an attorney from Michigan Legal Services
and the attorney provides legal counsel to U.C.H.C. clients with public housing issues.
Also, U.C.H.C. has an in-house attorney who handles landlord / tenant cases. This
attorney works part-time at U.C.H.C. and serves at the 36 District Court in Detroit.
Finally, U.C.H.C. receives assistance from interns at Wayne State University and
University of Michigan with housing projects and programs.

Case Study #2 - Genesis Commqu Development Cogmration

According its archives, the Genesis Community Development Corporation
, evolved because of Pastor Walker’s concern for the deteriorating condition of the
neighborhood surrounding his church, Oakland Avenue Missionary Baptist Church. The
pastor assigned his associate minister to create the Genesis Community Development
Corporation in order to organize and empower community residents to fully participate in
the community’s housing issues. This housing corporation became a Michigan nonprofit
organization in 1988 and a 501(c)3 corporation in 1992. The corporation opened its
office in January 1994. In addition, Genesis was designated as a CHDO (i.e., Community
Housing Development Organization) in August 1996 by the Michigan State Housing
Development Authority (MSHDA). Its goals consist of providing neighborhood
revitalization, humanistic, and cultural programs and projects that respond to the area’s
needs. The corporation is located at 317 Harper and its community boundaries extend
from East Edsel Ford(s) to East Grand Blvd. (11) to Woodward (w) and [-75 (e). The

name of its community is Medbury Park. Furthermore, the housing stock of the area

58

consists of structurally sound multi-unit and single family dwellings. According to the

1990 Census, the population of the Medbury Park area consists of the following:

POPULATION HOUSING

Total 454 Total tmits 291
Male 245 Owner occupied 24
Female 209 Renter occupied 2 13
Under 18 yrs. old 16.1% Vacant housing units 54
Between 18-65 68% White householders 40
Under 65 yrs. old 16.7% Black householder 196
White 45 Asian-decent householder 1
Black 408

Asian decent 1

Genesis is fairly new and it has just created its first comprehensive revitalization
plan for its community, Medbury Park. This plan is the 16 block area of Medbury Park
and a property ownership database has been completed for the community. In addition,
the corporation has performed a “condition of buildings” survey for the area with the
assistance of the City of Detroit Planning and Development Department.

Genesis is also currently implementing a Minor Home Repair program which
gives grants to resident homeowners to fix up their homes. According to Genesis’
archives, the organization recently agreed to a tripartite, residential, commercial, light
industrial plan for the community in addition to the revitalization plan mentioned
previously.

Finally, Genesis purchased a vacant, single family unit in the community and it
has an Option Agreement on a 12 unit apartment building. The address of the single—
family dwelling is 262 Harper and it is a 2 1/2 story, vacant, single family dwelling. It is

the first unit the corporation plans to rehabilitate. This work will include some repair of

59

the major systems: electrical plumbing, heating, and some masonry work. This project is
expected to be completed in December 1996.

The apartment building is located at 287 Edsel Ford and the corporation is seeking
a $75,000 predevelopment forgivable loan from LISC and a $75,000 low interest loan
from Seedco to acquire the apartment building. The corporation is currently receiving
funding from the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan to have a housing
feasibility/marketing study done for Medbury Park. Also, Genesis is working with First
Chicago-NBD Bank and Comerica Bank to start a housing rehabilitation and/or
construction projects within the community.

The funding for Genesis’ projects comes from MSHDA, City of Detroit, First
Chicago-NBD Bank, and Comerica Bank. The corporation is receiving technical
assistance fiom the Urban Planning Program at Wayne State University, WARM
Training Program, Kadushin Association of Architects and Planners, Center of Urban
Studies at Wayne State University, and the City of Detroit Planning and Development
Department for its development projects and revitalization plan.

In addition to housing services, Genesis provides humans services to the Medbury
Park area. These services are designed to assist in the human development needs of the
Medbury Park population. The human services activities consists of the following: (1)
food and clothing program; (2) Girls Scouts; (3) youth sports; (4) Mayor Archer’s
Initiative Against Devil’s Night Arson; (5) two annual clean-ups; (6) crime reduction and
prevention initiatives; (7) community meetings; (8) Empowerment Zone initiatives and
meetings; (9) campaign to fix street lights; (10) NOF Minor Home Repair Meetings; (11)

present development plan meetings; (12) implementation 0 Minor Home Repair Program.

60

For instance, Genesis’ human service activities provide food and clothing to
Medbury’s homeless and low-income populations. Its youth sports activity provides
recreational activities for young men and women (i.e., basketball and softball teams for
young people to join). A final example is Genesis’ community meetings for Medbury
Park. These meetings bring together residents and business owners to discuss community
issues related to low-income residents and stakeholders in the community.

The staff of Genesis consists of a full-time executive director, Alvin Wigley.
Other staff members include: (1) a volunteer bookkeeper; (2) a part-time Housing and
Economic Development Director; (3) two interns fi'om Wayne State University (i.e., a
Master’s Degree candidate in Psychology and a Master’s Degree candidate in Urban
Planning) to address crime, safety, and urban planning issues; and (5) a Food Program
Coordinator. In addition, there are ten community volunteers who donate their time to
providing assistance to the human services activities of the organization. Currently, the
corporation is seeking funds to support more staff (e.g., community organizer, etc.).
Finally, the executive director and the housing and economic development director

possess Master’s Degrees in Urban Planning.

61

CHAPTER 6
ANALYSES OF CASE STUDIES

Case Study #1 - United Communig Housing Coalition

There are some similarities and dissimilarities between the United Community
Housing Coalition (i.e., U.C.H.C.) functions and theoretical CBHO functions discussed
in Chapters 2 and 3. Overall, the U.C.H.C. adheres to most of the CBHO characteristics
and functions mentioned in Chapter 2. Also, the U.C.H.C. does utilize most of the
community development (i.e., CD) approaches and principles mentioned in Chapter 3.

As compared to the functions of CBHOs, the U.C.H.C. is a nonprofit organization
and it has 501(c)3 status by the IRS. The U.C.H.C. provides assistance to low— and
moderate-income people in Detroit, Michigan. This organization works within a defined
geographic area. This area consist of the entire city of Detroit and Detroiters are the only
residents that can receive housing assistance from the U.C.H.C. This organization is a
housing counseling agency and it only provides nondevelopment assistance where
housing counseling and community organizing are its main functions. The purpose of the
U.C.H.C. is to transform distressed neighborhoods into healthy and safe communities by
improving or increasing the availability of decent and affordable housing. This purpose
can be accomplished through the following efforts: (1) community and tenant
organizing; (2) crisis intervention; and (3) educational seminars related to affordable
housing issues. Like the theoretical functions of CBHOs, the U.C.H.C. has an
organizational structure with a fundraising capacity. This structure has a mixture of full-

time, part-time, and volunteers along with an Interim Executive Director. Even though

62

the organization does not have a designated “fund-raiser” position, this responsibility is
shared by staff in place.

The U.C.H.C. utilizes the goals of CBHOs. The U.C.H.C. enhances living
conditions of renters and creates affordable rental housing for Detroiters through
landlord / tenant counseling, legal counseling, housing placement, and the affordable
housing landlord network. The U.C.H.C. has created partnerships with the City of
Detroit Housing Commission, Michigan Legal Services, United Methodist Church, and
Cass Corridor Neighborhood Development Corporation. These private, public, and
nonprofit partners have provided the U.C.H.C. with “meeting” spaces, legal services,
advising, and volunteer workers.

The U.C.H.C. ‘3 challenges consist of citizen participation and funding. “Citizen
participation” in U.C.H.C. programs tends to be reactive where residents are reacting to
negative outcomes to decisions. Some examples of reactive indicators consist of tenant
protests, rent strikes, and “housing demolition” protesters. However, there are
community residents who do serve as U.C.H.C. Board Members and other citizens work
as volunteers in the U.C.H.C. office. On the other hand, funding tends to be very limited
on a regular basis. Currently, the U.C.H.C. does not have money to permanently hire a
secretary, Executive Director, housing placement supervisor, and Office Manager. The
U.C.H.C. is currently looking at national foundation organizations for money to hire staff,
too.

The U.C.H.C. shares the same philosophy as the theories of CD, also. Like the
theory of CD, the U.C.H.C.’s mission is to improve the social, economic, and cultural

well-being of low- and moderate-income Detroiters by providing counseling. In return,

63

this counseling helps these residents obtain and secure affordable and decent housing.
The U.C.H.C. utilizes the self-help, technical assistance, and conflict approaches of CD.

The U.C.H.C. utilizes the self-help approach by providing skills and knowledge
needed to facilitate the decision-making process of low- and moderate-income Detroit
renters through landlord / tenant counseling tenant organizing and housing placement
counseling. The U.C.H.C. utilizes the technical assistance approach since the
organization hired accountants take care of all U.C.H.C. financial matters (i.e.,
nondevelopmental technical assistance) and an attorney to address landlord / tenant issues
in court (i.e., nondevelopmental technical assistance). The in-house attorney provides
developmental technical assistance to the U.C.H.C. and its clients by providing
instruction on how to handle the following rental situations independently: (1)
maintenance problems; (2) housing discrimination; and (3) illegal evictions.

The U.C.H.C adheres to the conflict approach by using community organizers to
organize low- and moderate-income Detroiters negatively affected by housing decisions.
The community organizer’s role is to make sure the community receive satisfaction when
there are conflicts over housing issues.

Furthermore, the U.C.H.C. adheres to four of the CD principles discussed in
Chapter 3. The U.C.H.C. adheres to Principle 1 by using citizens as board members and
staff (i.e., volunteers) to carry out U.C.H.C. work and make decisions. In addition, the
U.C.H.C. adheres to Principles 2, 3, 4, and 5 collectively where citizens may identify
substandard housing conditions and seek U.C.H.C. assistance to alleviate problems. In
addition, community members sit on U.C.H.C. Board and make decisions and plans

affecting housing situations of Detroit residents.

64

In contrast, the U.C.H.C. does not adhere to some of the theoretical functions and
practices of CBHOs or community development. The U.C.H.C. does not participate in
development activities, therefore, it does not participate in “increasing homeownership”
or “redeveloping and/or rehabilitating houses”. Also, the U.C.H.C. does not have in
place evaluation tool to gauge the organization’s successes.

Case Study #2 - Genesis Communig Development Corporation

There are some similarities and dissimilarities between Genesis Community
Development Corporation functions and theoretical CBHO functions. Overall, Genesis
adheres to most of the CBHO characteristics and functions mentioned in Chapter 2.
Also, the Genesis does utilize most of the community development (i.e., CD) approaches
and principles mentioned in Chapter 3.

Like the functions of CBHOs, Genesis is a nonprofit agency with an IRS 501(c)3
status. In addition, Genesis is recognized as a Community Housing Development
Organization (i.e., CHDO) by the Michigan State Housing Authority (i.e., MSHDA).
Genesis has defined geographic boundaries and its area of focus is known as Medbury
Park. Genesis conducts nondevelopment and development activities consist of the Minor
Home Repair Program, a housing rehabilitation project (i.e., 262 Harper Ave), and a
redevelopment project (i.e., an apartment building on 287 Edsel Ford). Its
nondevelopment activities consist of human services activities, such as, community
clean-up efforts, and Girls Scouts. Furthermore, the purpose of Genesis is to transform
Medbury Park neighborhoods into healthy and safe environments by conducting housing
rehabilitation / redevelopment projects and human services activities (e.g., crime

prevention, food, clothing) to meet the needs of area residents.

65

Genesis also meets the goals of CBHOs. Genesis shapes the community renewal
process of Medbury Park by targeting its development and rehabilitation activities to this
community. This shows loyalty and commitment to a particular area. By identifying
with a particular area (i.e., Medbury Park), Genesis shows dedication towards enhancing
an area and the lives of those residents within the area. Genesis enhances current living
conditions in Medbury Park through housing rehabilitation and redevelopment projects
within the 16 block area.

Genesis has created partnerships between public, private, and nonprofit entities.
Genesis’s partners are Oakland Avenue Missionary Baptist Church, MSHDA, City of
Detroit Planning and Development Department, and First Chicago-NED Bank. These
partners provide the following assistance: (1) meeting spaces; (2) funding; (3)
community volunteers; and (4) technical assistance. In addition, Genesis increase
homeownership opportunities for local Medbury Park residents by revitalizing homes and
creating decent low-income housing for low-income people and first-time buyers.

The challenges of Genesis consist of a lack of citizen participation and funding.
Medbury Park citizens have provided input about Genesis’s projects. However, these
citizens have not been empowered by Genesis to conduct planning processes or
implement housing development plans. This dilemma could be conquered by adding a
“community organizer” to Genesis’s staff. Funding is limited for Genesis and it is
desperately needed to hire more full-time and part-time staff (i.e., community organizer,
full-time bookkeeper).

Genesis’s philosophy is similar to the philosophy of CD where Genesis’s goal is

to provide neighborhood revitalization, humanistic, ad cultural programs to change the

66

social, economic, environmental, and cultural situation of Medbury Park. Genesis only
utilizes the nondevelopmental technical assistance approach of CD. For instance,
Genesis seeks support from the Urban Planning Department of Wayne State University,
WARM Training Program, Kadushin Association of Planners and Architects, City of
Detroit Planning and Development Department, and Urban Studies Program at Wayne
State University. Wayne State University graduate students are used to complete housing
surveys, grant and proposal writing, and crime prevention strategies. The WARM
Training Program is used to do “rough cost estimates” for redevelopment and
rehabilitation projects. Furthermore, Kadushin Association of Architects and Planners
composed the Harper Avenue Infill Housing Development Project Plan. Genesis
practices nondevelopmental technical assistance because the technical assistants do not
empower residents with “know-how” to community residents. Genesis’s technical
assistants appear to work for the organization instead of with the Medbury Park
community residents.

It appears that Genesis only adheres to Principle 1 and Principle 2 of the
community development process (see Chapter 3). Genesis seeks community input about
community housing problems rather than community participation. Since community
members of Medbury Park only provide input, these residents indirectly influence
decisions that affect the environment of Medbury Park.

In contrasts, Genesis does not adhere to the CBHO goals of “creating affordable
rental housing” or “enhancing the current living conditions of renters” since Genesis is
not involved in housing activities for renters. Genesis does not encourage citizen

participation in designing, implementing, or evaluating community plans. Therefore,

67

Genesis does not follow Principles 3, 4, and 5 of community development. Also, Genesis
does not have a mechanism to gauge any Genesis efforts which may adversely affect the
disadvantaged segments of Medbury Park. Finally, Genesis does not engage in the
conflict approach of CD and Genesis does not have an evaluation tool in place to gauge
its accomplishments.
Summm

In conclusion, the United Community Housing Coalition and Genesis Community
Development Corporation are CBHOs in Detroit, Michigan. Both organizations are
nonprofit organizations with 501(c)3 status and these entities share the same philosophy
as the theory of community development. Genesis and U.C.H.C work within designated
geographical boundaries and share the same theoretical purpose of CBHOs. Genesis and
U.C.H.C. use citizens in the decision-making process for housing programs services. In
addition, both organizations are involved in partnerships with other organizations.
However, both organizations do not have an evaluation tool to gauge the
accomplishments of housing services and these institutions do not adhere to Principle 4 of
the community development process. Finally, the U.C.H.C. is a housing counseling
agency which does not engage in development activities and Genesis is a community

development corporation which engages in development and nondevelopment activities.

68

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION

CBHOs are nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to residents of low-
and moderate-income areas in order to help transform distressed neighborhoods into
healthy communities. Historically, U.S. federal housing policies have been insufficient in
assisting disadvantaged people and families obtain and secure affordable housing.
Therefore, CBHOs have evolved to provide assistance to these disadvantage citizens who
have been negatively affected by past and present housing policies. CBHOs receive
CDBG funds, HOME funds, and other funds to carry out measures related to creating safe
and affordable housing. Economically, CBHOs revive areas within cities by indirectly
broadening the city’s tax base through housing rehabilitation and redevelopment
programs. Culturally, CBHOs provide people with an opportunity to interact with
diverse groups of people by providing Lvege housing types. Socially, CBHOs may
improve the attitudinal environment in a community or area by enhancing the quality of
life. Enviromnentally, CBHOs can be responsible for creating an “attractiveness” of a
particular area through the creation of housing rehabilitation / redevelopment projects.

CBHOs conduct nondevelopment and development activities in order to meet the
housing needs and human service needs of low— and moderate-income families.
Theoretically, a CBHO follows six goals and its organizational characteristics consist of
an Executive Director along with other permanent staff members.

Also, there is a relationship between CBHOs and the CD process. The theory of
CD has several principles and three approaches. The approaches consist of self-help,

technical assistance, conflict. Overall, CBHOs have the ability to bring about major

69

changes in improving neighborhoods and community areas through adhering to the
approaches and principles of CD.

In addition, two CBHOs are highlighted in the research through case studies and
these organizations are located in Detroit, Michigan. These CBHOs were the United
Community Housing Coalition and the Genesis Community Development Program.
These organizations utilize most of the theoretical CBHO functions and CD processes.

For instance, both organizations are nonprofit organizations with 501(c)3 status and these

 

entities share the same philosophy as the theory of community development. Genesis and
U.C.H.C. work within designated geographic boundaries and share the same theoretical
purpose for housing programs services. In addition, both organizations are involved in
partnerships with other organizations. However, both organizations do not have a tool to
indicate the accomplishments of housing services.

Finally, the issue of CBHOs is important for Urban and Regional Planners for
several reasons. First of all, “housing” is an aspect of urban planning. Second, urban
planners are responsible for developing safe and decent homes in this society. Third,
urban planners often work as housing and community development specialists who work
with and for CBHOs. Therefore, these planners need to understand the principles,

approaches, and practices of community development in order to be efficient planners.

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauen, Rebecca and Reed, Betsy. “Our Cities, Ourselves: The Community
Development Movement in Adolescence”. Dollars and Sense (January -
February 1995): 12 - 16.

Blakely, Edward J. Planning Local Economic Development. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publishers, 1994.

Booth, N. and Fear, F .A. 1989 “Community Development: An Old Idea Comes of Age”.
Paper Authorized by the Board of Directors, Community Development Society.

Christenson, James A. “Themes of Community Development”. Community
Development in Perspective (1989): 26 - 47.

Christenson, James A.; Fendley, Kim; and Robinson, Jerry W. “Community
Development”. Community Development in Perspective (1989) 3 - 25.

City of Detroit, MI., HUD Consolidated Plan. 1995.

Drier, Peter and Atlas, John. “A Housing Policy for the ‘903”. Shelterforce (November /
December 1992): 4 - 19.

Dmevich, Richard. “Partnerships for Community Development”. Journal of Housing
and Community Development (1995): 9 - 18.

Dukakis, Michael S. “Housing by the States”. Journal of Housing (July - August 1987):
100 - 102.

Ellis, Scott. United Community Housing Coalition. Detroit, Michigan. Interview.
15 November 1996.

Fear, F.A.; Gamm, Larry; and Fisher, Frederick. “The Technical Assistance Approach”.
Community Development in Perspective (1989): 48 - 68.

Financing the Nation ’3 Housing Needs. New York: Committee for Economic
Development, 1973.

Florin, Paul and Wandersman, Abraham. “An Introduction to Citizen Participation,
Voluntary Organizations, and Community Development: Insights for

Empowerment Through Research”. American Journal of Community Psychology
(1990): 41 - 53.

Hoch, Charles. What Planners Do: Power, Politics, and Persuasion. Chicago: Planners
Press, 1994.

Jones, Bernie. Neighborhood Planning: A Guide for Citizens and Planners. Chicago:
Planners Press, 1995.

Kelly, Eric Damian and Jensen, Dan R. Urban and Regional Planning. Iowa: Iowa
State University, 1989.

LaMore, Rex and Smith, Kathy. CEDP Training Manual. Lansing: Center of Urban
Affairs, 1994.

Lansberry, Janet; Litwin, Janice; Slotnik, Williams; and Vaughn, John. “Effective
Community Development”. Journal of Housing and Community (1995): 12 -18.

Lederman, Jess, ed. Housing America. Chicago: Probus Publishing Company, 1993.

Littrell, Donald W. and Hobbs, Daryl. “The Self-Help Approach”. Community
Development in Perspective (1989): 48 - 68.

Lyons, Thomas S. and Hamlin, Roger. Creating an Economic Development Plan. New
York: Praeger, 1991.

Mayer, Neil S. and Blake, Jennifer L. Keys to the Growth of Neighborhood
Development. The Urban Institute, 1981.

Michigan. Michigan Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development.
1 995 .

McMurtry, Gene, ed. Strategy for Community & Area Development. North Carolina:
North Carolina State University, 1970.

Robinson, J .W., Jr. “The Conflict Approach”. Community Development in Perspective
(1989): 89 - 116.

Schill, Michael. “The Role of the Nonprofit Sector in Low-Income Housing Production:
A Comparative Study”. Urban Aflairs Quarterly (September 1994): 74 - 102.

Thoreson, Karen and Larson, Tom. “At Home with HOME: How Innovative Cities Use

HOME Funds”. Journal of Housing and Community Development (May / June
1995): 12 - 18.

VerBurg, Kenneth and Lichty, Joel. RD 870/ MSU. East Lansing, Michigan. Class
Discussion. 12 October 1995.

Warren, Rachelle B. and Warren, Donald 1. The Neighborhood Organizer ’3 Handbook.
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.

White, S. Mark and Hecimovich, Jim. “Affordable Housing: Decent Shelter is a
Fundamental Right”. Planning and Community Equity. Planners Press, 1994.

Wigley, Alvin. Genesis Community Development Corporations. Detroit, Michigan.
Interview. 14 November 1996.

NIEV R SITY LIBRAR

||ll|||||||11111111111ill || 1111

llllllllll

31293 02656 9016

 

......

‘‘‘‘‘‘‘

r
......