U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

National Excellence Awards 

for the City Summit 

Communities at Work: 

Addressing the Urban 

Challenge 
The National Preparatory Committee 

To oversee America’s preparations for the City Summit (Habitat II), U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Henry G. Cisneros has named a National Preparatory 

Committee (NPC). Those serving on the NPC are: 

Henry G. Cisneros, Chair 

Secretary, HUD 

Michael Stegman, Alternate Chair 

Assistant Secretary, HUD 

James Johnson, Vice Chair 

Fannie Mae 

Vince Lane, Vice Chair 

American Community Housing 

Association 

Moises Loza, Vice Chair 

Housing Assistance Council 

Aurie A. Pennick, Vice Chair 

Leadership Council for Metropolitan 

Open Communities 

Camille Cates Barnett 

Center for International Development 

Research Triangle Institute 

Harvey Bernstein 

Civil Engineering Research Foundation 

Don Borut 

Nat’l League of Cities 

Joan Baggett Calambokidis 

International Masonry Institute 

Joan Brown Campbell 

Nat’l Council of Churches 

Gale Cincotta 

Nat’l Training and Information Center 

Stephen Coyle 

AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust 

Juanita Crabb 

Sister Cities International 

Cushing Dolbeare 

Nat’l Low-Income Housing Coalition 

Michael E. Doyle 

Cooperative Housing Foundation 

Terrance Duvernay 

Legg-Mason Wood Walter Incorporated 

Mencer Donahue Edwards 

U.S. Network for Habitat II 

Pablo Eisenberg 

Center for Community Change 

Jane Fortson 

The Progress and Freedom Foundation 

Maria Foscarinis 

Nat’l Law Center on Homelessness 

and Poverty 

Ester Fuchs 

Columbia University 

Millard Fuller 

Habitat for Humanity International 

Rose Garcia 

Tierra Del Sol Housing Corporation 

The Nat’l Rural Housing Coalition 

Christopher T. Gates 

Nat’l Civic League 

Robert Geddes, FAIA 

New York University 

Bertha Gilkey 

Urban Women Incorporated 

Arthur Godi 

Nat’l Association of Realtors 

William Gorham 

The Urban Institute 

Eugene Grigsby 

University of California/Los Angeles 

Paul Grogan 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

David Hales 

US Agency for International 

Development 

William Hansell 

International City/County Management 

Association 

F. Barton Harvey, III 

The Enterprise Foundation 

Glenda Hood 

Mayor of Orlando, FL 

John Kasarda 

University of North Carolina


Kenan Institute of Private Enterprises


George Knight 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 

Carole Lankford 

Confederate Salish & Kootenai Tribe 

Gregory S. Lashutka 

Mayor of Columbus, OH 

Warren Lasko 

Mortgage Bankers Association 

of America 

George Latimer 

Nat’l Equity Fund 

David Mammen 

Institute of Public Administration 

Gary D. McCaleb 

Mayor of Abilene, TX 

William McDonough 

University of Virginia 

Robert McNulty 

Partners for Livable Communities 

Richard Nelson, Jr. 

Nat’l Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials 

Michael O’Brien 

GMAC Mortgage Corporation 

Molly Harriss Olson 

President’s Council on Sustainable 

Development 

Ting C. Pei 

The Pei Group 

Neal R. Peirce 

Syndicated Columnist 

Janice Perlman 

Mega-Cities Project Incorporated 

Tessa Martinez Pollack 

Glendale Community College 

William Reilly 

Stanford University 

Norman Rice 

Mayor of Seattle, WA 

Yolanda Rivera 

Banana Kelly Community 

Improvement Association 

Nan Roman 

Nat’l Alliance to End Homelessness 

David Rusk 

Urban Policy Consultant 

Kurt L. Schmoke 

Mayor of Baltimore, MD 

Randall Smith 

Nat’l Association of Home Builders 

Marta Sotomayor 

Nat’l Hispanic Council on Aging 

William C. Steere 

Pfizer Corporation 

Franklin Thomas 

The Ford Foundation 

Tanya Tull 

Beyond Shelter 

Chester A. Widom, FAIA 

American Institute of Architects 

Eddie Williams 

Joint Center for Political and 

Economic Studies 

Cover photograph taken by Scot Gordon 
ARTMENT OF H


P

O


E

U


D

S


.

I
N

.S

G

U AN

T 

D

NE

U

M

RB

P

AN DEVELO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


THE SECRETARY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410-0001


I am honored to present Communities at Work: Addressing the Urban Challenge—a profile of 

25 examples of excellence in building healthy communities from across the Nation. 

As part of the U.S. preparations for Habitat II: The Second Global Conference on Human Settlements, 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development sponsored the National Excellence Awards for 

The City Summit to identify and share the best of the American community-building experience. With 

the help of experts and practitioners from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, the competition 

identified 25 of the most innovative and successful efforts to promote affordable housing, economic 

development, education and job training, public safety, and environmental protection in cities and 

towns across the country. 

By demonstrating how local initiatives can help link residents of distressed communities to the larger 

economic and social mainstream, these success stories are both instructive and inspirational. While 

such examples are rarely replicable, they are often adaptable to reflect the particular circumstances 

of a community. By offering lessons about the organizational, financial, and management elements 

critical to success, these examples will benefit others who engage in the community-building process. 

As a former mayor, I recognize the importance of local initiatives in developing lasting solutions to 

the challenges facing our communities. This publication is just one element of the Department’s 

continuing effort to work in partnership with local governments, private firms, and the growing 

network of community-based organizations to build healthy cities and a strong Nation. 

Henry G. Cisneros 
Communities at Work:


Addressing the


Urban Challenge


June 1996 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 
Dedication 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

joins the winners of the National Excellence Awards in dedicating 

this book to Mr. I. Donald Terner, President and Chief Executive 

Officer of the San Francisco-based BRIDGE Housing Corporation. 

On April 3, 1996, Don Terner, along with 32 Americans on a trade 

mission to Bosnia and Croatia, perished in a plane crash near 

Dubrovnik. 

An architect, planner, and housing developer, Don Terner is an 

inspiration to us all. His passion and strong will led to thousands 

of affordable homes for working men and women. Since joining 

BRIDGE in 1982, he has helped develop more than 6,000 units of 

affordable housing and 250,000 square feet of community-oriented 

commercial space throughout California. His visionary approach 

to mobilizing private investment for affordable housing is reflected 

in the World/BRIDGE initiative, highlighted in this book. 

iv 
Acknowledgments 

This report was prepared by Aspen Systems Corporation and 

the Mega-Cities Project, Inc., through funding provided by the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Our thanks to the 175 organizations that submitted programs 

for consideration by the selection panel and to the experts who 

reviewed them. This report would not have been possible without 

the dedicated reviewers from the following organizations: 

AFL–CIO Housing Investment Trust


American Institute of Architects


The Barnard-Columbia Center for Urban Policy


Center for Economic Priorities


Center for Sustainable Cities Program


City College of New York Architectural Center


Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture


Community Trust


Council for Economic Priorities


CUNY Graduate Center, Department of Sociology


The Enterprise Foundation


GMAC Mortgage Corporation


Hunter College, Department of Urban Planning


Institute of Public Administration


International City Managers Association


Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies


Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities


Mellon Foundation


National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials


National Association of Realtors


National Council of Churches


National League of Cities


National Low-Income Housing Coalition


Pfizer, Inc.


Picardi and Company


Project for Public Spaces


Rutgers Department of Urban Planning


Sister Cities International


Social Policy


U.S. Agency for International Development


University of Washington, Center for Sustainable Communities


Village of Rye Brook Administration


Wellington Sanders Associates


World Environment Center


v 
Table of Contents 

Introduction ............................................................................. 1


National Excellence Awards Winners


The Almena Idea ..................................................................... 9


Impact Seven, Inc. 

Almena, Wisconsin 

Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing ........................ 13 

Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Campus Circle Comprehensive


Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative .................................. 17


Marquette University 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

Center in the Square ............................................................. 21 

Roanoke, Virginia 

Community Lending Through


Community Home Buyer’s Program...................................... 25


Federal National Mortgage Association 

Washington, D.C. 

A Continuum of Program-Enriched Housing ......................... 29 

Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc. 

Denver, Colorado 

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center ...................... 33 

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center LDC 

Brooklyn, New York 

Habitat for Humanity ............................................................. 37 

Habitat for Humanity International 

Americus, Georgia 

Homeless Families Program ................................................. 41 

Beyond Shelter


Los Angeles, California


Housing Assistance Council.................................................. 45 

Washington, D.C. 

Housing Scholarship Program............................................... 49 

City of Fremont 

Fremont, California 

The Loading Dock................................................................. 53 

Baltimore, Maryland 

vii 
McAuley Village..................................................................... 57 

The McAuley Corporation 

Providence, Rhode Island 

Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program .............. 61 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

NeighborWorks Full-Cycle Lending ....................................... 65 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 

Washington, D.C. 

New Community Pathmark Supermarket.............................. 69 

New Community Corporation 

Newark, New Jersey 

Police Homeowner Loan Program ........................................ 73 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Resident and Community Services ....................................... 77 

Omaha Housing Authority 

Omaha, Nebraska 

South Bronx Churches Nehemiah Homes............................. 81 

South Bronx Churches Sponsoring Committee, Inc. 

Bronx, New York 

Take Back The Park .............................................................. 85 

Citizens Committee for New York City, Inc. 

New York, New York 

Tent City ................................................................................ 89 

Tent City Corporation 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Transforming Neighborhoods Together ................................ 93 

Center for Neighborhood Development 

Knoxville, Tennessee 

The Winds of Change:


Meeting the Needs of Rural Resort Latinos ........................... 97


Asistencia para Latinos 

Glenwood Springs, Colorado 

The World/BRIDGE Initiative ............................................... 101 

BRIDGE Housing Corporation 

San Francisco, California 

Yard Waste Recycling Project ............................................. 105 

City of Lindsborg 

Lindsborg, Kansas 

National Excellence Awards Finalists ................................. 109 

viii 
Introduction 

This is an extraordinary time in America’s cities. Communities are 

tackling old and new problems in innovative ways. They are engaging new partners, working entrepreneurially, using resources in 

unaccustomed ways, and breaking down barriers in service delivery 

to revitalize cities and meet complex human needs. These activities 

and innovations are clearly evident in the winners and finalists in the 

National Excellence Awards for The City Summit (Habitat II) whose 

work is highlighted in this volume. Selected from among 175 nominations, these model projects give testimony to the ingenuity and 

successful enterprise evident in cities all across America. 

In the United States, two major changes have occurred in housing 

and community development since the United Nations convened 

the first Habitat conference two decades ago: 

■	 In recent years, there has been an upswelling of communitybuilding activity at the local level, not just within government, 

but also among private and grassroots organizations. Because 

people at the local level are often better able to recognize their 

needs, order their priorities, and craft solutions that are consistent with local traditions and resources, even the most disadvantaged communities are taking the initiative to address the 

range of issues with which Habitat II is concerned. 

■	 The nature of community-building efforts has evolved dramatically. Increasingly, our consciousness has moved away from 

simple bricks and mortar to viewing housing and community 

development in the context of integrated service delivery. While 

adequate shelter is an important element for many low-income 

families on the road to economic self-sufficiency, health services, 

education and job training, child care, and public safety are also 

important. 

Local Partnerships 

Creating change from the bottom up requires partnerships that 

bring together the energy and determination of a community with 

outside resources. Many kinds of resources may enter into these 

partnerships: money, expertise, volunteer labor, donations of land or 

buildings, or special credit terms. They typically involve a blend of 

private and public sources from the local, State, and Federal levels. 

These partnerships build the sort of citywide and regional ties that 

will be necessary for disadvantaged communities to participate in 

regional economies over the long haul. Partnerships such as these 

have fueled virtually every one of the winners of the National 

Excellence Awards. 

1 
The organizations 

acting as linchpin to 

these partnerships 

for neighborhood 

betterment are 

diverse and often 

surprising. 

Several of the projects highlighted here exemplify the state of the 

art in carrying out community goal setting and planning at the 

neighborhood level. The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization 

Program currently involves 65 of the city’s 81 neighborhoods in 

planning, and has earmarked $20 million annually for the next 20 

years to carry out their plans. This program, in effect, asks urban 

residents who might be tempted to relocate to the suburbs: “What 

do you need to stay?” Another neighborhood planning program, the 

Knoxville, Tennessee-based Transforming Neighborhoods Together, 

a project of the Center for Neighborhood Development, specifically 

targets low-income areas. The Knoxville program helps leaders of 

low-income neighborhoods create visions of the future and then 

develop the skills, networks, and strategies that enable them to work 

together to implement the vision. In Wisconsin, The Almena Idea 

illustrates how outside expertise can help revitalize rural towns 

facing hard economic times. Working with Impact Seven, a community development corporation serving Northern Wisconsin, the 

small town of Almena witnessed an entrepreneurial renaissance 

that attracted new businesses, created jobs, and spurred new 

investment. 

From the Bottom Up 

Also consider Boston’s Tent City, which grew out of a demonstration 

on April 28, 1968, following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther 

King, Jr. A group of community activists amassed a “tent city” as a 

way to protest the demolition of older housing carried out under 

urban renewal policies and to demand mixed-income, integrated 

housing in line with King’s dream. Following almost two decades of 

struggle against a city government opposed to this dream, Tent City 

eventually forged a partnership in the mid 1980’s with the Boston 

Redevelopment Authority. Through State and local regulatory 

mechanisms and grants, and with the support from local political 

leaders, Tent City was able to create 269 units of mixed-income 

housing, 5 stores, a day care center, and an after school program. 

The organizations acting as linchpin to these partnerships for 

neighborhood betterment are diverse and often surprising. The 

Boston Bricklayers Union and the Laborers Union came together to 

form the Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation, 

which has built more than 279 houses. The homes have sold for 

$67,500 to $149,000 in an area where the median housing cost is 

$170,000. Through its Campus Circle Neighborhood Revitalization 

Initiative in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Marquette University is turning 

around the urban neighborhood in which it resides. In addition to its 

$9 million investment, Marquette called together a “Neighborhood Circle” of representatives from local businesses, churches, 

2 
community groups, and residents to help with the planning process. 

This inspired friends of the university to invest in the project and 

provide an additional $9 million in equity. 

South Bronx Churches Nehemiah Homes, which has produced 

more than 500 new homes, is an example of a type of partnership 

that has become increasingly common: a church or coalition of 

churches initiating community development. The funds to develop 

Nehemiah Homes in the South Bronx were raised with the support 

of South Bronx Churches member congregations, their judicatories, 

and denominational leaders. Two Episcopalian churches each 

agreed to loan $1 million, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of 

America gave $500,000 to the construction. East Brooklyn congregations, composed of Catholic and Jewish individuals as well as 

Catholic religious orders, made up the rest of the trust that reached 

a total of $3.5 million. 

This decentralized approach to community development nurtures 

local initiatives that are both highly creative and well positioned to 

take advantage of previously underutilized resources in their communities. The Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center in 

Brooklyn, New York, for example, is an industrial cooperative that 

houses small businesses while these tenants work to restore the 

rambling 19th century industrial property. The revitalized Greenpoint 

is also helping to stabilize its urban neighborhood. The Loading 

Dock in Baltimore is a grassroots organization that enlists contractors and volunteers to recycle building materials, which would 

otherwise be thrown away, for use by low-income households. 

Intermediary Organizations 

Local initiatives and low-income individuals are also often helped 

by intermediary organizations, which bring in training and technical 

experience in specialized areas to allow local efforts to take advantage of lessons learned in other places. One such intermediary is 

San Francisco’s nonprofit BRIDGE Housing Corporation, which 

teamed up with the World Savings and Loan Association, a private 

sector financial institution, to create the World/BRIDGE Initiative. 

The initiative, having attracted the participation of other financial 

organizations, has become a pioneer in enabling nonprofit housing 

corporations to access public pension funds to construct affordable 

housing. Another intermediary group, the Housing Assistance 

Council, works with fledgling, isolated, often rural nonprofit housing 

developers to begin their development programs. A third, the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, uses its NeighborWorks 

Full-Cycle Lending program to work with lenders and affiliate 

organizations to open up mortgage loans to low-income people. 

World/BRIDGE 

has become a 

pioneer in enabling 

nonprofit housing 

corporations 

to access public 

pension funds to 

construct affordable 

housing. 

3 
Housing and 

community 

development 

initiatives do not 

address housing 

or the creation of 

neighborhood 

facilities in 

isolation. Instead 

they conceive 

of the task of 

community 

revitalization 

as involving a 

whole complex 

of needs. 

Integrating a Range of Services 

Aside from a new emphasis on decentralization and partnerships, a 

second fundamental change in this area during the past decade is 

that increasingly, housing and community development initiatives do 

not address housing or the creation of neighborhood facilities in 

isolation. Instead they conceive of the task of community revitalization as involving a whole complex of needs, including low education levels, lack of employable skills, unstable living patterns, poor 

coping skills, and troublesome health conditions (including possibly 

substance abuse), which require integrated service delivery to 

tackle all components of the problem. Three winning programs, 

Los Angeles’ Homeless Families Program (a project of Beyond 

Shelter), Denver’s Continuum of Program-Enriched Housing, and 

Providence’s McAuley Village, provide housing as a core service 

while addressing other acute needs to stabilize homeless individuals and families. The Omaha Housing Authority also uses an integrated services approach to help its low-income public housing 

residents become self-supporting. In Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 

Asistencia para Latinos, a local community-based organization, 

is working to bring together a broad range of social services and 

advocacy activities to improve the situation of Hispanic residents 

in the Roaring Fork Valley. 

Two programs highlighted in this volume use housing as a means of 

leveraging other desirable social outcomes.The Police Homeowner 

Loan Program of Columbia, South Carolina, offers police officers 

excellent terms on the purchase and rehabilitation of inner-city 

houses, which gives individual police officers a stake in distressed 

communities and makes neighbors feel safer. The Housing Scholarship Program in Fremont, California, provides housing assistance 

as an incentive to encourage heads of households to remain in job 

training to improve their earning potential. 

Working at All Levels 

The winning projects of the National Excellence Awards show a 

great variation in scope, attacking problems at all geographic levels. 

One New York City program, Take Back The Park, works at the 

neighborhood level, training young people to reclaim crime-ridden 

parks for community uses. The Yard Waste Recycling Project in the 

small town of Lindsborg, Kansas, applies the power of community 

volunteerism to create a valuable resource—mulch—out of common 

yard waste. In Newark, New Jersey, the New Community Pathmark 

Supermarket—a joint venture between a local community development corporation and Pathmark Supermarkets—anchors a new 

shopping center that reinvests its profits back into the community 

4 
and is helping to revitalize a distressed and previously underserved 

neighborhood. By creating a home for three museums, a planetarium, a professional theater, and an arts council in a restored 

warehouse, Center in the Square, in Roanoke, Virginia, was the 

catalyst in the revitalization of the heart of the city and serves as 

an excellent example of a public-private partnership. Through its 

national Community Lending Through Community Home Buyer’s 

Program, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), 

has funded $20 billion in mortgages and assisted 258,000 families 

around the country in the half-decade of the program’s existence. 

In addition, the nonprofit self-help housing program, Habitat for 

Humanity, has built or renovated more than 40,000 houses around 

the world in its two decades of operation, providing nearly 250,000 

people with safe, decent, affordable shelter. 

Models for Change 

In their various ways, the winners of the National Excellence Awards 

demonstrate how local initiative can help link residents of distressed 

communities to America’s economic and social mainstream. In 

doing so, programs such as these make strategic investments in 

the human and physical capital of our Nation, and strengthen our 

society’s ability to compete in the global economy of the future. 

5 
About the National Excellence Awards 

The National Excellence Awards are a key component of U.S. preparations for Habitat II: The City 

Summit, a global conference convened by the United Nations (U.N.). The conference, being held in 

Istanbul in June 1996, focuses on the critical urban situation and the initiative needed for worldwide 

action to improve shelter and living arrangements. At this important world summit, government representatives, political and social leaders, experts in housing and construction, and community development organizations from the U.N.’s 180 member nations have an unprecedented opportunity to explore 

new approaches to the management, financing, design, and guidance of housing and urban growth. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Henry G. Cisneros named a 

U.S. National Preparatory Committee (NPC) for Habitat II from among private sector, nonprofit, and 

government leaders to guide U.S. conference preparations, including the National Excellence Awards 

process. 

Conference organizers asked participating nations to share information on “best practices” —examples 

of outstanding work being done in housing and community development. The United States responded 

by initiating the National Excellence Awards for The City Summit in support of Habitat II. This was also 

an exercise to determine, highlight, and promote effective programs within the U.S.—it focused attention 

on the inherent strengths in our Nation’s communities and resulted in a meaningful exchange of ideas 

among those with a stake in the country’s urban future. NPC, supported by HUD, announced a Call for 

Submissions for the National Excellence Awards in September 1995. 

Application Process 

The NPC designed an open, objective, and highly structured submission and evaluation process for 

the National Excellence Awards. The competition was open to all government, nonprofit, and private 

organizations. Programs had to have been in operation for at least 2 years prior to the submission deadline of October 16, 1995. They had to address one or more of several issue areas: poverty alleviation; 

economic development; social infrastructure and services; environmental regeneration; physical infrastructure and services; natural hazard management/mitigation; housing, land use, and urban planning; 

urban governance; or social and cultural viability. Programs also had to demonstrate a practical course 

of action. Nominated programs could range in scale from the neighborhood to an entire metropolitan 

area. And, because rural areas are often an important factor in the urbanizing world, NPC encouraged 

nominations from rural communities. 

Importance of innovation 

The review criteria gave weight to such elements as local partnerships, participatory planning, demon­


strated programmatic impact, and potential for replicability in other communities and countries. The


criteria emphasized innovation—projects needed to demonstrate alternative solutions with the potential


to change the logic of the way problems are approached, to create new incentive systems, or to bring


new players to the table. The competition encouraged projects addressing a broad range of issues to


apply: social (experimenting with new forms of social architecture of group behavior at the family, neigh­


borhood, city, or societal level); cultural (shifting an entrenched cultural belief or norm); economic and


financial (testing new ways of mobilizing and allocating resources); political (creating new means of


empowerment and participation in democratic decisionmaking); administrative and managerial (develop­


ing improved mechanisms for sharing responsibilities, monitoring processes, or ensuring quality); tech­


nological (taking the form of a new technical device, mechanical design, or scientific system); and spatial


and physical (reorganizing the use of physical space at the building, neighborhood, city, or regional level).


Criteria. In announcing the competition, NPC spelled out in detail the selection criteria:


Impact


■ Significance: the program addresses a fundamental urban/community problem.


■ Creativity: the new program or process reflects a change from “business as usual.”

■ Benefit: the net impact on those affected (regardless of how many) is clear and profound. 

■ Scope: there is clear potential for broad impact. 

■ Proven merit: there is empirical evidence that the innovation is workable and can serve as a “tried 

and tested” model of success. 

■ Long-term viability: there is evidence of lasting institutional change in legislation, by-laws, 

standards, social policies, strategies, management practices, governance, revenue utilization, 

resource allocation, or the logic of problem solving. 

Operation 

■ Cost effective: the approach or project is operationally cost effective. 

■ Practical: the innovation does not require inaccessible technology, unattainable skills, or excessive 

capital to implement. 

■ Collaborative: the innovation involves partnerships among at least two of these sectors: government, 

nongovernmental organizations, community-based organizations, the private sector, academia, and 

the media. 

■ Sustainable: the creative approach has the potential to be ongoing. 

Objectives 

■ Socially equitable: the program or policy promotes social and economic self-sufficiency among 

those in need. 

■ Economically viable: the costs are low enough for the innovation to become viable on a wide scale. 

■ Politically participatory: the decisionmaking process is democratic and includes the people whose 

lives are most directly affected. 

■ Ecologically sustainable: the initiative protects or regenerates the urban environment. 

■ Culturally adaptable: the innovation is culturally sensitive and flexible enough to be applicable 

in other countries. 

National and Global Impact 

■ NPC emphasized that special consideration would be given to projects demonstrating the potential 

to make a difference on a national or even an international scale. 

Selection Process 

Once the deadline for applications had passed, the selection process began. The review process— 

administered by the Mega-Cities Project, Inc., and Aspen Systems Corporation on behalf of HUD and 

NPC—was designed to be thorough and fair. The selection process consisted of four phases: review for 

eligibility, identification of finalists, site visits, and selection of the winners. First, Aspen Systems Corporation reviewed all applications to ensure that minimum eligibility requirements were met. A 20-member 

panel—representing academia, community organizations, government, and foundations—then reviewed 

the applications and identified 53 finalists. In the third phase, independent, external reviewers who are 

experts in their fields made site visits to each of the finalists and submitted extensive written reports, 

standardized in format to facilitate comparisons among the diverse projects. Each finalist’s application 

and site visit report was then independently rated and ranked by three members of the NPC Selection 

Committee. The Selection Committee then met, made their decision, and designated the 25 National 

Excellence Award winners. 
The Almena Idea 

■	 Impact Seven, Inc. 

Almena, Wisconsin 

9 

The Almena Idea is an approach to economic development that 

brought together a regional community development corporation 

(CDC) and a rural town in an unconventional partnership that 

allowed an economically hard-pressed, conser vative rural community to develop a new risk-taking, proactive stance to promote 

growth. In Almena, Wisconsin, the initiative has been a success. 

It has attracted new businesses, created and retained jobs, 

spurred zoning reform, inspired investment while minimizing 

risk, and encouraged revitalization. This rethinking of attitudes 

allowed a community that once believed decline was inevitable 

to turn things around and stage a rebirth. 

Background 

During times of fiscal hardship, pursuing “business as usual” 

may not be the best way to spur investment and stimulate a 

sagging economy. At the same time, a community wrestling 

with the effects of decline may feel intense pressure to dig in 

its heels, ride out the bad times, and resist untested ideas or 

investment plans. Rural communities, many of them hit hard by 

economic recession, may be particularly susceptible to this 

attitude of inflexibility. 

Many small, rural communities like Almena, Wisconsin, face 

high rates of poverty due to high unemployment and declining 

economic conditions. In the early 1990’s, Almena, a town of 

650 people, had recently lost the only employer of any significant 

size. Its unemployment rate was 19.4 percent—almost three 

times higher than the national rate. 

Almena invited Impact Seven, Inc., a community development 

corporation serving rural, northern Wisconsin, to challenge the 

village to combat its sense of inevitable decline and develop 

feasible, if possibly risky, solutions for turning the community 

around. Lacking capital, economic development experience, and 

a history of risk-taking, the community would have been unable 

to take steps to improve its situation alone. 
10 

❝I am very 

impressed by The 

Almena Idea as 

a creative and 

innovative publicprivate partnership 

between Impact 

Seven and Almena. 

This proves that a 

community can take 

control of its future. 

The Almena Idea is 

an excellent model 

for international 

community 

development.❞ 

Senator Herb Kohl 

Approach 

The Almena Idea illustrates how outside expertise can help 

revitalize a community suffering from inertia and decline. Instead 

of spreading its resources thinly over a broad range of communities 

or projects, Impact Seven decided to concentrate resources in one 

community to demonstrate the value of focused knowledge and 

expertise. In a matter of years, The Almena Idea was able to 

reverse a long-term trend of decline. 

Impact Seven started by establishing a framework for change. 

Before a community can effectively control its future, a number of 

prerequisites need to be in place: a community vision, a process for 

implementation, cooperative community participation, and strong 

local leadership and organizations. For the small rural town of 

Almena, Impact Seven helped make this possible. 

Before working with Impact Seven, Almena also lacked a strong 

local development organization. With support and encouragement 

from Impact Seven, Almena developed the Almena Business Development Corporation (ABDC) to represent local interests and undertake proposed projects. To get ABDC off the ground, Impact Seven 

received a $20,000 State grant for marketing. Total startup costs 

were approximately $40,000. Impact Seven provided the staffing for 

facilitating the development of ABDC. Most of the work was done as 

in-kind assistance. Ongoing operating costs, estimated at $20,000 

per year, are shared by Impact Seven, ABDC, and supplemented 

by many volunteer hours. Their activities, aimed at expanding 

business and making the town more attractive, stressed improving 

infrastructure and business facades, changing zoning, and 

developing new industrial parks. 
Although Impact Seven brought with them vital expertise in economic development and fundraising, they were, nevertheless, in a 

delicate, potentially threatening situation. They were invited into the 

community to shake up the accepted way of conducting business, 

to push leadership to become more organized, and to take risks. 

This was not a comfortable time for those in positions of authority 

in the community, even though they may have recognized that 

change was desirable. Impact Seven kept lines of communication 

open by working closely with the village council, an elected body, 

and through town meetings. In one of the deals arranged under 

The Almena Idea, Impact Seven sought financing from 13 State and 

local financial sources, assuming the risk itself. This allowed Almena 

a chance to explore new ways of doing business without taking on 

more risk than it felt able to handle. Impact Seven’s commitment 

of its own money helped the community overcome their traditional 

distrust of outsiders. 

Impact 

Almena residents now see the town as a place where they can 

invest and develop their businesses. In 5 years, the project has 

more than doubled the number of employers in the community. It 

has added 2 industrial parks (see photo, page 10) and brought in 

15 employers that created 96 new jobs. In addition to direct economic development, new roads have been built and the downtown 

has been revitalized with a park and building improvements. Even 

housing is improving as exemplified by: 

■	 renovation of rundown downtown housing to provide 

convenient housing for Almena workers and their families, 

■ an apartment development for low-income elderly, and 

■ market rate duplexes. 

Most of those who secured jobs through these efforts had previously been unemployed and on government assistance. Almena’s 

increased economic vitality has increased the tax base, lowered 

unemployment, and strengthened community pride. 

Scaling Up 

At the foundation of The Almena Idea is the belief that an outside 

agency can challenge the status quo and persuade a willing community to reorganize and save itself. In many ways, this project 

focuses in a concentrated fashion on many classic revitalization 

tools such as job creation, multiple sources of funding, establishment of ways of maintaining momentum, and increasing leadership 

and community ability to cooperate. 

By upgrading 

infrastructure and 

business facades, 

changing zoning, 

and developing 

new industrial 

parks, the 

community has 

become more 

attractive to new 

and expanding 

businesses. 

11 
Almena invited 

Impact Seven, Inc., 

to challenge the 

village...[to] develop 

feasible, if possibly 

risky, solutions 

for turning the 

community around. 

In 5 years The Almena Idea has: 

■ Created 96 jobs for low-income residents in a small town. 

■ Doubled the number of local businesses to 31. 

■ Increased the tax base by $1.7 million to $9 million. 

■	 Matched a $20,000 National Endowment for the Arts downtown 

revitalization grant with $50,000 locally. 

■	 Developed two industrial parks and added 70,000 square feet 

of manufacturing space. 

■ Constructed new housing for its low-income elderly population. 

A number of other communities in northern Wisconsin have 

started projects based on The Almena Idea. 

Contact: 

Ms. Mary Vinopal 

Impact Seven, Inc. 

651 Garfield Street 

Almena, WI 54805 

Phone: 715–357–3334 

Fax: 715–357–6233 

12 
Bricklayers and Laborers 

Nonprofit Housing 

■	 B ricklayers and Laborers 

Nonprofit Housing Cor poration 

Boston, Massachusetts 

13 

In 1989 the Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation built more than 200 attractive and affordable homes in 

the Mission Hill and Waterfront areas of Boston. This nonprofit 

housing corporation is changing popular misconceptions about 

affordable housing. Their work demonstrates that developers 

can build attractive and affordable housing and still pay union 

rates. With the creation of top-of-the-line housing units in prime 

locations in Boston, they leverage pension funds and diversify 

financing options to build houses and rebuild neighborhoods. 

The developments foster a sense of community in a downtown 

multiethnic neighborhood and maintain housing diversity in a 

rapidly gentrifying former industrial area. 

Background 

More than 10 years ago many did not view unions as an integral 

part of their community. But in Boston, where the median house 

price is out of reach to many low- and moderate-income families, 

the expertise and organization of unions can play an important 

role in building communities. When looking for a way to become 

more involved in the community, Boston Bricklayers Union Local 

3 decided to focus on what it does best: construction. Although 

the union lacked seed money, it did have the ear of then-Mayor 

Ray Flynn. The union convinced the city to donate a parcel of 

land in South Boston where the first 18 units were built. 

The Bricklayers Union Local 3, in collaboration with a local 

chapter of the Laborers Union, formed the Bricklayers and 

Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation. The Union pays the 

salary of the president of the corporation—its only employee. 

Funds generated by the sale or rental of the completed houses 

pay an executive director’s salary. The corporation’s mission is 

to be a force of good in the community by building well-designed, 

high-quality affordable housing, using union labor. 
14 

Approach 

This award-winning 

innovation consists 

mainly of two developments: The Back of the 

Hill (see photo, left), with 

165 rowhouses in Mission 

Hill, and The Charleston 

Navy Yard, 50 townhouses near Boston’s 

waterfront, both completed by 1989. Effective 

community organization, 

creative financing, and 

innovative design made 

these developments the 

success they are today. 

The union used its community organizing expertise to unite 

diverse and sometimes divergent interests, including community 

activists, neighborhood civic groups, architects, developers, city 

planners, and financiers. In Mission Hill, the local community development corporations played an important role from the outset 

by articulating neighborhood concerns on design and helping to 

design and implement the application and selection process for 

the completed houses. Charlestown neighborhood organizations 

were similarly involved in Charlestown Navy Yard Development. 

The housing corporation held down costs by leveraging a variety 

of resources and taking advantage of several financing options. The 

Back of the Hill development combined funding from the Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME (a Federal housingspecific block grant), city of Boston linkage grants, and union pension funds. To develop the Charleston Navy Yard site along the 

waterfront, a private developer donated the land and a grant for 

a copper roof, while the City donated funds from their linkage 

program. 

The design of these developments was also unique. Designed by 

a renowned architectural firm, the developments used local materials and styles to blend with the existing neighborhoods and suppor t 

revitalization efforts. The result was a well-built complex without the 

usual stigma associated with affordable housing. To develop housing that promotes urban cohesiveness in the Mission Hill area, a 

neighborhood plagued by ethnic divisions, each of the three newly 

constructed streets in the Back of the Hill development features 

townhouses with one of three bayfront styles and brick patterns. 

❝Union pension 

funds can be a 

strong force in 

rebuilding the 

cities of America.❞ 

Thomas J. McIntyre, 

President, Bricklayers 

and Laborers Nonprofit 

Housing Corporation 
The Charlestown development features a combination of a six-story 

elevator building and stacked townhouses; townhomes on the 

ground level have a private yard or, for those on the upper level, 

a private 150-square-foot deck. 

Impact 

The Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation has


developed 279 units of affordable housing in the 10 years since it


began. The corporation sold the homes for $67,500 to $114,000


in neighborhoods where the median housing cost is $170,000.


The group’s attention to housing design and financing proves that


low-cost housing can be both well built and attractive.


These projects also integrated the housing into the existing area.


In both cases, the design and location of the housing developments


physically upgraded the neighborhoods and promoted community


spirit. In Mission Hill, the site of the Back of the Hill project that


was once 11 acres of vacant land, now links two ethnically diverse


neighborhoods that have a history of racial and ethnic tension. The


Charlestown Navy Yard reclaimed decaying industrial property on


the edge of an urban harbor and supported ongoing revitalization


efforts, while ensuring that the revitalization did not leave the


poorer members of the community behind.


Scaling Up 

Thomas McIntyre, president of the Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation, is also the president and founder of the 

Bricklayers and Carpenters Charlestown Nonprofit Development 

Corporation, which was formed in June 1990 to develop affordable 

housing for the elderly. Bricklayers and Carpenters Charlestown 

Nonprofit Development Corporation formed a limited partnership to 

develop Building #104 in the Charlestown Navy Yard into 46 units of 

elderly housing using Low Income Housing Tax Credits. All of the 

units are affordable to households at 60 percent of median income 

or below. Building 104 consists of 46 one-bedroom rental units, half 

of which are rented to tenants at or below 50 percent of median 

income. Building 104 was completed in December 1994 with a 

total development cost of about $7.5 million. 

The Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation is 

taking its show on the road. Because union pension funds are an 

important and underutilized source of housing development funding, 

the Bricklayers and Laborers are working in cooperation with the 

AFL–CIO Housing Investment Trust to develop similar affordable 

housing projects in El Paso, Texas. The International Masonry 

Institute is currently working with groups in New Mexico on a 

similar development. 

❝ It is surprising 

nowadays when 

decent housing 

for the working 

class gets built. 

Boston’s 50-unit 

Charlestown Navy 

Yard rowhouses . . . 

are virtually 

miraculous: 

cheerful, dignified, 

altogether grand 

looking low-cost 

housing.❞ 

Time Magazine, 

January 1989 

15 
In the 10 years since the Bricklayers and Laborers 

Nonprofit Housing Corporation began, it has: 

■	 Built and sold 279 units to low- and moderate-income 

homebuyers. 

■	 Won awards from the American Institute of Architects (AIA), 

Time magazine, the New York Times, New England Regional 

AIA, Central New York Chapter AIA, and Boston Society of 

Architects. 

■	 Sold houses for $67,500 to $114,000 in an area where the 

median housing cost is $170,000. 

Contact: 

Mr. Thomas J. McIntyre, President


Bricklayers and Laborers Nonprofit Housing Corporation


104 First Avenue


Charlestown, MA 02129


Phone: 617–242–2231


Fax: 617–242–2430


16 
Campus Circle 

Comprehensive Neighborhood 

Revitalization Initiative 

■	 Marquette University 

Milwauke e, Wisconsin 

17 

Marquette University’s Campus Circle Initiative is a unique 

neighborhood revitalization approach that marshals the strengths 

of the various professional schools and departments and the 

institutional outreach of the University. Initially created to focus 

on housing and commercial needs, the project, in cooperation 

with its community partners and the city of Milwaukee, has 

expanded to encompass significant quality of life issues including 

job creation, education, homelessness, youth programs, crime, 

and public safety. Because of the Campus Circle Initiative, the 

near west side of Milwaukee has benefited from the creation of 

more than 200 units of affordable housing, and the neighborhood has experienced a decrease in drug trafficking and other 

criminal activity. 

The secret of Campus Circle’s success lies in its partnerships 

and financial commitments. Marquette University allocated $9 

million as part of an investment of more than $50 million, and it 

is collaborating with the city, the police department, local public 

schools, social service agencies, the YWCA, large local employers, university staff, and students. The initiative has started a 

movement: 25 institutions, most of them urban educational 

institutions, have visited the program, several are in the planning 

stages of replicating it, and some are already establishing 

partnerships. 

Background 

Marquette is the largest institution in the Avenues West neighborhood, which also contains the Sinai-Samaritan Hospital, a 

regional blood center, two insurance companies, and several 

churches and businesses. As recently as a decade ago it was a 

thriving area with eight hospitals. Much of the hospital staff lived 

in the surrounding neighborhood, but as the hospitals relocated, 

so did their staff. By 1990 only 4 percent of the housing stock 

was owner-occupied. Poverty rates doubled between 1980 and 

1990. If Marquette was to survive as an institution, it would have 

to leave the area—as its law school did in the 1960’s—or create 

a neighborhood revitalization effort that linked the university and 

the neighborhood more closely than ever before. 
18 

Local activists and residents were 

skeptical when they first heard 

of the revitalization plan. “It has 

not been in Marquette’s history to 

work in the community,” says Joyce 

Henry, a local social service provider. 

“Their community—yes. The rest of 

the community—no.” To capitalize on 

community expertise and win trust, 

Marquette created the “Neighborhood 

Circle” with representatives from local 

businesses, churches, community 

groups, and residents to help with 

the planning process and keep other 

residents informed. Marquette eventually hosted some 150 neighborhood meetings; refreshments were provided to encourage 

attendance and to convince the neighborhood of the firmness of 

the university’s commitment to the entire 90-block neighborhood— 

not just the 20 blocks where the university resides. 

Approach 

Winning over the residents was only part of the battle. Other institutions—potential partners and funding sources that would benefit 

from the revitalization—were reluctant to participate, doubtful that 

an initiative of this scope could be successful. The university raised 

only $2 million from these sources, less than anticipated, and had 

to reorganize its fundraising. The Marquette donors were more 

enthusiastic, matching the university’s $9.2 million pledge. This $20 

million of equity in the form of capital and soft debt was leveraged 

with about $36 million in debt that included double tax-exempt 

bonds, Tax Incremental Financing proceeds, low-interest loans, 

and targeted loans from the banking community. 

From the start, safety and crime reduction formed a central focus 

of this project. The university partnered with the Milwaukee police 

to create the city’s first community policing program where neighborhood residents, landlords, and institutions cooperate to increase 

public safety. Campus Circle provided the police with a highly visible 

site for their community-oriented substation. In addition, the university formed alliances with landlords who helped to identify problem 

properties and close down drug houses. 

The university hired an alumnus with a development and entrepreneurial background who, with the Campus Circle Board, formed two 

nonprofit corporations—one for residential properties and one for 

commercial real estate. Housing was one of the first areas tackled. 

Much of the local housing had deteriorated; 75 percent of landlords 

were absentee. Many units, built for single persons, did not meet 

the needs of families living in them. Homeownership rates were very 

❝We could wall 

ourselves in or 

we could weave 

ourselves in.❞ 

Rev. Albert DiUlio, 

Marquette University 

President 
low. Now Campus Circle manages more than 1,000 housing units 

and rehabilitated nearly 200 of these, converting a portion into 

family units.The initiative has emphasized keeping residents in 

place, improving quality, but not raising rents. Insufficient funding 

has kept some buildings empty, but these are boarded up and no 

longer available to drug dealers or other criminals. 

Campus Circle also began to renovate the business district near 

campus. It purchased 9 of the 15 bars and closed all but 3 of those. 

Although the area is still not financially stable enough to attract the 

supermarket that residents desire, the new development, called 

Campus Town (see photo, page 18), is a step in the right direction. 

This mixed-use project features 152 apartments, a sports bar, and 

89,000 square feet of new commercial space. Economic development activities have attracted 13 new businesses and encouraged 

existing businesses to stay and reinvest. 

The university is investing its academic resources in the community 

as well. The Marquette Dental Clinic and Nursing School Parish 

Nurse Outreach Program help address area health needs. PACE 

brings the Marquette Department of Mathematics together with the 

Grand Avenue Middle School for an innovative math education 

program. The Marquette School of Education and community 

partners offer parent education, teacher training, and intensive 

literacy tutoring for children. The Service Learning Project brings 

500 students into 50 citywide agencies to link classroom learning 

to for-credit volunteer service. 

Impact 

The neighborhood’s appearance has improved as Campus Circle 

has purchased and rehabilitated housing and commercial structures. The community policing effort has made physical changes 

more than skin deep, with police records showing a 34-percent drop 

in crime in 2-1/2 years. Improvements to community cohesion and 

pride of place may be less visible, but they are no less important. 

They are fostered by the numerous university-community partnerships, by tenant councils, and by resident-student cooperation in 

various social service activities. The example of Marquette’s commitment to the Avenues West neighborhood has challenged its 

institutional partners to reevaluate their own role in the community 

and the effect of the community’s stability on their own success. 

Scaling Up 

The Campus Circle approach is adaptable and, indeed, other 

universities throughout the country are in the process of forming 

creative partnerships with neighborhood businesses, activists, 

associations, and residents to create comprehensive change. 

More than 25 universities or city representatives have visited 

Campus Circle. 

❝ Employers. . . 

recognize that their 

ability to attract and 

retain employees 

is influenced by 

conditions in the 

surrounding 

neighborhoods.❞ 

Michael Morgan, 

Department of 

City Development 

Commissioner 

19 
20 

But it is also an expensive approach, requiring a tremendous 

amount of funds. Because it could accumulate extensive equity, 

the institution was able to leverage the additional funds necessary. 

While the project’s immediate future is secure, long-term prospects 

are less clear. Originally the university thought that program operating costs would be covered by real estate investments, but this has 

not been the case; Marquette is covering the losses. Campus 

Circle is currently developing a plan for disposing of some of its 

undeveloped properties to break even. 

On a smaller scale, the city of Milwaukee is using the Marquette 

neighborhood anchor approach in a variety of settings. The city has 

convinced several major employers to act as neighborhood anchors, 

serving as the focal point for a multifaceted approach. Employers 

such as Master Lock and Harley-Davidson recognize that their 

ability to attract and retain employees is influenced by conditions in 

the surrounding neighborhoods. Consequently, they are developing 

partnerships with the city and with community-based organizations 

to address neighborhood problems in a coordinated, systematic 

fashion. 

Marquette University’s Campus Circle 

Comprehensive Neighborhood 

Revitalization Initiative has: 

■ Bought and managed more than 1,000 units 

of housing (with a mix of students and other 

residents). 

■ Rehabilitated 188 units without raising rents. 

■ Developed tenant councils to foster resident 

empowerment. 

■ Established a community-oriented policing 

project that helped decrease crime by 34 

percent in 2 1/2 years. 

■ Constructed 84,000 square feet of rental 

commercial space. 

■ Attracted 13 new retail businesses to the area. 

■ Formed more than 20 partnerships with area 

landlords, the police department, businesses, 

social service agencies, homeless care 

providers, and residents. 

■ Surpassed its goal of using minority-owned, 

woman-owned, and disadvantaged businesses 

in 25 percent of its construction and professional 

services. 

■ Constructed 153 units of off-campus student 

housing. 

■ Contributed more than 65,000 hours of faculty, 

staff, and student volunteer time in 1995. 

Campus 

Circle, Marquette 

University’s 

neighborhood 

revitalization 

initiative, is a 

pioneer program 

to build 

neighborhoods 

and community. 

Contact: 

Ms. Sandy Hintz 

Campus Circle Comprehensive 

Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative 

Marquette University 

Holthusen Hall, 419 

P.O. Box 1881 

1324 West Wisconsin Avenue 

Milwaukee, WI 53201–1881 

Phone: 414–288–1987 

Fax: 414–288–6199 
Center in the Square 

Roanoke , Virginia 

21 

Center in the Square, Virginia’s largest cultural complex, 

opened in 1983 to support art, history, science, and theater in 

southwest Virginia. Located in downtown Roanoke, the facility 

houses five arts, history, science, and cultural organizations. It 

attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors yearly, including local 

residents, school groups, and tourists. The business community 

enthusiastically supports the Center, which has been a catalyst 

for revitalizing Roanoke’s decaying downtown area. 

Background 

In 1976, Roanoke’s downtown area resembled deteriorating 

downtowns throughout the Nation, and suffered from drugs, 

prostitution, abandoned buildings, and out-migration of businesses to the suburbs. At the same time, a number of arts 

groups were scattered throughout the region in substandard 

conditions or poor locations, and a number of these groups 

faced closure due to high operating costs. 

At the time, one local business association questioned whether 

the area was salvageable; the answer was not clear. Any decision to invest in Roanoke required reexamining the decaying 

downtown in light of its potential. Despite its problems, it was an 

area rich with resources not available in rural or suburban areas: 

historic buildings and facades, a pedestrian-oriented infrastructure, business sites coupled with residential neighborhoods, 

multiple transportation choices, and less expensive sites. 

Resolved to keep Roanoke’s downtown viable, a business 

association raised $60,000 to form the Central Roanoke Development Foundation, which was charged with creating a revitalization and development plan. This plan, called Design 79, was 

developed in a storefront window on Roanoke’s busiest downtown street where citizens were encouraged to observe and to 

offer suggestions. After 4 months of call-in television broadcasts 

coupled with the participation of a 100-person citizen panel, the 

public wish list grew to include 3,600 recommendations. Some 

1,200 items were eventually integrated into the project. 
22 

Approach 

Interest focused on a proposed arts complex known as Center in 

the Square (see photo below), which would be located in a dilapidated farm implement showroom and warehouse dating back to 

1914. But the project immediately encountered obstacles. Some 

critics believed that the market district—the proposed site of the 

arts complex—was already lost, kept alive only by farmers selling 

produce at stalls. Others were concerned that the project would be 

too complicated to carry out and that visitors would perceive the 

neighborhood as too threatening. Despite enthusiasm among city 

officials, local public funding could not be obtained in time for this 

project. 

An array of public, private, and nonprofit organizations did come 

together to make this vision a reality. In a demonstration of the 

project’s appeal, project organizers, primarily private-sector business leaders, raised $5.5 million in private contributions in 8 weeks. 

State and local funds covered the $7.5 million cost of startup, which 

included the cost of land, buildings, construction, and architectural 

fees. The Commonwealth of Virginia provided $2.6 million, and the 

remaining amount was made possible by local contributions through 

a trust indenture arrangement with First National Exchange Bank. 

Although the town of Roanoke was not able to provide a significant 

amount of direct funding, it did fund the construction of a parking 

garage adjacent to the Center. 

The Center, which opened in 1983, provides 

rent-free space and administrative and marketing 

services to the Art Museum of Western Virginia, 

Mill Mountain Theater, Roanoke Valley History 

Museum, Science Museum of Western Virginia, 

Hopkins Planetarium, and the Arts Council of the 

Blue Ridge. The operational and programming 

decisions of its affiliated organizations are independent of Center in the Square. Each has its own 

Board of Directors and budget, and is therefore 

autonomous. 

Center in the Square’s annual operating budget 

is about $1.1 million. The State, local government, 

and private sector contributions each fund approximately one-third of these costs. Because funding 

for the arts, particularly at the State level, is less 

predictable, program organizers are especially 

pleased with the high level of private support. 

Funding from local companies, representing 42 

percent of total funding, includes both cash and 

Center in the 

Square has 

become a center 

of education, 

entertainment, and 

excitement for all 

ages and all 

interests. Center’s 

success has truly 

recreated the heart 

of the city. 
in-kind services. Although the city of Roanoke is the largest local 

government contributor, the program’s success has inspired the city 

of Salem, and the counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, and Franklin to 

provide funds as well. 

Impact 

With Center in the Square, Roanoke improved the economy and 

quality of its downtown. As further proof of the business community’s support, private businesses have invested more than 

$250 million in construction projects and capital investments in 

the downtown area since 1983. Nearly 165 new businesses have 

located in the immediately adjacent downtown area. The direct 

and indirect impact of Center in the Square—including consumer 

spending in the Center and the downtown, Center organizations’ 

budgets, parking garage profits, and use of the Center by other 

groups—is conservatively estimated at $25 million annually. 

Center in the Square offers residents, school groups, and tourists 

an accessible location to experience a variety of the region’s cultural and educational resources. During the 1994–1995 fiscal year, 

425,954 people, including 113,542 school children, participated in 

programs offered at Center in the Square. Many activities are 

designed specifically for children; the Center reaches one-third of 

the school systems in the State with its onsite and outreach programs. Former Mayor Noel Taylor described it as a “. . . center for 

all people and its programs . . . are intended to embrace individuals 

of various cultures, interests, and backgrounds.” One educational 

program last year, Local Colors, emphasized the ethnic diversity 

of the Roanoke region, and the Center plans to include more international elements in its educational program in upcoming years. 

Nonprofit arts and educational programs typically spend a great 

deal of energy on fundraising to keep their heads above water. 

The organizations housed in Center in the Square all had financial 

problems or unsatisfactory locations. With free rent and services 

in a centralized location, these five organizations enjoy increased 

visibility, decreased operating costs, and a more stable future. To 

enhance support for cultural programs in Virginia and protect the 

Center from economic fluctuations, the Center is developing a $12 

million endowment fund, which will alleviate competition among 

Roanoke’s cultural organizations for scarce operating funds. 

Scaling Up 

Expanding its scope, the Center has joined Total Action Against 

Poverty, a nonprofit organization dedicated to alleviating poverty, 

to provide job training for potential office assistants and custodial, 

HVAC maintenance, and building maintenance workers. 

This [revitalization] 

plan, called Design 

79, was developed 

in a storefront 

window on 

Roanoke’s busiest 

downtown street. 

Citizens were 

encouraged to 

observe and offer 

suggestions. 

23 
[Roanoke’s 

downtown] is an 

area rich with 

resources not 

available in rural or 

suburban areas: 

historic buildings 

and facades, a 

pedestrian-oriented 

infrastructure, 

business sites 

coupled with 

residential 

neighborhoods, 

multiple 

transportation 

choices, and less 

expensive sites. 

Since its opening in 1983, Center in the Square has: 

■	 Served more than 4 million persons from all 50 States and 20 

nations. 

■	 Attracted $250 million in capital investments in the downtown 

area. 

■ Brought more than 165 businesses to the area. 

■	 Helped create an estimated $25 million direct and indirect 

annual economic benefits. 

Since Center in the Square’s inception, many other cities have 

undertaken similar projects.These cities have tended to have a 

narrower focus and seek support primarily from the government. 

The Center has provided pro bono consulting services to these 

projects and continues to assist them in their development. Areas 

with projects under way include Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

Charleston, West Virginia; Erie County, New York; and Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. In addition, more than 27 other communities have 

contacted Center in the Square for information regarding its 

operations and policies. 

Contact: 

Dr. James C. Sears/Ms. Carolyn Nolan


Center in the Square


One Market Square


Roanoke, VA 24011


Phone: 540–342–5701


Fax: 540–224–1238


24 
Community Lending 

Through Community 

Home Buyer’s Program 

■	 Federal National Mor tgage Association 

Washington, D.C. 

25 

The Community Home Buyer’s ProgramSM (CHBP) of the Federal 

National Mortgage Association (known as Fannie Mae) makes 

mortgages more available to families of modest means throughout the country. Beginning as a pilot program in 1989, CHBP 

delivered $20 billion in mortgages by the end of 1995 and assisted 258,000 American families to achieve their dream of 

homeownership. The program is designed to make the housing 

finance system work for cities, urban neighborhoods, and lowand moderate-income families by reducing the discriminatory 

and suburban bias of much lending. Fannie Mae blazed a trail 

for others in the mortgage industry who use the CHBP template. 

Background 

Even if they are financially able to own a home, millions of 

families nationwide continue to face significant barriers to 

homeownership, such as excessive costs, lack of information, 

and discrimination. Rigid conventional mortgage loan guidelines 

have tended to exclude many low- and moderate-income families, minorities, and new immigrants who lack long-term employment histories or conventional credit histories. 

Fannie Mae, established by the Federal Government in 1938, 

is a stockholder-owned corporation that provides financial 

products and services that increase the affordability of housing 

for low-, moderate-, and middle-income families. The agency 

does not make mortgages directly to consumers, but purchases 

mortgages in bulk from primary lenders, thereby decreasing 

investor risk. Fannie Mae became a private corporation in 1968. 

Because much of Fannie Mae’s work is behind the scenes, it 

was clear that the key to successful community lending was not 

only to work with its lender partners, but to also work closely 

with grassroots community groups and municipalities. One 

community group, the National Training and Information Center, 

approached Fannie Mae and the General Electric Mortgage 

Insurance Corporation in 1989 to discuss a community lending 

pilot program in five midwestern cities. Fannie Mae’s Office of 

Low- and Moderate-Income Housing, which designs lending 
26 

products and other activities on behalf 

of underserved populations and communities, developed guidelines for what 

became the Community Home Buyer’s 

Program. 

The $40 million pilot program had 

purchased mortgages for 545 families 

by 1990, when it was made a nationwide program. It was expanded again in 

1991 into a $10 billion initiative with the 

goal of bringing affordable lending into 

the industry mainstream. Fannie Mae’s 

CHBP was the catalyst that fueled 66 

percent—nearly $7 billion—of that 

seminal initiative. Today CHBP is offered 

by 862 Fannie Mae-approved lenders in 

all 50 States and all 320 metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSA’s). 

Approach 

CHBP is designed to make the housing finance system work 

for cities, urban neighborhoods, and low- and moderate-income 

consumers by reducing discriminatory bias and the suburban 

orientation of such lending. The program targets funds to families 

whose income is below-average or average for their area—a group 

traditionally left out of the home finance mainstream. Focusing on 

increasing homeownership rates in central cities, CHBP works 

to improve the quality of life in urban neighborhoods and stem 

out-migration from distressed communities. 

Working with Fannie Mae, grassroots groups educate and prepare 

low- and moderate-income families to take on a mortgage. Fannie 

Mae has developed several high-technology services and tools to 

help them create concrete paths to homeownership and successfully negotiate each step of the homebuying process. Desktop 

Home Counselor®, for instance, a finalist for a 1995 Smithsonian 

Award for Technology, provides personal and financial information 

for borrowers, such as credit and affordability analyses. Accessible 

on a personal computer, it can be used to construct financial 

scenarios that a borrower might use to purchase a home. 

To increase lender flexibility, Fannie Mae established alternative 

qualification guidelines so that families or individuals with less 

conventional financial histories might obtain a loan. Innovative 

features built into the mortgage offered under CHBP include: 

Fannie Mae’s 

Community 

Lending product— 

Lease-Purchase— 

offered through 

Neighborhood 

Housing Services 

in Chicago, Illinois, 

helped Brenessa 

Stiff’s family (see 

photo above) 

purchase a 

home. 
■	 Less income to qualify. Standard guidelines require that 

borrowers’ monthly housing expense payment not exceed 28 

percent of their gross monthly income, with a total monthly debt 

burden not exceeding 33 percent of their gross monthly income. 

With CHBP, borrowers can qualify with monthly housing expense 

payments of up to 33 percent of their gross income and total 

debt expenses of up to 38 percent of their gross income. 

■	 Less cash at closing. Typically home buyers are required to 

have a cash reserve equal to two mortgage payments at closing. 

CHBP does not have this requirement. 

■	 Nontraditional credit history. CHBP enables borrowers to 

demonstrate good credit through nontraditional methods such 

as evidence of stable, continuous payments to utility companies 

and previous landlords. 

■	 Home buyer education. Home buyer education ensures that 

borrowers are knowledgeable about the process of buying a 

home and obtaining a mortgage and are better prepared to meet 

the ongoing responsibilities of homeownership. CHBP generally 

requires borrowers to go through home buyer education. 

CHBP is committed to eliminating the “no” in the mortgage application process. All applicants are placed on a path of review and 

education that—once the flexible CHBP requirements are met— 

will lead to loan approval. When a mortgage request is denied, the 

applicant receives information explaining why and recommendations 

on improving their application. 

To decrease lender risk, Fannie Mae guarantees purchase of 

mortgages in this initiative. This process—which creates the Secondary Mortgage Market—frees up additional lender capital for 

new mortgages.The education provided to potential low-income 

homeowners on their responsibilities and rights decreases the 

likelihood of mortgage defaults. 

In 1994 Fannie Mae extended and increased its commitment. The 

Showing America a New Way Home® initiative pledged $1 trillion 

in targeted housing finance by the year 2000 to help 10 million 

American families obtain mortgages. To increase central-city 

investment, Fannie Mae committed to extend outreach and form 

long-term partnerships with cities by opening at least 25 new 

“Partnership Offices.” In 1994 Baltimore became the site of the 

first Partnership Office; 21 more local offices have since opened. 

Impact 

The 1989 pilot program included 6 lenders, who helped 545 lowand moderate-income families achieve homeownership. Fannie 

The program 

targets funds to 

families whose 

income is average 

or below that of 

others in their 

area. 

27 
28 

Mae’s Community Lending product—Lease-Purchase—offered 

through Neighborhood Housing Services in Chicago, Illinois, helped 

Brenessa Stiff’s family (see photo, page 26) purchase a home. At 

the end of 1995, CHBP assisted 258,000 families with $20 billion 

in mortgages. Ninety-one percent of the homeowners helped were 

located in metropolitan areas. More than 39 percent of these new 

homeowners were minorities: 15.2 percent were African American 

and 17.9 percent were Hispanic. In sharp contrast, only 5.7 percent 

of standard business mortgages in 1995 were to African Americans 

and 8.4 percent were to Hispanic applicants. More than 67.5 

percent of CHBP homeowners earn the median income for their 

area or below. Almost half of borrowers are first-time home buyers. 

Scaling Up 

The success of the pilot program led Fannie Mae to develop nine 

other products with specialized guidelines that fit under the CHBP 

umbrella. These share many of the same flexible affordability features, but they also have unique features that address the special 

needs of some home buyers. FannieNeighbors, for instance, was 

created to increase homeownership and revitalization in minority, 

low-, and moderate-income communities and central cities. The 

upper limit on income is waived if a home buyer purchases a home 

located in one of these eligible areas. Grassroots groups such as 

the National Council of La Raza and ACORN (Association of 

Fannie Mae’s Community 

Lending Through 

Community Home Buyer’s 

Program: 

■ Through February 1996, has 

helped 250,000 families achieve 

homeownership. 

■ Served more than twice as many 

African American and Hispanic 

home buyers than were served with 

standard loans. 

■ Made almost 40 percent of its loans 

to minority households. 

■ Made 91 percent of loans to 

residents of metropolitan areas. 

Community Organizations for Reform Now) 

have worked with Fannie Mae to structure 

special mortgage guidelines to address 

the needs of their targeted communities. 

Contact: 

Ms. Julia A. Gould 

Vice President for Community Lending 

Community Lending Through 

Community Home Buyer’s Program 

Fannie Mae 

3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20016–2806 

Phone: 202–752–6576 

Fax: 202–752–2829 
A Continuum of 

Program-Enriched Housing 

■	 Nor theast Denver Housing Center, Inc. 

Denver, Colorado 

29 

“From homelessness to homeownership”—these words sum up 

the Continuum of Program-Enriched Housing, a set of programs 

operated by the Northeast Denver Housing Center (NDHC). 

The program helps participants deal with a wide range of issues: 

homelessness, transitional and rental housing, homeownership, 

and economic survival and stability. By tailoring its services to 

the specific needs of its clients—homeless families and individuals, teen parents, persons with HIV/AIDS, the mentally and 

physically challenged, and low- to moderate-income renters 

and home buyers—NDHC has created an innovative incentive 

system that promotes self-sufficiency and fosters social change. 

Background 

In Denver, as in most communities, a portion of the population 

struggles with the basic issues of decent housing and economic 

survival. This is especially true in the northeast part of the city, 

a historically African-American area that has been isolated from 

the opportunities of the metropolitan region. Northeast Denver, 

like many other distressed urban communities throughout the 

United States, faces the hard challenges of economic blight, 

extreme poverty, a deteriorating housing stock, and lack of 

affordable housing, especially for people with special needs. 

Fourteen years ago, a group of community based organizations founded NDHC under the leadership of executive director 

Getabecha Mekonnen. NDHC has since served more than 

4,000 individuals throughout the Denver area, primarily in 

northeast Denver and neighboring areas of Aurora, the second 

largest city in the metropolitan area. With a board of directors 

composed of members of the community and former clients, 

Northeast Denver Housing Center maintains a strong commitment to the community and a direct understanding of its needs. 

Approach 

Although its primary role is to address housing needs, NDHC 

does not look at this area of concern in isolation. Instead, the 
30 

program helps clients achieve stability through an approach that 

takes into account all factors that influence their ability to succeed. 

While housing is the key ingredient, services to clients also include 

child care, education, training, transportation, and job placement 

and retention programs through collaborative agreements and 

partnerships with other organizations. Moreover, NDHC makes the 

most of existing opportunities—from taking advantage of the inherent value in available but neglected and deteriorated housing stock 

in urban areas, to putting “social riders” on its leases that require 

tenants to help themselves by obtaining education and skills for 

better jobs. 

The continuum of program-enriched services helps families who 

might otherwise be unable to become homeowners. Its leasepurchase “homeownership incubation program” lets families move 

into the homes they intend to buy. Families may remain in the 

homes as long as they meet the requirements of their performance 

contract, which spells out their periodic achievements in savings, 

debt management, and credit improvements. NDHC holds the 

beneficiaries of its programs accountable by requiring them to 

fulfill certain mutually agreed upon self-development goals that 

are monitored through case management services. 

To carry out its broad range of activities, NDHC works in partnership with other nonprofit organizations and social agencies. For 

example, the program works with Warren Village, a transitional 

housing program 

for teen parents. 

Graduates of 

Warren Village 

become candidates 

for permanent 

housing through 

NDHC’s affordable 

rental housing units. 

As renters, they 

are encouraged, 

challenged, and 

educated about 

the next step 

in housing: 

homeownership. 

NDHC operates on 

an annual budget of 

The development 

needs of urban 

inner cities and the 

challenges lowerincome families 

face need solutions 

that provide 

residents with 

opportunities. 
about $500,000. The organization has a diverse revenue stream. 

About 40 percent of annual revenues come from rental income from 

NDHC’s stock of rental housing, which it rents at a cost equivalent 

to 30 percent of a family’s income. An additional 40 percent of the 

program’s budget comes from Federal, State, and local governments. Another 10 percent comes from grants and donations from 

the private sector, including philanthropic grants, financial institutions, and the community, while the rest comes from earned income 

and other sources. 

Impact 

The Continuum of Program-Enriched Housing provided by the 

Northeast Denver Housing Center has had a considerable impact 

in the Denver area during the past 13 years. NDHC has served 

more than 4,000 people in northeast Denver, acting as a catalyst for 

community stability and social mobility. Each year, the organization 

provides: 

■ comprehensive housing counseling to 455 people; 

■	 transitional housing with supportive services and case 

management to more than 65 homeless people; 

■ affordable rental units to more than 40 households; 

■ homeownership opportunities to 25 families; and 

■	 education and training in property management for owners 

and managers of low-income housing. 

Every year, the Continuum of Program-Enriched Housing helps 

15 homeless families get off welfare and into stable home environments, producing a net yearly savings in public funds of about 

$50,000. 

Scaling Up 

NDHC’s style of operating has been adopted by other community 

development corporations in Denver. At its heart, the Center’s 

approach is recognition of potential of deteriorated urban housing 

stock, along with the ability to design and package housing opportunities for specific needs. It has demonstrated the ability to apply 

social resources in a systematic manner to help low-income and 

at-risk people take charge of their own lives and more fully realize 

their potential. Communities across the United States and in other 

countries could learn much from the Northeast Denver Housing 

Center. 

Diversity in 

income and race, 

type of housing 

program, and the 

will to try new, 

innovative and 

environmentally 

sound practices are 

the call of the future 

in community-city 

planning and 

development. 

31 
The Continuum of Program-Enriched Housing 

Program has: 

■ Served more than 4,000 people during the past 14 years. 

■	 Provided comprehensive housing counseling to 455 people 

per year. 

■	 Provided affordable rentals to 60 homeless people, 14 teen 

parents and their children, and 5 people with HIV/AIDS in 

1 year. 

■	 Provided 20 homeownership opportunities to first-time 

homebuyers. 

■	 Helped 15 homeless families get off welfare and into stable 

home environments in 1 recent year. 

■	 Renovated the historic Austin Building (see photo, page 30) 

into 18 units of affordable housing and 9,000 square feet of 

retail space. 

Contact: 

Mr. Getabecha Mekonnen, Executive Director


Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc.


1735 Gaylord Street


Denver, CO 80206


Phone: 303–377–3334


Fax: 303–377–3327


32 
Greenpoint Manufacturing 

and Design Center 

■	 Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center LDC 

Brooklyn, New York 

33 

In Brooklyn, New York, a group of small crafts businesses and 

their public and private partners are reversing the decay of 

abandoned industrial sites by rehabilitating a former jute mill and 

leasing it to small businesses. These businesses are tenants at 

the Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center (GMDC), an 

adaptive re-use project that has preserved a significant piece of 

historic neighborhood architecture in a way that also produces 

new jobs and promotes neighborhood reinvestment. By creating 

an environment that is conducive to the formation and growth 

of small business, the facility addresses the area’s economic 

problems and is the centerpiece of larger neighborhood 

revitalization activities. 

Background 

One highly visible problem of older urban areas is the decay 

and chronic under-utilization of abandoned industrial properties. 

Old factories—often monumental, architecturally unique structures that employed generations of residents in past decades— 

now lie unused. Private market forces are inadequate to support 

their revitalization, and government funds are too scarce to 

absorb the heavy costs of development. 

GMDC originated as the Chelsea Fiber Mills, constructed in the 

late 1800’s at the tip of Manhattan Avenue in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. The eight-building brick mill served as a major industrial 

anchor in Brooklyn throughout the first half of the 20th century 

and employed thousands of residents. Then, like other similar 

facilities across the country, the 400,000-square-foot complex 

was abandoned in the 1970’s. By the end of the 1980’s, the 

abandoned buildings had fallen into severe disrepair. The city 

of New York, which had acquired the facility in a tax foreclosure 

action, was considering either sale or demolition of the ailing 

structures. 

Approach 

GMDC is a dual innovation: a successful adaptive re-use of a 

19th century industrial property and a well-functioning industrial 
34 

The Greenpoint 

Manufacturing and 

Design Center 

(see photo above) 

was made possible 

by the “sweat 

equity” and 

cooperative spirit 

of the tenants. 

(zero-equity) cooperative 

that nurtures and sustains its 

members. The adaptive re-use 

entails a partnership among 

public, private, and nonprofit 

organizations, created and 

led by the building’s tenants. 

It was made possible by the 

“sweat equity” and cooperative spirit of the tenants. The 

industrial cooperative emerged out of the individual and 

shared needs of each business 

and is supported by a local 

development corporation 

financed through rents and 

cooperative-related income. 

In 1988 a group of 21 small woodworking and cabinet-making firms, 

which had moved into the buildings on short-term leases, formed 

the Woodworking Center Equity Corporation and began to work 

together on rehabilitation. These tenants worked out an interim 

lease and development scheme and began rebuilding the structure 

to create a sort of greenhouse for small businesses. The facility 

began to attract dozens of other small enterprises from around the 

city, and what began in the mid-1980’s as a small trickle of commercial activity has become a robust concentration of investment and 

employment. In the early 1990’s when the city decided to dispose 

of the property, the tenant group banded together with other neighborhood groups and business leaders to create the GMDC Local 

Development Corporation (LDC). The goal of this new corporation 

was to redevelop the entire complex into an arts and industry 

center. 

Shortly after taking over management of the building in 1993, 

GMDC negotiated a special purchase arrangement with the city 

of New York. In lieu of bringing the building up to code prior to sale 

(which would have cost an estimated $10–$14 million), the city 

agreed to a sale price of $1 and provided $1 million for renovation 

on the condition that GMDC meet code requirements within 

5 years. Once the sale went through, GMDC developed a plan 

to finance the extensive cleanup and renovations. The group resolved the building’s bad debts and evicted tenants who were not 

paying their bills. GMDC currently has a waiting list for space. 

GMDC established a board of directors with four seats for finance 

and real estate professionals and four seats for the building’s 

tenants. This board makes policy decisions, including establishing 
rental rates. GMDC’s staff of 10 manages the building, schedules 

and undertakes repairs, obtains grants to provide technical workshops and marketing for the businesses, and has established a line 

of credit for use in major renovations and for purchasing machinery 

to be shared on a fee basis. 

Because of the terms under which GMDC purchased the building 

from the city, the corporation has no mortgage bill. Its major costs 

are ongoing renovation work and the purchase of specialized 

equipment. The city loan finances renovation work, while equipment purchases are financed through a line of credit and operating 

surpluses. The project is now mostly self-financing. Small grants 

and loans are used for special projects (for example, workshops 

in accounting procedures and a marketing brochure for the building), but GMDC is designed to function within its operating budget. 

The rents, falling between $3.75 to $4.50 per square foot, are 

competitive with neighboring industrial space. GMDC is currently 

approaching a positive cashflow and further expansion should 

make it financially sustainable. 

Building construction is pursued in a creative manner. Lacking 

adequate operating income to support external debt, GMDC relies 

on a slow, steady, monthly investment strategy and inhouse construction crew. This strategy, born of necessity, has proven highly 

economical. The management structure of GMDC is also uncommon. Each tenant is a member of the cooperative and controls 

votes in the organization equal to the portion of the building they 

occupy. This format fosters incentives for tenants to invest in their 

own space and in the project overall. It also bolsters their sense 

of control, heightening their overall commitment to the project. 

Impact 

As an architectural preservation project, GMDC saved a large 

industrial complex from demolition and is bringing the building up 

to code. It has already renovated and leased almost 85 percent of 

the facility. GMDC has also expanded the number of businesses in 

the building from 21 in 1988 to about 60 today. It has tripled the 

number of jobs in the building to about 350. 

GMDC has helped to stabilize and revitalize a section of Greenpoint 

at the end of a major street, Manhattan Avenue. There is some 

redevelopment activity nearby—a three-story brick townhouse—as 

well as a new deli and a restaurant. GMDC also gives back to its 

Brooklyn community. It employs Greenpoint residents and partners 

with the North Brooklyn Development Corporation to identify workers. It also initiated an English as a second language (ESL) program for neighborhood residents. GMDC also operates the Wood 

Through its efforts, 

Greenpoint has 

preserved a 

significant piece 

of historic 

neighborhood 

architecture in a 

way that also 

produces new 

jobs and promotes 

neighborhood 

reinvestment. 

35 
The Greenpoint Manufacturing and 

Design Center has: 

■	 Saved a large industrial complex from demolition and renovated 

and leased almost 85 percent of the facility. 

■	 Expanded the number of businesses in the building from 21 

to about 60. 

■	 Tripled the number of jobs in the building to about 350 and 

employed local residents. 

■	 Established a recycling outlet that provides free wood for 

school projects. 

■ Helped stabilize the neighborhood. 

Center, a retail outlet that recycles scrap materials by selling to 

hobbyists and reno-vators and provides free wood for school 

projects. 

Since the cooperative was put in place, no GMDC business has 

failed, many have expanded, and only two have left. The GMDC 

has continued to rehabilitate vacant portions of the building, 

upgrade existing building systems, and gain new design and 

production tenants. 

Scaling Up 

There is much to be learned from the Greenpoint model: how an 

old industrial building can be made functional, how the tenant mix 

can contribute to cooperation, how to provide shared services, and 

how business development and neighborhood job development 

can be linked. This innovative approach could work in other neighborhoods in New York City and other cities across the country— 

anywhere where industrial spaces have been abandoned and 

small businesses need to be nurtured. 

Contact: 

Executive Director


Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center LDC


1155 Manhattan Avenue


Brooklyn, NY 11222


Phone: 718–383–3935


Fax: 718–383–6339


36 
Habitat for Humanity 

■	 Habitat for Humanity Inter national 

Americus, Georgia 

37 

Habitat for Humanity, marveled one observer, is “a crazy idea 

that works.” As a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry, Habitat for Humanity works in partnership with people in 

need to build and renovate decent, affordable housing. The 

program builds and sells housing at no profit, finances houses 

with no-interest mortgages, and markets them to people who 

often cannot even afford decent rental housing. Partner families 

work many hours of volunteer labor as part of the program, 

whose goal is to eliminate inadequate housing worldwide and 

to inspire others to take action to do the same. 

Background 

Habitat traces its roots to 1965 when millionaire entrepreneur 

Millard Fuller and his wife Linda were struggling with a crisis of 

personal values. Resolving to end their materialistic lifestyle and 

rededicate themselves to a life of serving God, the Fullers sold 

their assets and donated the money to the poor. In 1968 they 

began an extended stay at Kiononia Farm, a Christian community in rural southwest Georgia. While there they helped launch 

Partnership Housing—a nonprofit, no-interest house building 

program in partnership with many poor families in the area, who 

often lived in tarpaper shacks without electricity or plumbing. In 

1973 the Fullers took the Partnership Housing concept to the 

African country of Zaire, where they started 114 houses in 3 

years and where Habitat’s work continues today. Upon returning 

to the United States, the Fullers gathered friends and supporters 

together to explore forming a new housing ministry, incorporating 

Habitat for Humanity International in 1976. 

Key obstacles to Habitat’s work were funding, human resources 

and, more importantly, skepticism. Many asked, “How can they 

build and sell houses at no profit, financed with no-interest 

mortgages?” But as Habitat’s work spread, slowly at first and 

later at nearly an exponential pace, it became clear that Habitat 

for Humanity’s program does indeed work. As families are lifted 

from poverty and as Habitat affiliates transform housing and 

entire neighborhoods, skeptics become believers. 
38 

Approach 

Through volunteer labor and tax-deductible donations of money 

and materials, Habitat builds and rehabilitates simple, decent 

houses with the help of the homeowner families (see photo below). 

Habitat houses are sold to these low-income families at cost, 

financed with affordable, no-interest loans. The homeowner’s 

monthly mortgage payments are placed in a revolving Fund for 

Humanity that is used to construct more houses. Unlike many 

housing assistance programs that involve the ongoing receipt 

of housing vouchers, subsidized rentals, or semi-permanent 

placements, Habitat is a program of full homeownership. 

Habitat does not use government funds to finance construction. 

Government funds may be used, however, to acquire streets, 

utilities, land, old houses that need renovation, or for administrative 

expenses. Government entities also provide support in the form 

of donated land or buildings, waiver of permit fees, and infrastructure development. Corporate support for Habitat and its affiliates 

has grown considerably in recent years, especially from firms 

associated with the construction industry. 

Habitat is not a give-away program. In addition to a down payment 

and the monthly mortgage payment, families invest hundreds of 

hours of their own labor into the building of their homes and the 

homes of other participants. At each local Habitat affiliate, a Family 

Selection Committee chooses aspiring homeowners based on the 

family’s need for decent shelter, their willingness to become partners in the program, and their ability to repay the no-interest loan. 

Neither race nor religion is a factor in selection, but willingness to 

work is. To participate, families and individuals must be willing to 

“partner” with Habitat—that is, to perform between 300-500 hours 

of voluntary labor. Habitat calls this homeowner labor “sweat 

equity,” and it must be completed before the family can move into 

their new home. 

Habitat’s ecumenical, international board of directors 

determines overall policy 

and monitors operations in 

conjunction with a board of 

volunteer advisors. With a 

budget of $53.6 million in 

1994, $40.8 million going 

to program services in the 

United States and abroad, 

Habitat headquarters operates with an administrative 

staff that is assisted by a 

core group of clerical and 

Habitat for 

Humanity, 

according to one 

observer, is ❝ a 

crazy idea that 

works.❞ 
support employees and supplemented by short-term and long-term 

volunteers. Each affiliate of Habitat for Humanity is managed by a 

local volunteer board and many have no paid staff. Habitat’s affiliates are independent, nonprofit, tax-exempt, community-based 

organizations that are empowered to set their own policies within 

the guidelines adopted by the Habitat board. Committees of volunteers make decisions and carry out the local work. The affiliates are 

supported by contributions of cash and materials from individuals, 

churches, businesses, charitable foundations, and other organizations. Affiliates also forge diverse local partnerships to extend and 

facilitate the work. Habitat headquarters may channel funds and 

donated materials to its U.S. affiliates for special projects. 

Habitat’s method of grassroots organization and local ownership 

are especially important. Too often the poor see “renewal programs” 

sweep into their neighborhoods from the outside with no invitation 

for or participation by local citizens. Habitat’s approach offers residents the opportunity for homeownership through ownership of the 

program itself. They identify local leaders and invite them to participate in the Habitat process. Through town meetings and other 

assessments, local Habitat affiliates learn more about neighborhoods and their people. Committees made up of local volunteers 

who actively participate in decisionmaking carry out the affiliate’s 

work. 

Impact 

Habitat and its affiliates have built, renovated, or repaired more


than 40,000 houses around the world. Some 250,000 men, women,


and children are living in Habitat houses worldwide. The more than


1,200 active U.S. affiliates of Habitat produced about 2,770 afford-


able homes in 1994. Beyond the bricks and mortar, the program


strengthens the social fabric of the community where it operates


through its volunteer orientation and provides a heartening example


of the potential impact of a humanitarian impulse.


Every Habitat affiliate is making an impact on its community.


One example, Sandtown Habitat, is situated in the deteriorated


Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland.


This affiliate grew from a bold community partnership. In 1986,


overcoming numerous obstacles, the Rev. Mark Gornick and his


close friends the Tibbels, a family of four including 30-year-old Allan


Tibbels, a quadriplegic, relocated to the Sandtown neighborhood.


The group moved into deteriorated rowhouses in this neglected


neighborhood and began rebuilding the structures while forging


relationships with their new neighbors. Together with those neigh­


bors they founded the New Song Community Church which, in


1989, started the Sandtown Habitat for Humanity affiliate. Sand-


town Habitat initiated a project in 1992 to build 100 homes in


the midst of a neighborhood filled with more than 600 vacant


❝ We believe 

in Habitat for 

Humanity’s integrity, 

effectiveness, and 

tremendous vision. 

With Habitat, we 

build more than 

houses. We 

build families, 

communities, 

and hope.❞ 

Former U.S. President 

Jimmy Carter, on the 

Carters’ long-standing 

partnership with Habitat 

for Humanity. 

39 
40 

rowhouses. Working in partnership with groups such 

as the Enterprise Foundation; the city of Baltimore; 

and Baltimore area churches, corporations, and foundations, Sandtown Habitat has completed more than 

35 homes. 

The Habitat approach produces affordable houses. Most 

families pay far less each month to own their Habitat 

home than they would pay to rent much less desirable 

housing. For example, in Atlanta, where the Habitat 

affiliate has built or renovated 265 houses, the total cost 

of a Habitat home is between $38,000 and $42,000 and 

the monthly payment is about $275 per month including 

loan, taxes, and insurance. 

Scaling Up 

Without decent, affordable places to live, people cannot develop their potential and families often cannot 

overcome the circumstances that so often lead to personal dysfunction and social disintegration.Habitat’s 

grassroots, self-help homeownership model has been 

adapted and successfully replicated throughout the 

United States and around the world. There is almost no place in the 

world where Habitat’s model could not be successful. Even the poorest communities in the poorest countries can benefit if citizens pool 

their resources and work together to address local housing problems. 

The program that began as a personal, religious initiative in a small 

town in Georgia is, almost two decades later, a widely adopted 

model. Habitat for Humanity is solving the problem of finding affordable housing for many people, providing others with a practical 

means of serving others, and seizing the imagination of countless 

more. 

Habitat’s method knows no jurisdictional boundaries or limitations 

because it is locally based. With proper resource development, on 

a larger scale than single affiliates can maintain alone, Habitat 

building programs could be launched or expanded wherever both 

substandard housing and the local will to eliminate it exists. 

Contact: 

Mr. Michael Willard 

Habitat Affiliates Worldwide – U.S. 

Habitat for Humanity International 

121 Habitat Street 

Americus, GA 31709 

Phone: 912–924–6935 

Fax: 912–928–4087 

Results of Habitat include: 

■ Habitat and its affiliates have built, 

renovated, or repaired more than 

40,000 houses around the world. 

■ Nearly 250,000 men, women, 

and children are living in Habitat 

houses worldwide. 

■ Habitat for Humanity has more 

than 1,200 active affiliates in the 

United States that produced about 

3,200 affordable homes in 1995. 

■ One Habitat affiliate in Atlanta has 

built or renovated 265 houses. 

■ A Habitat affiliate in the Sandtown 

neighborhood of Baltimore initiated 

a renovation program in 1992 in 

the midst of a deteriorated neighborhood and has completed 35 

houses to date. 
Homeless Families Program 

■	 Beyond Shelter 

Los Angeles, Califo r nia 

41 

The “Homeless Families Program” run by Beyond Shelter of 

Los Angeles is a dramatic new response to the problem of family 

homelessness that stresses immediate return of families to 

independent living. Beyond Shelter deals with the interrelated 

problems that homeless families face: poverty, economic development and access to credit and job training, social infrastructure, and housing. The services are provided in an integrative 

manner to place families, especially female-headed families, not 

only back into housing, but back into communities. It involves 

women in economic and social services after they are stabilized 

in permanent housing and are no longer traumatized by the 

experience of homelessness. In the 7 years of its existence, 

Beyond Shelter has placed 750 homeless families in permanent 

rental housing in residential neighborhoods. Many program 

graduates enroll in school or vocational training, obtain 

employment, and become financially self-sufficient. 

Background 

Homelessness is our Nation’s most serious housing problem. 

While estimates vary, the number of homeless people in America 

is greater today than at any time since the Great Depression. 

Most troubling is the fact that families—often single mothers with 

children—are a growing proportion of the homeless population 

and account for approximately 35 percent of the general homeless population in the United States. 

Constrained by limited resources, providers are often forced to 

move participants out of their program when they have only 

begun to stabilize. While some families are able to move into 

affordable housing and remain there, others who move into 

housing lack stable living patterns or adequate coping skills and 

are rendered homeless again when another crisis occurs. Other 

families are forced to leave emergency shelters or transitional 

housing without any followup plan at all and become chronically 

homeless or experience recurring episodes of homelessness 

over a long period of time. As a result, homeless families often 

move from shelter to shelter and from agency to agency in a 

process that is capital intensive for providers and disenfranchising for clients. In fact, this system can actually impede the 
42 

process of helping homeless individuals and 

families achieve a stable and permanent home 

in mainstream society. 

Approach 

Beyond Shelter began in 1988 as an alternative 

to traditional practices that emphasize emergency shelters and transitional housing. An 

innovation in social architecture, Beyond 

Shelter’s Homeless Families Program places 

homeless families directly into permanent 

housing while providing them with individualized 

case management support for up to 1 full year. 

This approach shifts cultural, political, and 

administrative policies and practices in a new 

and important way. By situating homeless 

individuals within the larger community, the 

program fosters dignity and human connection. 

The program makes financial and management 

innovations by coordinating existing services in 

the community through individualized and 

proactive case management. 

More than 25 agencies across the city of Los Angeles including 

shelters, transitional housing programs, drug treatment programs, 

social service agencies, and churches, refer homeless families to 

Beyond Shelter for the “next step,” after they have provided initial 

emergency or interim services. Families meet with intake workers at 

the Beyond Shelter offices for screening and enrollment. During that 

time, the family works with agency staff to develop an individualized 

Family Transition Plan. This plan identifies the family’s housing and 

social service needs and the steps necessar y to achieve independence and self-sufficiency. Then, families receive assistance in 

negotiating leases, financing the move, accessing subsidies, and 

overcoming the barriers of poor credit history, prior evictions, and 

discrimination based on ethnicity, family size, and unemployment. 

To access affordable housing for families, Beyond Shelter builds 

and maintains close working relationships with private sector building managers, nonprofit affordable housing providers, and local, 

State, and Federal housing assistance programs. The fact that there 

exists a support system for their tenants motivates many private 

landlords to rent to homeless families referred by Beyond Shelter. 

Each family enrolled in the Homeless Families Program is assigned 

a case manager, who provides individualized support for up to 1 full 

year as the family carries out its Family Transition Plan. Once in their 

new housing, the formerly homeless family is introduced to their 

new neighborhood—its shopping, transportation, and community 

Since 1989 

Beyond Shelter 

has helped more 

than 750 high-risk, 

homeless families 

stabilize in 

permanent 

housing. 
agencies. Families are supported as they improve their coping skills 

and reorient to normal living patterns and are provided assistance 

with homemaking, nutrition and parenting skills, and budget planning and money management. Each family receives their own 

copies of the Family Survival Guide and Successful Household 

Money Management, two Beyond Shelter publications that help 

program participants learn self-sufficiency skills. Case managers 

work in partnership with the family on issues such as education 

and literacy, career development, health, family dynamics, and 

recreation. Progress is evaluated every quarter until the participant 

is no longer considered at risk of becoming homeless again. 

Funded by a major private donor the first year, Beyond Shelter has 

since been financed largely through government grants from a 

variety of agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS); the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD); the State of California Department of Housing 

and Community Development; the City of Los Angeles Community 

Development Department; the Housing Authority, city of Los Angeles; and the U.S. Emergency Food and Shelter Program. A variety of 

foundation and corporate grants support Beyond Shelter, including 

the California Community Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, 

the Times Mirror Foundation, the Ahmanson Foundation, the Soref 

Foundation, the Seaver Institute, and the Better Homes Fund. An 

anonymous donor made a $1 million endowment gift in 1991 that 

made possible the creation of the Beyond Shelter Fund at the 

California Community Foundation to help support Beyond Shelter’s 

operating expenses. Two additional anonymous donors provide 

substantial support each year. 

Impact 

Since 1989, Beyond Shelter’s many programs have had an important impact on homeless families in Los Angeles. For example: 

■	 Beyond Shelter has helped more than an 750 high-risk, 

homeless families stabilize in permanent housing. 

■	 In the most recent statistical year, approximately 40 percent of 

graduates have enrolled in school or vocational training, and 

25 percent have obtained employment. 

■ About one-third of graduates increase their incomes. 

■	 Program graduates demonstrated increased self-determination, 

participating not only in developing their Family Transition Plans 

but also in the ongoing evaluations of service provision and 

activities leading toward self-sufficiency. 

❝ It is an axiom 

of our field that 

the longer a family 

or individual remains 

homeless, the more 

dysfunctional they 

tend to become.❞ 

Tanya Tull, 

Executive Director, 

Beyond Shelter 

43 
44 

■ Program graduates improve their 

money management skills by creating 

and following monthly family budgets. 

■ Approximately 90 percent of graduates experience no recurrence of 

homelessness. 

Scaling Up 

Beyond Shelter actively disseminated 

its Homeless Families Program model, 

which has attracted considerable attention from policymakers. In 1990 Beyond 

Shelter designed a 3-year demonstration 

project funded by HHS to help develop 

Since 1989, through the Homeless 

Families Program: 

■ 750 high-risk homeless families have 

stabilized in permanent housing. 

■ 40 percent of the program’s graduates 

enrolled in school or vocational training. 

■ 25 percent of graduates obtained 

employment. 

■ 30 percent of program graduates increased their incomes after participating 

in the program. 

the Los Angeles Early Intervention Demonstration Project for 

Recently Homeless and At-Risk Families. In 1992, Beyond Shelter 

implemented a second 3-year project for HHS, the Homeless 

Families Support Services Demonstration Project. That same year 

Beyond Shelter published the Beyond Shelter Methodology Manual, 

a 158-page, step-by-step guide and began presenting the methodology in a series of technical assistance workshops in various 

U.S. cities. Beyond Shelter’s Technical Assistance Department 

provides training, consultation, workshops, and publications for 

agencies throughout the country on the Homeless Families Program and also on the provision of services and tenant management 

in permanent, multifamily housing projects. 

Nationally, both public and private agencies have learned from 

Beyond Shelter’s individualized approach that maximizes the use 

of existing services and resources in communities. Developed in 

an era of shrinking resources, the Beyond Shelter methodology is 

based on collaboration between public and private sectors to create 

permanent change in the lives of homeless families by helping them 

build a personal support system within a residential neighborhood. 

This approach has been incorporated into HUD’s “continuum of 

care” strategies being adopted by communities across the country. 

Contact: 

Dr. Tanya Tull, Executive Director 

Beyond Shelter 

4032 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 501 

Los Angeles, CA 90010 

Phone: 213–252–0772 

Fax: 213–480–0846 
Housing Assistance Council 

Washington, D.C. 

45 

The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) uses a three-pronged 

approach to identify and nurture local nonprofit housing development groups by providing them with training, technical assistance, and seed capital to begin their development programs. 

Particularly for fledgling, isolated, nonprofit housing developers, 

the combination of technical assistance and loans is crucial to 

their ongoing success, even existence. HAC works with all 

low-income rural people, but emphasizes minorities, women, 

children, elderly, homeless, farmworkers, and the disabled. In 

25 years of operation, HAC has made more than 860 loan 

commitments totaling more than $50 million, created 26,000 

housing units, and established 220,000 water and sewer 

connections throughout the United States. 

Background 

Although the number of substandard rural homes has declined 

over the past 20 to 30 years as a proportion of all rural housing, 

the problem persists. Many rural homes are of poor quality and 

still lack water and sewer facilities, particularly in Appalachia, 

Indian country, the Mississippi Delta, the Ozarks, the Southeast, 

and the colonias on the Mexican border. Minority groups in rural 

areas suffer an even higher incidence of housing problems; in 

1991, for example, almost 32 percent of African Americans in 

rural areas lived in units with severe or moderate structural 

problems, compared to 17 percent of their urban counterparts. 

The nature of the problem has changed over time. Historically, 

quality was the primary housing issue in rural areas. But by 

1991, almost 70 percent of poverty-level households in rural 

areas had to pay more than 30 percent of their income—the 

Congressionally defined threshold of affordability—for housing. 

Approach 

Established with a Federal antipoverty grant in 1991, HAC is 

the Nation’s oldest full-service intermediary for housing and 

community development. Through training, technical assistance, 

and seed capital, HAC seeks to build capacity and strengthen 
46 

the network of community-based organizations working to meet 

rural housing and local 

development needs. 

HAC provides muchneeded seed money to 

spur housing and 

community development in rural areas. 

This up-front, predevelopment, high-risk 

money enables isolated, cash-strapped, 

and often fledgling 

nonprofit development 

groups to initiate 

potential housing projects. HAC funds typically pay for optioning 

the land, resolving site design or environmental issues, or working 

through community processes such as rezoning approvals. 

As a full-service provider, HAC is unique in integrating loans with 

project-specific technical assistance, training, and other services. 

For example, technical assistance accompanies most loans, and 

training events use HAC publications. After delivering a loan or 

workshop, HAC continues to provide assistance for as long as it is 

needed. HAC also produces many how-to and policy publications for 

its clients and people interested in rural housing issues, including an 

1,800-page technical training manual on housing development and 

nonprofit management. 

The HAC approach builds on the strengths of private financial 

institutions, local government jurisdictions, nonprofit groups, State 

and Federal agencies, and the homeowner families themselves. 

HAC provides funds to acquire and develop sites, including a public 

improvements completion guarantee bond. Government agencies 

provide financing and handle complex site development questions. 

Local nonprofit groups may identify the families, provide necessary 

credit and homeownership counseling, and construct the project. 

The families themselves provide a critical mass of voluntary labor 

(see photo above). 

Impact 

In almost 25 years of operation, the organization has made more 

than 860 loan commitments totaling more than $50 million for 

almost 26,000 housing units and 220,000 water/sewer connections 

The Housing 

Assistance Council 

operates the oldest 

active, continuously 

operating, and 

successful loan fund 

for affordable 

housing. 
47 

in 48 States, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. These loans have 

directly helped almost 250,000 rural households. In the past 5 years 

alone, HAC lending has leveraged more than $177 million in permanent financing. HAC also has conducted more than 90 intensive 

training workshops and published more than 250 guides, reports, 

manuals, and information briefs. 

Scaling Up 

HAC was one of the earliest intermediary organizations. To some 

extent later organizations, such as the Local Initiative Support 

Corporation and The Enterprise Foundation, have borrowed from 

its model. 

In the past few years, HAC has begun to broaden its services. HAC 

has increased loan assets, made their uses more flexible, developed lending partnerships with other entities, allied with other 

community lenders, and reduced borrower charges. In recent years 

HAC also has become a source of support for community-based 

housing groups by passing through administrative funds from 

sources such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and private foundations. This complements HAC loans, 

technical assistance, and other services. 

The Housing 

Assistance Council 

identifies local 

nonprofit housing 

development groups 

and nurtures them 

by providing training, 

technical assistance, 

and seed capital 

to carry out their 

development 

programs. 

During the past 20 years: 

■ HAC has made more than 860 loan commitments totaling more than $50 million for 

almost 26,000 housing units and 220,000 water/sewer connections. 

■ HAC has assisted rural housing groups in 48 States, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. 

■ HAC has directly helped almost 250,000 rural households. 

In the past 5 years: 

■ HAC lending has leveraged more than $177 million in permanent financing. 

■ HAC has conducted more than 90 intensive training workshops. 

■ HAC has published more than 250 guides, reports, manuals, and information briefs. 

Contact: 

Mr. Moises Loza, Executive Director 

Housing Assistance Council 

1025 Vermont Avenue NW., Suite 606 

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: 202–842–8600 

Fax: 202–347–3441 
Housing Scholarship Program 

■	 City of Fremont 

Fremont, California 

49 

By offering housing as an incentive to encourage heads of 

households to stay in job training to improve their professional 

skills and earning potential, the city of Fremont, California, has 

taken a creative step to alleviate poverty. Fremont’s Housing 

Scholarship Program combines affordable housing, job training, 

child care, and other supportive services to enable participating 

low-income families to obtain full-time employment and achieve 

economic self-sufficiency. The program provides housing units 

at below-market rents to participants and recent graduates of 

eligible job training programs. 

Background 

In the city of Fremont, economic self-sufficiency has been an 

unattainable goal for many low-income families. Nearly 1,400 

renter households, most of which are headed by women, spend 

more than half of their income for housing while earning 30 

percent or less of the area median income. Without adequate 

child care and other supportive services, these families cannot 

escape their low-paying jobs and remain trapped in a cycle of 

poverty and welfare. 

When Carol Lamont, Housing Director for the city, introduced 

the idea of housing scholarships to landlords in 1987, she faced 

widespread skepticism. Not giving up, she convinced the director 

of a local job facility, the Mission Valley Regional Occupation 

Program (ROP), to speak to the landlords’ association. By 

describing individual cases, the director was able to show the 

plight and motivation of individuals in her program. During the 

meeting, one landlord raised his hand and said that he would 

like to sponsor one individual in his building. 

From then on, more landlords volunteered units to help family 

providers while they completed training and secured employment. They agreed to provide rent discounts of up to 50 percent 

for up to 1 year. Once housing scholarship graduates acquire 

jobs, rents gradually increase to market price. ROP provides job 

placement and case management services, and the city provides 
50 

❝ Because there 

are insufficient 

resources to provide 

affordable housing 

for all low-income 

families in need, we 

must help to build 

the earning capacity 

of families while 

targeting housing 

assistance for 

those with the most 

critical needs.❞ 

policy direction and coordinates the program under the leadership 

of a Housing Scholarship Board composed of representatives of 

the city council, the apartment owners association, the board of 

realtors, a program graduate, and many other community groups. 

Approach 

“It is particularly difficult for cities to be innovative because of the 

risks involved,” comments Gus Morrison, Mayor of Fremont. “But, 

Fremont took the step to establish the partnerships needed to 

create this program. We have shown that it can be done—and that 

it should be done.” The Housing Scholarship Program is not just 

another housing subsidy program; rather, it inspires and enables 

heads of households to achieve. It provides families with the case 

management, job search services, and affordable child-care services that are an essential component in the quest for economic 

self-sufficiency. Through intensive focused community support, this 

important project is helping families who have demonstrated their 

commitment to improving their skills and employability to achieve 

their goals. The city and private landlords, both for-profit and nonprofit, have collaborated to provide a safety net for families moving 

toward economic self-sufficiency. 

As part of the Housing Scholarship Program, the city initiated a 

rigorous screening, monitoring, and followup process. Applicants 

are recommended by designated representatives from job training 

and educational programs. An advisory board meets monthly to 

review new applications according to special criteria and rank candidates. When units become available, one of the two top applicants is 

selected by a landlord. The applicant signs a program agreement 

detailing his or her 

responsibilities for 

job training, job 

search, and 

employment in 

exchange for a 

rent reduction. 

Participants are 

terminated from 

the program if they 

fail to meet their 

obligations. 

Public-private 

partnerships help 

keep expenses 

manageable. 

Donations from 
landlords, rather than public subsidies, cover rent discounts. As 

the program grows, nonprofit and for-profit developers create more 

housing scholarship units. In its recent renovation of Century 

Village apartments (see photo, page 50), the Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation set aside several units for the Housing Scholarship 

Program, which were financed through development funds and 

redevelopment fees. The Fremont Housing Department covers 

operating costs by providing five full-time staff, and public funds 

cover the costs of the Tri-Cities Children’s Center, a child care 

center that has been established at ROP. This center now serves 

50 preschool children on a sliding-fee schedule. 

Impact 

“There’s so much talk about getting families off welfare,” says 

Carol Lamont, “this program really did it.” To date, this relatively 

new and growing program has empowered 91 families to achieve 

self-sufficiency—a 90-percent success rate. 

The benefit to the community is reflected in the pride that the 

people of Fremont feel in their multiagency effort to successfully 

address a problem that many cities believe is unsolvable. Landlords 

and employers are active, positive agents of change, and community service agencies not only alleviate immediate suffering but 

also move recipients toward independent, financially secure living. 

Aided by life skills classes, scholarship graduates are taking on 

new leadership roles. One graduate has become an Advisory 

Board member of the program, while another has moved from 

extreme poverty and welfare to a $40,000 annual income that 

allows her to send her bright daughter to Montessori school. 

Scaling Up 

The Housing Scholarship Program has successfully helped families 

climb the ladder to self-sufficiency. The program is so highly popular 

that there are 10 to 20 applicants for every housing unit available. 

To meet this need, the city is working to convince nonprofit housing 

developers to set aside units in developments financed by the city. 

In 1995 its success prompted the Fremont City Council to agree 

to use vacant city-owned houses for housing scholarships. Communities throughout the Nation, such as Temple, Texas, are now 

considering establishing a housing scholarship program based on 

the Fremont model. 

The scholarship program has received much recognition. It was 

showcased in September 1995 at an International City Managers 

Association Meeting in Denver and, in May 1995, the Center for 

Housing Policy in New York showcased the program as 1 of 12 

There is so much 

talk about getting 

families with children 

off welfare—this 

program really helps 

families do it while 

improving their 

quality of life. 

51 
❝ It is a 

partnership—no 

one part could 

accomplish such 

dramatic results on 

its own.❞ 

Carol Lamont, 

Housing Director for 

the City of Fremont 

The City of Fremont Housing Scholarship Program 

has achieved the following accomplishments: 

■	 More than 90 percent of the housing scholarship recipients have 

successfully completed job training, secured gainful employment, 

and have become economically dependent. 

■	 Housing Scholarship Program graduates are developing 

leadership skills and becoming assets to the program and the 

community. 

■	 It has received growing recognition, including the 1995 California 

Cities Helen Putman Award for Excellence, the Association for 

Local Housing Finance Agencies Meritorious Achievement 

Award, and the State Department of Education Career Vocational Division Award. The program is also a semifinalist in the 

Ford Foundation and Harvard University “1996 Innovations in 

American Government Awards Program.” 

national case studies in its “Linking Jobs and Housing: The Key 

for Self-Sufficiency for Low-Income Residents and Communities” 

workshop. The program has won several awards, such as the 

“California Cities Helen Putman Award for Excellence” in 

November 1995. 

Contact: 

Ms. Carol Lamont, Director


Office of Housing Services


City of Fremont


39550 Liberty Street


P.O. Box 5006


Fremont, CA 94537–5006


Phone: 510–494–4500


Fax: 510–494–4636


52 
The Loading Dock 

Baltimore, Mar yland 

53 

The Loading Dock (TLD), a grassroots organization that provides 

resources for low-income housing rehabilitation and development, was the first successful self-sufficient nonprofit recycler 

of reusable building materials in the Nation. Through its recycling 

efforts, the program increases the supply of decent affordable 

housing available to low-income families by helping them acquire 

building supplies to renovate their homes. At the same time, TLD 

helps save the environment by educating the public and private 

businesses about how to donate and reuse building material 

rather than dumping it into our rapidly filling landfills. 

Background 

Like many older cities in the United States, much of Baltimore’s 

housing stock is more than 100 years old and in need of repairs. 

Ten percent of Baltimore’s housing is considered substandard, 

and all but 1 percent is considered suitable for rehabilitation. 

Low-income homeowners are particularly hard-hit; they are more 

likely to live in older housing but least likely to have extra income 

for repairs and maintenance. 

To help rectify this situation, a group of housing professionals 

with an interest in the environment saw the possibility of matching needs: low-income homeowners need low-cost building 

materials to renovate and maintain their homes, and the building 

industry has a large supply of excess building materials that go 

to waste. In 1984, through a $25,000 grant from the Morris Goldseker Foundation, TLD opened for operation in a 7,000-squarefoot warehouse where it stores building materials. In 1988 the 

effort expanded to add a 21,000-square-foot warehouse. 

Approach 

Recent visitors to The Loading Dock warehouse in Baltimore, 

Maryland, found lumber, windows, solar panels, a maple gymnasium floor, toilets, tubs, kitchen sinks, and even a gargoyle water 

fountain. In the past, these materials, left over from commercial 

construction projects, would likely have been considered waste 
54 

and dumped in a landfill. 

Today, however, these 

usable materials are 

made available to lowincome homeowners and 

nonprofit organizations 

for home repairs and 

rehabilitation. 

Although TLD receives 

donations from several 

States, the warehouse 

serves lower income 

neighborhoods in the 

greater Baltimore area. 

Grassroots groups refer 

people to join TLD. Once 

they are certified as low 

income, applicants pay a 

$5 annual fee to become 

members. TLD members can shop in the warehouse for building 

supplies, which cost about one-third to three-fourths less than 

retail, and may also attend monthly home improvement workshops 

hosted by trades- and craftspeople. 

Realizing that issues of waste management are regional in scope, 

TLD works with donor partners from throughout the Mid-Atlantic 

region, encompassing Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

Delaware, Virginia, and Washington, DC. TLD gets most of its 

donations from its 400 contractor, manufacturer, and distributor 

partners. TLD formed 75 new partnerships in 1995 alone. The 

partners benefit through reduced dumping fees (about $500,000 

in 1995) and often receive tax breaks for their donations (an 

estimated $200,000 in 1994). 

During the past 4 years, TLD also has developed partnerships with 

Montgomery, Howard, and Baltimore Counties, as well as with the 

city of Baltimore to develop methods of saving salvageable material 

from rapidly decreasing landfill space. For instance, TLD placed 

onsite containers at local landfills to better handle reusable building 

material. 

The supplies that TLD redistributes are often unused materials, 

ranging from unpainted doors and windows, ceramic tiles from 

discontinued lines, or slightly damaged goods. Because these items 

cannot be sold for a profit, in the past they would be sent to landfills. 

“It’s the old story of one person’s trash is another’s treasure,” said 

Leslie Kirkland, Director of the project. 

❝ It’s the old story 

of one person’s 

trash is another’s 

treasure.❞ 

Leslie Kirkland, Director 
One of The Loading Dock’s goals was to prove the economic viability of this type of recycling business. Initially, TLD supplemented its 

income by renting trucks, administrative services, and unused space 

to other nonprofit organizations. An expanded network of donor 

partners and the resulting increase in donations has helped TLD 

increase its self-sufficiency. In the past 2 years, TLD’s income from 

handling fees for purchased materials has risen by more than 30 

percent to more than $400,000. TLD’s annual budget is $560,000; 

approximately 82 percent of this money is covered through handling 

fees with the balance of the funding coming from foundation grants. 

Impact 

In its 11 years of operation, TLD has provided nonprofit organizations and low-income individuals with more than $5 million worth of 

repair and rehabilitation supplies. It has rescued some 33,000 tons 

of building materials from landfills and provided materials for the 

rehabilitation of more than 27,000 homes. The Loading Dock’s base 

of low-income individual members has increased from 1,250 in 1990 

to more than 6,000 in 1995. An additional 1,300 nonprofit organizations and religious institutions are also members. 

In addition to the environmental and economic benefits for nonprofit 

organizations, low-income households, local governments, and 

donors, TLD has made a direct impact on the community by providing job opportunities. When TLD opened in 1984, it had one full-time 

staff person and three volunteers who received stipends. TLD has 

since grown to 18 full-time staff (see photo, page 54), 4 part-time 

staff, and 8 active volunteers. The organization is committed to 

hiring from within the community and gives its staff the necessary 

tools to increase their knowledge and become greater assets to 

the neighborhoods TLD serves. 

This organization is recognized nationally. The White House recently 

honored TLD with a 1996 President’s Council on Sustainable 

Development Award. Good Housekeeping magazine awarded Hope 

Cucina, director of TLD for 9 years, a 1993 Green Housekeeping 

Seal of Environmental Leadership Award. 

Scaling Up 

As word of its success has spread, The Loading Dock has been 

contacted by 350 communities nationwide about replicating TLD’s 

model. To address these requests, the National Network (currently 

a subsidiary of TLD) was created in 1994. The National Network is 

working with a steering committee to support efforts of groups 

starting recycling operations similar to TLD. It is consulting with 

40 sites nationally and internationally. 

The Loading Dock 

not only provides 

materials to the 

low-income 

community, we 

also teach people 

how to use the 

materials through 

home repair 

workshops. 

55 
❝ The Loading 

Dock's committed 

staff operate TLD 

as a business 

with a heart and 

soul, encouraging 

recipients to also be 

self-sufficient.❞ 

Leslie Kirkland, Director 

In 11 years of operation, The Loading Dock has: 

■	 Rescued approximately 33,000 tons of building materials 

from landfills. 

■	 Provided materials for the rehabilitation of more than 27,000 

homes. 

■	 Increased grassroots membership from 1,250 in 1990 to more 

than 6,000 in 1995. 

■	 Established partnerships with more than 400 manufacturers, 

distributors, and contractors. 

■	 Saved the building industry about $500,000 in dumping fees 

in 1995. 

TLD maintains a relationship with a number of other recycling 

groups, including Impact (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Urban Ore 

(Berkeley, California), Rehab (Indianapolis, Indiana), the Frederick 

Nonprofit Building Material Warehouse (Frederick, Maryland), and 

the Community Resource Bank (Baltimore, Maryland). 

In addition, in partnership with Urban Ore, Material for the Arts (New 

York City), Environmentally Yours (Albany, New York), and the New 

York State Recycling Market Development (Albany, New York), TLD 

is establishing a Reuse Development Organization (REDO). REDO 

will be a nonprofit national reuse network to advocate, educate, and 

organize new and existing building materials recycling centers. 

Contact: 

Ms. Leslie Kirkland, Director 

The Loading Dock 

2523 Gwynns Falls Parkway 

Baltimore, MD 21216 

Phone: 410–728–3625 

Fax: 410–728–3633 

56 
McAuley Village 

■	 The McAuley Cor poration 

Providence, Rhode Island 

57 

McAuley Village is a transitional apartment facility that helps 

single parents and their children by systematically and simultaneously addressing homelessness, unemployment, domestic 

violence, alcohol and other drug abuse, and public safety. 

McAuley Village takes poor single parents from a life of dependence on welfare to one of independence by offering onsite day 

care facilities, a library, tutoring, mentoring, and housing and job 

placement services. Sixty percent of parents who lived in the 

village in the past 5 years have found jobs in fields such as 

engineering, nursing, banking, and administration. 

Background 

High rates of unemployment and the widening gap between 

income and housing costs have made it very difficult for lowincome, single-parent families to house and feed themselves. 

As a result, increasing numbers become homeless. Domestic 

violence and substance abuse problems may increase, while 

crime and fear of crime haunt the housing options available to 

them. 

Young single parents especially may lack the self-esteem and 

resources to become self-supporting. They need skills to get jobs 

that pay enough to provide hope for a better future. They may be 

cut off from the supporting community that could help them move 

toward economic independence. Low educational levels or 

language barriers may hamper their advancement. 

McAuley Village was developed as a response to rapidly growing 

numbers of low-income, single-parent families using the McAuley 

House soup kitchen and day center in Providence, Rhode Island. 

The conditions in which these families lived precluded healthy 

development. 

Seeing the need, the McAuley House executive director mobilized individuals, businesses, and State and local governments 

to raise funds to build a subsidized housing facility that would 

include a variety of support programs. Originally, neighbors 

surrounding the proposed site opposed plans for the village. 
58 

Staff met with neighborhood groups to explain the program’s plans 

to build support. Now, neighbors have come to see McAuley Village 

as an asset to their community. 

Approach 

McAuley Village is a transitional facility that provides a setting where 

residents can realize a sense of self-worth and gain the skills and 

confidence necessary for self-sufficiency. Supportive programs are 

tailored to individuals who come from diverse backgrounds and 

have different levels of preparation, some of whom cannot read or 

speak English when they arrive. Village residents include school 

dropouts and some persons with college education, victims of 

domestic violence, and immigrant families. 

Residents are charged 30 percent of their income during their stay 

of up to 2 years. In exchange, they design and commit to individual 

plans in which they stipulate goals and objectives that will lead to 

self-sufficiency. The plans lay out educational, job skill, and personal 

goals. 

McAuley Village is designed as a supportive community in which 

single parents can move to economic independence and families 

can thrive. Its relatively small size—22 apartments—facilitates close 

personal interactions. Its 

programs are planned to 

nurture families as they 

build skills. Day care, 

mentoring, tutoring, and 

employment services are 

available on site, and 

workshops, meetings, and 

counseling services allow 

residents to explore their 

problems in depth and then 

move forward. A staff of 20 

is employed to provide its 

services, including child 

care and building security. 

McAuley’s program 

does more than deal with 

symptoms; it confronts root 

causes of individual situations. It addresses several crucial areas 

at the same time: 

■ The program strongly encourages education and training. 

Most residents take part in some formal educational program 

or English as a Second Language classes at local communityMcAuley Village 

is a supportive 

community in which 

single parents can 

move to economic 

independence and 

families can thrive. 
based agencies. Community volunteers tutor adults and children, 

while an onsite library serves children. Plans are under way to 

provide computer equipment for use by residents. 

■	 The program emphasizes parenting and life skills. McAuley 

Village teams each resident with a volunteer mentor who 

teaches parenting skills. Activities for children stress socialization 

skills. Other life skills that are taught include stress management, 

budgeting, and decisionmaking. The program emphasizes the 

value of building real homes, friends, and community. 

■	 Employment is a major goal, with an emphasis on good jobs 

that offer living wages and benefits. The staff job placement 

coordinator brings in experts who can teach job search skills 

and help residents find appropriate employment. 

■	 To ensure the security of residents, McAuley Village 

provides 24-hour security and safe play environments for 

children. This sense of security is very important to enable 

residents to concentrate on their programs. 

McAuley Village also promotes interaction between residents and 

the larger community. At any one time, 30 to 40 volunteers help 

carry out the program, and college and university students work 

with the children. A variety of local organizations use the facility for 

meeting space and residents are encouraged to attend. The day 

care center accepts children from outside McAuley Village, and a 

former resident and a community member serve on the board of 

directors. 

Two years is barely enough time to turn around lives and obtain 

education and job training. When residents are about to move on, 

a housing coordinator also helps residents find appropriate housing. 

After they leave, the program continues to provide followup and 

support services. The program currently serves about 75 families. 

Impact 

Since McAuley Village opened in 1990, about 80 families and 160 

children up to age 10 have been served. Two-thirds have succeeded 

in remaining in academic programs and/or work for at least 1 year 

after they completed residency. Some 1-year plus alumnae are 

interested in buying their own homes. 

For example, Paula was one of the first residents of McAuley 

Village. At the time, she was a single mother with two children and 

no academic credentials, behind on her rent, and had almost no 

money. Her stay at McAuley Village led to educational opportunities, 

much higher self-worth, greater awareness of responsibility for her 

actions, and a job. For Paula, McAuley Village was a stepping stone 

For Paula, 

McAuley Village 

was a stepping 

stone to her 

success that 

provided a sense 

of community 

and strength 

of mind. 

59 
McAuley Village: 

■	 Raised money to develop a three-story building with 

22 apartments. 

■ Housed 80 families with 160 children under 10 years old. 

■ Assisted 60 percent of its residents to find jobs. 

■ Employs 20 persons at the facility. 

■	 Involves 30 to 40 community volunteers in its program at any 

one time. 

■ Currently provides services to 75 families. 

to her success that provided a sense of community and strength of 

mind. She now has an associate degree in electrical engineering 

technology and is a technician at the Cherry Semiconductor 

Corporation. She recently purchased her first home. 

Because McAuley Village is one of only two transitional housing 

facilities in the State, its impact extends to all of Rhode Island as 

well as southeastern Massachusetts. 

Scaling Up 

McAuley Village receives many inquiries about its programs. Their 

holistic and comprehensive approach could be used wherever a 

nonprofit organization chooses to respond broadly to the needs of 

poor, single-parent households. Marshaling partnerships among 

agencies and volunteers would be key to the success of similar 

programs. 

Two recently founded transitional housing programs were modeled 

on McAuley Village: Thames River (1992) in Norwich, Connecticut, 

and Crossroads Apartments (1994) in North Kingstown, Rhode 

Island. 

Contact: 

Sister Dolores Crowley, Executive Director


The McAuley Corporation


325 Niagara Street


Providence, RI 02907–2000


Phone: 401–467–3630


60 
Minneapolis Neighborhood 

Revitalization Program 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

61 

Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) puts 

neighborhood residents in charge of planning their future, and 

backs that involvement with substantial long-term commitment 

of city funds. It provides a way for residents in each of the city’s 

81 neighborhoods to come together to create positive change in 

their neighborhoods. Communities identify priorities, develop 

strategies, capitalize on opportunities, decide how to channel 

resources, and build partnerships to solve their own problems. 

According to Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, “NRP is 

a way of talking to working- and middle-class people and asking 

them directly: ‘What do you need to stay?’” 

Background 

In 1960 Minneapolis had a population of 483,000 in a metropolitan area of 1.5 million. By 1990 Minneapolis’ population had 

shrunk to 370,000 in a metro area of 2.3 million. Although the 

area as a whole enjoys a strong, diverse economy, the two core 

cities of Minneapolis (see photo, page 62) and St. Paul are home 

to a disproportionate 56 percent of the region’s population that 

lives in poverty. Both middle-class households and jobs have fled 

to the suburbs, leaving behind concentrations of very low-income, 

minority, senior, and single-parent households without adequate 

support systems. The older housing that predominates in the 

core cities often has high maintenance needs that are beyond 

residents’ ability or landlords’ willingness to pay. 

In 1987 two Minneapolis task forces reported that it would take 

$4 billion to maintain the city’s aging infrastructure and reinvest 

in older housing stock. These reports galvanized the city council 

to suggest committing a sizeable amount of tax-increment financing to revitalize neighborhoods. Implementing this idea 

required support of the State legislature, Hennepin County, and 

the Minneapolis Public School District. Through a joint powers 

agreement, a Neighborhood Revitalization Program Policy Board 

was set up to partner the city, Hennepin County, the Minneapolis 

School District, the Park Board, the Library Board, the State 

Legislature, the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, labor 
62 

unions, community 

representatives, and 

nonprofit organizations 

in a collaborative effort 

to revitalize these neighborhoods. 

Approach 

The NRP improves 

Minneapolis neighborhoods through neighborhood-based planning. It 

strengthens the capacity 

of neighborhood organizations to plan and carry 

out projects in all 81 neighborhoods—rich and poor. 

Instead of top-down planning, neighborhood residents identify priorities, develop strategies, 

capitalize on opportunities, and solve problems through partnerships with government, nonprofit organizations, and the private 

sector. During the planning process residents work together to 

address their housing, safety, economic development, recreation, 

health, social service, environment, transportation, and cultural 

needs. The program emphasizes: 

■ Building a sense of community among residents. 

■ Identifying human resources and other assets for 

implementing plans. 

■ Increasing intra- and intergovernmental collaboration. 

■ Redirecting government budgets to strategies identified 

in neighborhood plans. 

■ Using NRP funds to leverage other community resources. 

The NRP requires the involvement of all segments of the community 

in the neighborhood planning process. As a condition of participating in NRP, neighborhood organizations draft a participation agreement describing how the neighborhood will select a NRP steering 

committee to coordinate the planning process, get diverse people 

and interests involved, gather background information for the planning effort, define neighborhood issues and opportunities, and 

structure meetings and events to develop their plan. This agreement is a formal contract between the NRP and the neighborhood 

to ensure broad citizen participation. 

❝ The Neighborhood 

Revitalization 

Program is a way 

of talking to 

working- and 

middle-class 

people and asking 

them directly: 

❛What do you 

need to stay?❜❞ 

Sharon Sayles Belton, 

Mayor of Minneapolis 
The action plan for the Whittier neighborhood was one of the first to 

be approved. Because children in this neighborhood were attending 

more than 50 different schools under desegregation plans, a new 

neighborhood school was high on the neighborhood’s list of priorities. Today the neighborhood is well on the way to having its own 

Whittier Campus including a new elementary school, a neighborhood early learning center, and a gymnasium built by the Park 

Board with the school sharing the facility. Metro State University 

may soon begin offering adult education classes at the campus. 

NRP facilitated collaboration between government agencies and 

programs to make this possible: $14 million came from the School 

Board, $1.8 million from NRP, more than $1 million from the city 

for site acquisition and infrastructure improvements, and $2.5 

million from the city for the early learning center. 

Impact 

The NRP investment is beginning to pay off. Its $6.6 million invested 

from early 1995 in housing rehabilitation has been matched by more 

than $14.3 million in private or other public dollars. By October 

1995, 22 of the 65 organizations had completed a neighborhood 

plan and begun implementation on efforts to establish affordable 

housing, bike patrols for city and park police, bicycle trails, traffic 

management projects, adopt-a-park and tree planting programs, 

job training efforts, neighborhood-based conflict mediation, and 

removal of lead hazards. More than 5,500 trees have been planted, 

9 parks have been improved, and 8 commercial corridor planning 

and investment initiatives have begun. 

Public participation also has been impressive. Availability of funds 

has been a significant factor behind citizen participation. More 

than 700 volunteers serve on NRP steering committees, and 

nearly 3,000 people participated in 145 meetings in just 1 month. 

An evaluation by Rutgers University reported, “Most participants 

expressed optimism that the NRP would significantly change their 

neighborhoods.” 

By placing the neighborhood residents in charge, NRP has changed 

the way government provides and delivers services. For example, 

the Jordan neighborhood began a citizen inspection program. 

Resident volunteers identified housing code violations and sent 

letters asking the property owners to fix the problems, tasks formerly carried out by city inspectors. More than 70 percent of property owners made the requested improvements. The program’s 

success prompted the Minneapolis Inspections Division to begin 

similar programs in other neighborhoods.Through NRP, government becomes a partner rather than a top-down decisionmaker 

in shaping neighborhoods’ futures. 

❝ The Neighborhood 

Revitalization 

Program’s two 

primary goals— 

empowerment 

of residents by 

involving them in 

planning for 

their future and 

accommodating 

change, and 

building community 

by building 

partnerships— 

is making 

Minneapolis the 

place where people 

want to live.❞ 

Robert D. Miller, 

Director, NRP 

63 
64 

The Minneapolis Neighborhood 

Revitalization Program: 

■ Provides $20 million per year 

for 20 years for implementing 

neighborhood plans. 

■ Has 65 plans in progress covering 

all but one of the city’s 81 neighborhoods. 

■ Involves more than 700 volunteers 

on NRP steering committees. 

■ Brought together nearly 3,000 

people in 145 meetings in just 

1 month. 

NRP is building a sense of community 

through hundreds of personal contacts 

with neighbors and government and agency 

staffs. As a result of the program, many 

residents are ready to remain in the neighborhoods and upgrade their properties because they believe a critical mass of other 

properties will also be repaired. 

The program has spent $31.2 million on 

neighborhood strategies since it began 

operation in 1991. The organization has 

a diverse revenue stream that includes 

program and government revenue sources, 

grants and donations, and other sources. 

An annual amount of $20 million is dedicated to carry out neighborhood programs. 

Scaling Up 

Minneapolis’ approach to neighborhood-based planning could 

be adapted and used in many other cities. Officials from Seattle, 

Washington, have visited Minneapolis and started a similar 

program of planning for neighborhood revitalization in Seattle’s 

“urban villages.” A staff exchange program between NRP and 

Seattle is being explored for 1996. 

NRP receives many inquiries from cities of all sizes around the 

country. Many have incorporated elements of NRP in their own 

programs. Because of these inquiries, NRP and the Minneapolis 

Planning Department will host a national neighborhood planning 

conference, Vital Communities, in September 1996. 

Contact: 

Mr. Robert D. Miller, Executive Director 

Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program 

Crown Roller Mill Building, Suite #425 

105 Fifth Avenue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55401 

Phone: 612–673–5141 

Fax: 612–673–5138 
NeighborWorks 

Full-Cycle Lending 

■	 Neighborhood Reinvestment Cor por ation 

Washington, D.C. 

65 

The NeighborWorks Full-Cycle Lending program increases 

homeownership among low- and moderate-income families and 

enhances revitalization of distressed communities in the process. 

Through its comprehensive, systematic approach to affordable 

housing lending, the NeighborWorks program also ensures that 

low- and moderate-income homeowners remain in their homes 

for the long term. Since 1993, NeighborWorks organizations have 

assisted more than 6,000 households in their quest to become 

homeowners. 

Background 

Lack of access to mortgage funds particularly affects residents 

of older urban neighborhoods. In many cities, such neighborhoods have experienced a decline after residents move to the 

suburbs rather than maintain and repair the older housing stock 

they leave behind. The older neighborhoods gradually become 

concentrated with lower-income persons—especially persons of 

color, female-headed households, and the working poor—who 

are less financially able to repair their homes. Businesses also 

may move to higher-income areas. Absentee landlords may be 

much more concerned with immediate cash flow than with future 

liveability of their buildings and neighborhood facilities, further 

destabilizing the area. Some properties may be purchased by 

investors whose only interest is speculation that particular parcels may become more valuable. 

At some point in this cycle of decline, the lending industry 

begins to see such neighborhoods as poor credit risks and may 

become increasingly unwilling to make mortgage or rehabilitation 

loans in these areas. They may require more stringent terms to 

cover what they perceive as greater risk, or they may stop 

making loans in such neighborhoods altogether. This spiral of 

decline affects many low-income households that could afford 

to purchase homes in older neighborhoods if mor tgages were 

available. 

However desirable homeownership may be for the community, 

experience has shown that low-income homeowners, with fewer 
66 

reserves to cushion them in case of financial setbacks, are more 

at risk of losing their homes than higher-income homeowners. 

Therefore, traditional homeownership programs, which focus only 

on helping people buy a house, may result in higher delinquency 

and default rates in low-income neighborhoods. Something more 

is needed. 

One organization that responds to this reality is the nonprofit Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (Neighborhood Reinvestment). 

Neighborhood Reinvestment has established a national network of 

178 NeighborWorks local affiliates in targeted low-income areas. 

Establishing a local affiliate begins with a commitment to a residentled partnership that includes business and local government leaders. Each affiliate selects its target communities and identifies the 

needs of its populations. The partners in each of these local nonprofit organizations plan together for community revitalization. They 

assess family, community, and housing stock issues, and design 

assistance packages and pool financing from a variety of sources 

to facilitate community reinvestment. 

Approach 

In 1993 Neighborhood Reinvestment launched the NeighborWorks’ 

Campaign for Home Ownership. In developing the campaign, 

Neighborhood Reinvestment researched the best practices for 

developing successful low- and moderate-income homeownership 

in minority and immigrant communities. The result was NeighborWorks Full-Cycle Lending, which includes a neighborhood revitalization strategy, loan product flexibility, comprehensive prepurchase 

and postpurchase housing counseling, and technical help for housing rehabilitation. Started 

on a pilot basis in 20 communities, NeighborWorks 

Full-Cycle Lending now 

operates in 97 communities 

in 34 States. 

NeighborWorks Full-Cycle 

Lending aims not only to 

increase the number of 

low- and moderate-income 

homeowners, but also to 

ensure that they remain in 

their homes for the long 

term. Potential homebuyers 

work with NeighborWorks 

organizations to learn about 

the purchase process and 

NeighborWorks 

Full-Cycle Lending 

aims not only 

to increase the 

number of low- and 

moderate-income 

homeowners, 

but also to ensure 

that they remain in 

their homes for the 

long term. 
overcome their own barriers to ownership. The program has found 

that the most effective time to offer housing counseling is well 

before a prospective buyer actually selects a home. Then, credit 

problems can be corrected and the household can begin a budget 

and savings plan to meet the needs of ownership. Later, postpurchase counseling provides continuing support to help prevent 

delinquency and default. The collaboration within NeighborWorks 

affiliates gives borrowers more access to willing mortgage lenders. 

The Full-Cycle Lending program helps lenders reach a new 

customer base. In some places, loan officers meet with potential 

borrowers in NeighborWorks offices, without the cost of maintaining 

a branch office presence. The program helps lenders meet their 

Community Reinvestment Act obligations to make loans in underserved areas. The additional supports of the Full-Cycle Lending 

program can help near-bankable households to become good 

credit risks. Pooled lending further reduces the risk to lenders. 

Because the program targets communities, its impact is much 

greater than that of single loans. It helps to halt the downward spiral 

of neighborhoods that can be hastened by an influx of speculative 

investors and absentee landlords. Residents and city officials can 

see real improvement in specific neighborhoods. 

The ability to harness the resources of the private and nonprofit 

sectors of the community is crucial to the effectiveness of the 

program. Its decentralized approach allows for solutions that cross 

jurisdictional boundaries and flexibly fits local circumstances. 

Impact 

NeighborWorks Full-Cycle Lending helps neighborhoods grow and 

improve by stimulating reinvestment in participating communities. 

Through the program, increasing numbers of resident homeowners 

stake a claim in their communities, enhancing the tax base and 

building overall community renewal. This holistic approach provides 

important services that local public agencies and private lending 

institutions are increasingly unable or unwilling to offer. 

By the end of the first 3 years of the Full-Cycle Lending program, 

NeighborWorks had helped 6,530 households achieve homeownership. Of these, 95 percent received housing counseling and 88 

percent received financial services. A typical client was a lowor very low-income female-headed or minority household. The 

total investment in low- and moderate-income communities was 

$415.5 million. 

At this early stage, the Full-Cycle Lending portfolio is performing 

as well as, or better than, conventional loans. For example, Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise, a NeighborWorks affiliate, has 

❝ NeighborWorks 

Full-Cycle Lending 

provides a 

comprehensive 

system to increase 

homeownership 

rates among 

lower-income 

families. We believe 

this will cause 

neighborhoods 

to become safer; 

individuals 

to regain hope 

and a sense of 

belonging; and 

families to reclaim 

their schools, their 

street corners, and 

their economic 

growth.❞ 

George Knight, 

Executive Director 

of the Neighborhood 

Reinvestment Corporation 

67 
In its first 3 years, 

NeighborWorks 

Full-Cycle Lending has: 

■	 Helped 6,530 low- and moderateincome households buy homes. 

■	 Assisted the investment of 

$415.5 million. 

■	 Expanded from its initial 20 

communities to 97 communities 

in 34 States. 

■	 Offered housing counseling 

services to 40,000 persons. 

1,242 loans in its portfolio, 

totaling $56.8 million. Its 

delinquency rate is 1.3 

percent, just a little over 

half the national conventional loan delinquency 

rate of 2.5 percent. 

The Full-Cycle Lending 

approach has given target communities access 

to credit and the stability 

of increased homeownership. For every buyer, 

almost eight people 

become involved in some form of homebuyer education. It has 

been estimated that 40,000 people have been offered some level 

of NeighborWorks homebuyer education. 

Scaling Up 

Industry leaders such as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation 

have touted NeighborWorks Full-Cycle Lending as a model not only 

for borrowers but also for lenders to improve the profitability of their 

investments. 

In mid-1995 the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation teamed 

with the American Bankers Association and the National Foundation 

for Consumer Credit to develop an educational workbook series 

for first-time homebuyers that incorporates the Full-Cycle Lending 

elements.This partnership is designed to promote collaborative 

efforts for quality homebuyer education and counseling programs, 

innovative loan products, and lending services targeted to traditionally underserved markets. The workbook series is also being 

distributed by the National Association of Realtors. 

Contact: 

Ms. Julia Galdo


Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


1325 G Street NW., Suite 800


Washington, DC 20005


Phone: 202–376–2400


Fax: 202–376–2160


68 
New Community Pathmark 

Supermarket 

■	 N ew Community Cor poration 

N ewar k, New Jersey 

69 

The New Community Pathmark Supermarket is a 55,000-squarefoot neighborhood shopping center that forms the cornerstone of 

an urban revitalization effort taking place in the Central Ward of 

Newark, New Jersey—an area that was nearly flattened in 5 

days of deadly rioting, arson, and looting in 1967. It is a creative 

partnership between the New Community Corporation (NCC), a 

nonprofit minority-based community development corporation, 

and Pathmark Stores, Inc., a large supermarket chain. 

This innovation is based on a simple, common sense idea that 

the best way to stimulate local economic activity is to capture and 

capitalize on the basic economic transactions of daily life. It not 

only captures dollars leaving the community, but it also creates 

new jobs and new job training opportunities. The Pathmark 

supermarket is the first major commercial facility to be built in 

Newark’s Central Ward since 1967. 

Background 

Soon after the riots in 1967, there was an acceleration of white 

middle-class families moving out of Newark to the suburbs. The 

major supermarket chains also followed suit. Local residents 

struggled to find fresh, fairly priced food. The residents of the 

city’s poorest, most densely populated neighborhood had to ride 

several buses either to distant par ts of Newark or beyond the city 

limits to obtain the same reasonably priced, quality foods offered 

by suburban markets. For example, a 1987 study found that local 

residents were spending 50 percent of their income for food (in 

comparison, the “average” American family spends 15 percent). 

Another finding was that food prices were 38 percent higher at 

small local stores than at large supermarkets. The study also 

showed that the Central Ward offered enormous opportunity for 

a supermarket—90 percent of the 93,000 people living within 

a half-mile radius already shopped in the lower priced supermarkets of Newark. 

For many years NCC was among the few groups working to 

renovate and build new housing in the Central Ward. Working in 

vacant lots dotted with abandoned or deteriorating structures, 

NCC kept adding housing units to its inventory. After having 
70 

provided thousands of new housing 

units in the neighborhood, NCC began 

to address the critical economic development needs in the area. Using its 

housing as a base, NCC began creating jobs and branched out into social 

services such as day care, health care, 

education, elder care, and transitional 

housing to eventually become the 

biggest community development 

corporation in New Jersey and among 

the most successful in the Nation. 

Approach 

The NCC Pathmark brought together the diverse experiences and 

resources of two established groups—NCC and Pathmark—to 

provide access to supermarket shopping, create jobs, and generate 

investment in the community. Commitment between the partners 

dates back to 1980, long before the lease arrangements were 

finalized. NCC developed the project, assembled the land and 

financing, and provided a valuable bridge between the supermarket 

and the community. Pathmark provided some working capital, 

management expertise, and store operation and administrative 

support. 

For these two experienced and enthusiastic partners, the collaboration was natural. According to community research that NCC had 

been carrying out since 1979, the people of the Central Ward 

wanted a neighborhood supermarket. The solution was obvious: 

NCC decided to find a joint venture partner—as they had many 

times previously in developing housing projects—to open a supermarket-anchored shopping center in the Central Ward. Monsignor 

Linder of NCC decided to approach Pathmark Stores with his 

proposal. Around the same time, New Jersey-based Pathmark had 

opened an urban store with the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration 

Corporation in Brooklyn. The CEO of Pathmark wanted to do the 

same in Newark and knew that Monsignor Linder could help. The 

NCC-Pathmark partnership and their shared vision was initiated 

by both organizations. 

It took 11 years from the time NCC entered the preliminary planning 

stages to the opening of the shopping center in 1990. During those 

years, the project had to overcome a number of obstacles including 

assembling all of the land necessary for the project and raising the 

finances needed for such a large venture. NCC was able to overcome these obstacles because of its persistence; its coordinated 

petitioning efforts with the Governor, mayor, and city council; and its 

litigation to condemn the vacant buildings on lots still needed for the 

supermarket. 

This innovation 

is based on a 

simple, common 

sense idea that 

the best way to 

stimulate local 

economic activity 

is to capture and 

capitalize on the 

basic economic 

transactions of 

daily life. 
Between 1980 and 1984, NCC assembled the land for this supermarket “lot by lot,” which involved the acquisition of 3.3 acres of land 

consisting of 62 parcels, 15 of which were city-owned and 25 had 

structures on the property.This was a major hurdle that NCC had 

to overcome. 

In support of NCC’s plans to build the shopping center, more than 

12,000 community residents signed a petition. In this 1984 petition 

to the Governor, mayor, and city council, the community declared 

“We desperately need a high quality supermarket in our community 

so that we can properly provide for the shopping needs of our 

families.” 

The total cost of the shopping center, which includes four satellite 

stores as well as the Pathmark supermarket, was $16 million. 

NCC invested $2.8 million of its own funds and Pathmark invested 

$400,000, mostly in inventory. The rest of the financing was raised 

through banks, an Urban Development Action Grant, a Community 

Development Block Grant, and funds from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. Pathmark retains one-third of the 

supermarket’s profits, and NCC retains two-thirds. 

A supermarket board of top NCC and Pathmark management meets 

regularly; the partnership has evolved into a solid, ongoing relationship that both parties believe has been integral to the store’s strong 

community role and its successful operation. 

Impact 

Since the supermarket opened on July 26, 1990, NCC Pathmark 

has been an unqualified success. Weekly sales volume exceeds 

original projections, and sales per square foot are above the industry average. More than 50,000 shoppers pass through its doors 

each week (see photo, page 70). Because of the location in an 

urban enterprise zone, Pathmark gives its customers the advantage 

of a reduction in State sales tax. Pathmark also has a strong commitment to hiring from the community—more than 50 percent of the 

store’s employees are from Newark. Satellite stores that are wholly 

owned by NCC provide additional jobs. This shopping center has 

generated 343 jobs, 250 of which are at the thriving Pathmark store. 

The impact of the NCC Pathmark Neighborhood Shopping Center 

can be measured most significantly by the jobs created and the 

career ladders it has begun. The impact can also be measured by 

the ripple effect of a modern shopping center successfully operating 

in a community that had been without this important neighborhood 

asset. Local residents take pride in shopping at the supermarket, 

and they benefit by the nutrition, health, and education programs 

that are regularly sponsored by the NCC Pathmark. In addition, the 

impact can be measured by savings in food costs, the feeling of 

The opening of the 

NCC Pathmark 

affirmed the reality 

of a community 

dream: a modern 

supermarket within 

the Central Ward, 

belonging to the 

community and 

helping to build a 

solid economic 

base for the 

community. 

71 
72 

security on the premises, and by the overall physical change 

Pathmark has brought to the heart of the Central Ward in Newark. 

What makes this shopping center so important is that profits 

generated remain in the community. Shoppers refer to it as “our 

Pathmark.” In the words of Mary Smith, Treasurer of NCC and 

founder of Babyland Nursery, Inc., the supermarket is, “a social 

investment, not only a business investment, one that is helping to 

revitalize the community. It is an affirmation of vitality and dignity 

for the people who live here and now can shop here in their own 

neighborhood and know they are spending money within their 

own community.” 

Scaling Up 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), an organization that 

offers funding and technical assistance to Community Development 

Corporations (CDCs) established The Retail Initiative (TRI), and 

has raised more than $24 million to help community development 

groups replicate the NCC Pathmark model in at least a dozen cities, 

including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Los Angeles, California; and 

Chicago, Illinois. 

According to LISC, supermarkets and CDCs are natural partners. 

LISC maintains that high-quality food distribution at affordable 

prices is an underserved need in many urban neighborhoods and 

that this large unmet demand can provide opportunities for many 

potential partnerships. 

The success of the NCC Pathmark Supermarket is due to the 

shared vision of Monsignor Linder and Jack Futterman of Pathmark. 

For them this supermarket is not just a business, but also a social 

investment to help revitalize the community. This shared vision and 

a high level of trust between the two groups helped cement a partnership that endured various obstacles for nearly 10 years. This 

shared vision and partnership are essential to the success of a 

commercial project in a highly politicized inner-city environment, 

where there are deeply vested, often conflicting interests, and 

where the stakes for preserving the status quo are surprisingly high. 

Contact: 

Mr. George Lawton 

New Community Corporation 

233 West Market Street 

Newark, NJ 07103 

Phone: 201–639–7805 

Fax: 201–623–3612 

Pathmark’s success is evident: 

■ Sales volume has exceeded initial 

projections. 

■ The sales per square foot are 

above both Pathmark and industry 

standards. 

■ More than 50 percent of the store’s 

250 employees are Newark residents. 

Shoppers refer 

to it as ❝ our 

Pathmark.❞ 
Police Homeowner 

Loan Program 

Columbia, South Carolina 

73 

The Police Homeowner Loan Program in Columbia, South 

Carolina, encourages police officers to buy homes in the lowincome neighborhoods they serve within the city. This gives 

many officers the opportunity to own a home much earlier in 

their career. Becoming a member of the neighborhood gives 

the officers extra incentive to invest their time and energy in 

community concerns. It also gives them a chance to interact on 

a more personal level with the people who live there. Not only 

has the program deterred crime within these communities, it 

has also been an incentive for other residents to improve their 

own property. 

Background 

In Columbia, South Carolina, older, low-income neighborhoods 

found themselves in a downward spiral of economic and social 

decline. With an aging housing stock and persistent crime, 

owners had little incentive to fix up their properties when housing 

values were falling. Many areas were once highly sought-after 

places to live, but homes gradually fell into disrepair as landlords increasingly neglected their property. Because unsold and 

abandoned houses perpetuated the criminal activity that leads 

to neighborhood deterioration, these neighborhoods found 

themselves in a vicious cycle of poverty and despair. 

To counter such trends, the Columbia Community Development 

Department targeted certain low-income neighborhoods for 

investment of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

funds in programs such as an Urban Homestead Program, 

Rental Rehabilitation Program, Affordable Housing Program, 

Operation Paintbrush, and the Purchase Rehabilitation Program 

to address housing needs. At the same time, the police department began community-based policing initiatives to reduce crime 

and to make officers more accessible to low-income neighborhoods. While these efforts were sufficient to stabilize some 

neighborhoods, in others they were not. Because police officers 

see neighborhoods only from a distance, residents still could 

say, “The police don’t live here, so they don’t really care what 

happens.” 
74 

This unique, 

visionary, and 

beautifully simple 

program really 

works! 

Approach 

The Police Homeowner Loan Program offers police officers 20-year, 

4-percent, no-down-payment mortgages for the purchase or rehabilitation of houses in inner-city areas. By providing strong financial 

incentives for officers to purchase, rehabilitate, and live in older 

houses in low-income neighborhoods, it affords police the opportunity to gain the perspective of living in the community. By increasing 

police presence, the program improves housing and gives the 

resident police officers a round-the-clock stake in crime prevention 

and neighborhood revitalization. 

When the program was established during the spring of 1990, 

officers were reluctant to participate. Much of Columbia’s police 

force is comprised of younger officers, many of whom have families 

with small children. When first approached with the program, they 

were understandably concerned about the quality of life in these 

low-income neighborhoods. The Chief of Police reassured officers 

that low-income neighborhoods are not necessarily synonymous 

with high crime and they would not be compromising their families’ 

safety in any way. 

One year after the program began, the first officer moved into a 

newly refurbished home. Ironically, the house he purchased had 

the street number of “911.” After spreading the word about the 

terrific deal he received, other officers began to express interest in 

the program. Interest in the program soon became overwhelming. 

Another eight officers followed his lead, depleting the funds reserved for the program sooner than was anticipated. Local banks 

agreed to help with half of the financing for future home police 

homeowner house purchases, and residents of adjacent communities started calling 

city hall to request 

officers for their 

neighborhoods. 

Impact 

Before the program 

began few police 

officers lived in the 

city, especially in 

the neediest neighborhoods. Now 

16 officers have 

purchased and 

rehabilitated homes 

through the Police 
Homeowner Loan Program. They include nine white and seven 

African-American police officers; three are among the first policewomen in the city. The officers range in age from 23 to 49, and 7 

have children. Potentially, 280 officers would be eligible for the 

program, but individual circumstances such as age, income, and 

existing residence have kept many from participating. As younger 

officers enter the force, more are expected to participate, especially 

because living in the city is considered when awarding promotions 

in the department. The number of officers who live in the city has 

doubled in 10 years to 50. 

Improved housing conditions can be credited to the program. Each 

rehabilitation exceeded local property standards, contributing to 

physical revitalization of its neighborhood. When police began living 

in a neighborhood, neighbors began to feel safer and followed the 

officers’ examples by improving their own homes. Property values 

have stabilized and even rebounded. Some areas are being renovated so successfully that they no longer qualify for the program. 

Beyond the physical changes to the houses, residents now say 

that they feel more in control over what happens in their neighborhood. Now they personally know someone to talk to about their 

concerns—someone who will take action and get results. The 

resident officers better understand the personality of the community and can more easily serve as friends and role models. 

The presence of a police family and a squad car in the neighborhood deters criminal activity, especially burglaries and drug-related 

crime. Community support is so strong that two low-income neighborhoods near the target neighborhoods demanded that the city 

recruit police homeowners for deteriorated houses in their area. 

Each of these neighborhoods now has two police homeowners. 

An unexpected but positive side effect of the Loan Program has 

been a more diversified population within the inner city. Some of the 

white officers have chosen homes in minority neighborhoods, and 

some African-American officers have chosen homes in predominantly white communities. Having younger families move into older 

neighborhoods has rekindled community spirit and generated a 

sense of security among elderly residents. 

Noting the ripple effect of low crime rates, improved real estate 

values, and the coming together of the community, one observer 

commented, “This unique, visionary, and beautifully simple program 

really works!” 

Scaling Up 

Columbia’s Police Homeowner Loan Program has attracted wide 

attention. It was featured in Parade magazine, on NBC News, ABC’s 

❝ Columbia’s 

Police Homeowner 

Program affords 

the opportunity for 

police officers to 

experience firsthand what we in 

Community 

Development 

already know—that 

the vast majority 

of our residents 

are just like you 

and me, with similar 

aspirations, as well 

as the frustrations 

of everyday life.❞ 

Richard J. Semon, 

Director, Community 

Development Department 

Columbia, South Carolina 

75 
Community 

support is so 

strong that two 

low-income 

neighborhoods 

demanded that the 

city recruit police 

homeowners for 

their area. 

Because of Columbia’s Police 

Homeowner Loan Program: 

■	 16 officers now live in completely rehabilitated homes in targeted 

neighborhoods. 

■	 Nine white and seven African-American officers participate, 

including three female officers. 

■ 70 cities are implementing similar loan funds. 

World News, and CNN. The program received the South Carolina 

Municipal Association Award, The Audrey Nelson National Community Development Association Award, and the Innovations in State 

and Local Government Award sponsored by Harvard University’s 

John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Ford Foundation. 

The latter award included a $100,000 grant, a portion of which was 

to be used in helping other communities replicate the program. The 

city has also produced a video and brochure to explain what was 

done. 

In Columbia, the success of the Police Homeowner Loan Program 

prompted development of the City Employee Home Loan Program, 

which helps city employees to purchase homes in the city that do 

not need rehabilitation. The Federal National Mortgage Association 

(Fannie Mae) and First Union National Bank participate in the city 

employee program. 

The award-winning Police Homeowner Loan Program has inspired 

other rehabilitation efforts in the neighborhood and enhanced racial, 

gender, and age diversity in low-income neighborhoods. The program has been contacted by some 400 cities or agencies around 

the Nation, and more than 70 communities of all sizes have now 

implemented a similar program. 

Contact: 

Mr. Eric Cassell


City of Columbia-Community Development


1225 Laurel Street


Columbia, SC 29201


Phone: 803–733–8315


Fax: 803–773–8312


76 
Resident and 

Community Services 

■	 Omaha Housing Authority 

Omaha, Nebraska 

77 

Through its Resident and Community Services program, the 

Omaha Housing Authority (OHA) eliminates barriers that lowincome individuals experience on a daily basis by providing 

innovative and effective supportive services for residents and 

assisting them in a comprehensive way. As the key agency for 

assisting the poor in the Omaha metropolitan area and surrounding counties, OHA works in collaboration with universities, public 

agencies, religious institutions, and community-based organizations to provide a broad range of services for residents. 

The result has been better-educated, better-trained, healthier, 

and more independent individuals who use OHA housing as 

a stepping stone towards upward mobility and economic 

self-sufficiency. 

Background 

Since its inception in 1935, OHA has always been a pioneer in 

affordable housing. It was one of the first public housing authorities to operate a Scattered Site Housing Program with success. It 

was also one of the first large housing authorities to sell homes 

to residents under the HOPE program. Today, operating in a city 

of 370,000, OHA owns and manages nearly 3,000 units in 3 

housing developments and 12 high-rise buildings and administers more than 4,000 rental assistance housing units. The current 

annual operating budget is $30 million, with $126 million in 

assets. 

In 1986, Robert Armstrong became executive director of OHA, 

which marked the beginning of resident and community service 

specifically targeted to encouraging self-reliance, job training, 

education, confidence-building, and entrepreneurship services. 

Approach 

Low-income persons usually are disadvantaged by complex 

barriers that limit their options. OHA has been a leader in the 

metropolitan area in lowering the barriers to self-sufficiency for 

its public and assisted housing residents. It has provided safe, 

clean, and affordable housing; helped low-income individuals 
78 

❝ It is our dream 

that the children 

living in public 

housing today will 

have no need for 

public assistance of 

any kind in the 

future.❞ 

Omaha Housing Authority 

become self-supporting; encouraged economic development; and promoted social 

and cultural vitality. 

Efforts to meet the special needs of OHA’s 

low-income residents began in 1986, when 

Armstrong walked door-to-door through 

family housing developments to visit with 

residents and find out what he could do to 

assist them. As a result, Armstrong created 

the Resident Relations division to help 

residents “remove excuses for failure” and 

become self-supportive. Solid working relationships were built with the Omaha Public 

Schools, the Omaha Police Department, and 

other community service organizations. Since 

that time, OHA has developed a wide variety 

of programs and services for residents. 

Because low-income families often lack 

access to regular health care, OHA’s FirstStep facility provides residents with one-stop 

access to receive the comprehensive services they need. With 

funding from the Department of Health and Human Services, 

FirstStep offers pre- and post-natal care for mothers, medical 

services for children, and parenting classes. It houses offices of 

the Nebraska Department of Social Services, Douglas County 

Health Department, Charles Drew Health Center’s Women, Infants 

and Children Program (WIC), substance abuse counseling and 

referral, and medical care. In addition, an onsite immunization 

clinic operates 1 day a week. 

OHA also promotes educational development among young residents. The LaFern Williams Center adjacent to OHA’s South Side 

Terrace housing development offers recreation, arts, educational, 

and cultural programs throughout the year. The center provides a 

safe place for nearly 200 youth daily, with special sport and field trip 

programs in the summer. OHA also provides a study center in each 

low-income project where volunteers provide tutoring 2 nights a 

week. Each center has a classroom equipped with computers, 

printers, and software donated by local businesses. 

In addition, OHA has established a foundation to provide college 

scholarships of up to $2,500 for public housing residents, $100 

bonds for public housing students with the highest grade point 

averages, and field trips. A partnership between OHA and the local 

cable TV company generates most of the Foundation’s funds. The 

company contributes $1 of the monthly fee for public housing 
residents’ cable subscriptions in exchange for having OHA collect 

the cable fee in conjunction with its monthly housing rents. 

Job training is another focus of OHA. In an effort to provide qualified 

workers for the Omaha skilled labor market, the Omaha Housing 

Authority created Step-Up—a 1-year pre-apprenticeship program. 

After successful completion of 6 months of classroom instruction, 

participants receive 6 months of on-the-job training at OHA construction and maintenance sites. At the end of the year, students 

apply for full, 4-year, labor trade union apprenticeships. 

Moreover, to overcome the barrier of lack of job skills and experience, OHA operates a Door and Window Manufacturing Shop that 

employs and trains its residents while producing doors and windows 

for its own housing units and for outside buyers. Proceeds from the 

shop have saved OHA more than $1 million. In 1992 OHA began a 

nationwide marketing strategy to sell the products of its Door and 

Window Manufacturing Shop. 

Recently, OHA developed a more comprehensive job training 

program called Focus Omaha, a collaborative effort with Creighton 

University and Metropolitan Community College. Focus Omaha 

trains unemployed and underemployed workers in basic skills that 

allow them to compete for living wages (see photo, page 78). The 

training program has two components: FastTrack and Information 

Technologies. FastTrack is an 8-week, intensive class that upgrades 

math, reading, communication, and literacy skills. After completion 

of FastTrack, individuals may enter another 8-week “Information 

Technologies” computer course designed to introduce participants 

to various computer applications. Training graduates are assisted 

in their job search by School-to-Work Transition Coordinators, who 

help them complete job applications and coordinate interviews 

with local companies. 

Impact 

The Resident and Community Services program has improved 

the lives of virtually everyone it touches. In the FirstStep facility, 

one-third of the infants in care receive age-appropriate vaccinations, 

while two-thirds receive immunizations from private physicians and 

offsite clinics. The WIC nutrition program serves 3,000 clients 

monthly, and the Foundation helped 5 residents obtain scholarships to earn college degrees.These residents are now employed 

in the corporate world. Of the residents that completed the Focus 

Omaha Program, many have completed the FastTrack basic skills 

course while others have found employment or enrolled in further 

education. 

What is needed 

is the vision to 

see outside of 

traditional program 

boxes, good 

planning, and 

a genuinely 

collaborative 

team. 

79 
Through its innovative mix of resident 

support services, OHA: 

■	 Manages 3 housing developments and operates 12 high-rise 

buildings. 

■ Serves 200 youth daily in the LaFern Williams Center. 

■	 Operates FirstStep, a one-stop health care facility for a mix 

of needs. 

■	 Accommodates delivery of the Women, Infants and Children 

(WIC) nutrition program to 3,000 clients monthly. 

■ Provides transportation services. 

■	 Provides job skills training while saving more than $1 million 

in its Door and Window Manufacturing Shop. 

■	 Helped five residents use Omaha Foundation scholarships 

to earn college degrees. 

Scaling Up 

OHA has received the National Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials’ Award of Merit, Agency Award of Excellence, and Innovative Programs Award for Direct Client/Resident 

Services. Its programs have been featured in the New York Times, 

Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and 

Washington Post. 

The OHA model has been explored by interested government 

officials throughout the United States. Almost any public housing 

authority interested in promoting self-improvement among its 

residents and “removing excuses for failure” can use OHA’s 

comprehensive approach to resident services. 

Contact: 

Ms. Joyce Beasley 

Omaha Housing Authority 

540 South 27th Street 

Omaha, NE 68105 

Phone: 402–444–6903 

Fax: 402–444–4887 

80 
South Bronx Churches 

Nehemiah Homes 

■	 South Bronx Churches Sponsoring 

Committee, Inc. 

Bronx, New Yo r k 

81 

The Nehemiah Homes program provides more than 500 affordable homes in New York’s South Bronx. It is part of the larger 

mission of South Bronx Churches Sponsoring committee to 

address core issues facing the community, including adequate 

housing; public safety; quality public education; responsive 

government; and direct citizen involvement in the political, 

cultural, and civic life of the South Bronx. Rather than simply 

building houses to replace vacant land, South Bronx Churches 

builds communities by enabling working families to become 

homeowners through the Nehemiah program and pursuing a 

broad agenda of urban revitalization. In addition to producing 

the Nehemiah homes, many of which are owned by previous 

tenants of public housing, South Bronx Churches has also 

helped revitalize commercial activity, increased voter participation, and improved local schools. 

With Nehemiah Homes, the South Bronx Churches rejects the 

notion that higher density is more appropriate for low-income 

neighborhood developments. They believe that the urban poor 

have as much right to public and private space as anyone. 

Nehemiah has stood in the face of housing policies that make 

it difficult for families in the South Bronx to have a yard of their 

own and supports the rights of other Bronx residents (predominantly white and middle-class groups) to live in lower-density 

neighborhoods as well. 

Background 

The story of the innovation and involvement of the community at 

large in the neighborhood development is tied to the organizing 

approach of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), a nationwide 

grassroots organizing group of which South Bronx Churches is 

an affiliate. Working primarily through local churches, IAF builds 

leadership, organizing skills, and self-confidence in community 

members by challenging them to address problems in their own 

community. The Nehemiah Homes program is designed to bring 

together enough families in a contiguous area to rebuild the 

concept of community. The program’s large scale enables the 

owners to become a base of power from which to deal with local 

issues. 
82 

Community 

organizing and 

housing 

development have 

complemented one 

another to change 

the outlook and 

conditions of a very 

tough urban 

community. 

The vision for Nehemiah Homes—affordable homeownership for 

working families on a scale that allows for the development of an 

entire neighborhood with a population density that is livable (not 

congested)—was first articulated in 1982 by East Brooklyn Congregations, IAF, and a renowned developer. The Nehemiah vision 

was adapted for the South Bronx when the South Bronx Churches 

formed in 1987. South Bronx Churches worked from 1987 to 1991 

to transform the vision into a reality. 

The funds to develop Nehemiah Homes in the South Bronx 

were raised with the support of South Bronx Churches’ member 

congregations, their judicatories, and denominational leaders. Two 

Episcopalian churches each agreed to loan $1 million to the construction loan fund. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America 

gave a grant of $500,000 for the fund. East Brooklyn Congregations, Catholic religious orders, and Catholic and Jewish individuals 

make up the rest of the trust to reach a total of $3.4 million. Because the Lutheran Church grant was payable over 5 years, Chase 

Manhattan Bank was part of the pool in the beginning but subsequently withdrew from direct participation when sufficient money 

from the Lutheran Church was in place to balance the loans of the 

other parties. Chase continues to offer a $500,000 line of credit if 

needed during construction. 

Approach 

South Bronx Churches works with the lay and clergy leaders of 

member congregations to address a broad agenda of community 

problems. Along the way, these leaders participate in IAF training 

and workshops. In addition to its work on improving housing, South 

Bronx Churches has sought to improve medical care at a local 

hospital, better education in local schools, and has worked with the 

local police precinct to fight crime and improve safety on the streets. 

It is never “one [individual] against the world” at Nehemiah Homes 

because everyone has learned that it is the power of collective 

ownership in their community that gives 

them the ability to shape what happens 

around their homes. One community 

member’s account of her experience with 

IAF methods as they were applied in a 

church leadership workshop is demonstrative. She and several others were 

asked as a group to try to do something 

about the lack of lighting in a nearby 

subway station. Individual phone calls 

led to group meetings, petitions, press 

conferences, and finally a walk through 

meeting with public officials in the subway station itself. Each step of the way, 
the frustration of the group of community members drove them to 

increase their efforts. The group, which consisted of seven lowincome Hispanic and African-American women, was featured in a 

newspaper article, met with the president of the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, and secured vandal-proof lights that have 

been permanently installed in the local subway station. 

The main obstacles that South Bronx Churches met with in developing Nehemiah homes were land acquisition and planning clearances. These problems were addressed by tapping the political will 

of the community. Rallies and petitions were as important to the 

process as meetings at the borough president’s office and at the 

Housing Preservation and Development Department. Even in those 

meetings, the community was represented by leaders who lived 

and worked in the community—not by outside consultants. 

The minimum annual income for people living in Nehemiah Homes 

apartments is $20,000; the maximum $56,000, in accordance with 

the State of New York Mortgage Agency requirements.Two hundred 

twenty-four single-family homes and 288 condominiums (see photo, 

page 82) have been completed, sold, and occupied since construction began in late 1991. Single-family homes sold for $69,000, 

less a $15,000 second mortgage from the city of New York. The 

condominium base price is $81,500 for a duplex and $76,000 for 

a simplex, which again is less the $15,000 second mortgage. An 

additional $5,000 for a perpetual maintenance fund and $4,000 

for closing costs are added to the mortgage for condominium 

purchasers, as well as costs for security fencing, air conditioning, 

and a washer/dryer combination. Monthly payments for a 

Nehemiah home or condominium are approximately $450. 

Impact 

One of the most significant impacts that the South Bronx Churches 

Nehemiah Homes has made is the development of affordable 

housing with a minimum income requirement of $20,000 instead 

of the usual $35,000 minimum income, which typically makes it 

difficult for the working poor to own homes. 

However, the benefits to the target population extend far beyond 

housing. The organizing and leadership development model followed by South Bronx Churches is an impressive method for creating a permanent mediating organization to help new homeowners 

shape the future of their community. 

In addition, Nehemiah Homes are just one part of South Bronx 

Churches broader efforts that include organizing a new community 

high school, the Bronx Academy for Leadership, in partnership 

with the New York City Department of Education. There is also a 

homeowners association that encourages community members 

to directly address problems in the community and the school. 

❝ When South Bronx 

Churches finally won 

Nehemiah, I put in 

my application. Now 

I have my house. 

Theresa and her 

little friends play in 

the yard. Nehemiah 

is the best thing that 

ever happened to 

my family.❞ 

Mary Martinez 

83 
84 

South Bronx Churches has used the Nehemiah program as a stepping stone to address broader community issues. In particular, drug and crime activity has 

declined since the neighborhood development was 

built. Addressing crime continues to be a priority of the 

Nehemiah homeowners association and South Bronx 

Churches. 

South Bronx Churches challenges the “rules of the 

game” in the sense that community members have 

collectively organized to develop housing for themselves. They are not isolated actors in the market, nor 

is the housing provided by a centralized public agency 

or a private developer. 

Scaling Up 

South Bronx Churches Nehemiah Homes is modeled 

after a similar project sponsored by East Brooklyn 

Congregations (EBC), an affiliate who pioneered 

housing construction in the early and mid-1980’s. East 

Brooklyn Congregations were the first to put together 

the necessary ingredients for locally controlled housing 

construction in New York City. 

South Bronx Churches and other IAF affiliates around the country 

followed EBC’s example. The first phase of South Bronx Churches 

Nehemiah included 224 single-family homes and 288 condominiums. Phase II, now entering the final land acquisition phase with 

the City of New York, includes about 350 additional units with 

single-family and two-family models. 

IAF affiliates in other communities have also built the required 

partnerships to acquire land, raise construction capital, and build 

affordable new houses. To date, Nehemiah projects have been 

successfully completed in Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; Los Angeles, California; Sonoma County, California; 

and Memphis, Tennessee. The model can be adapted wherever 

there is a broad-based citizens organi-zation with the power, 

determination, and relationships to raise no-interest construction 

capital and fight for land on which to build. 

Contact: 

Dr. Lee Stuart 

South Bronx Churches Nehemiah Homes 

230 Alexander Avenue 

Bronx, NY 10454 

Phone: 718–402–3676 

Fax: 718–402–1807 

The South Bronx 

Churches successes 

include: 

■ Providing 512 new homes on 

land that was vacant rubble 

for 20 years. 

■ Repopulating an abandoned 

portion of the South Bronx. 

■ Transforming the Nehemiah 

neighborhood into a nearly 

drug-free zone. 

■ Creating new forms of 

construction capital. 

■ Creating a new public high 

school, sponsored by South 

Bronx Churches. 

■ Focusing on neighborhood 

development, not just 

housing development. 
Take Back The Park 

■	 Citizens Committee for New York City, Inc. 

N ew York, New Yor k 

85 

Take Back The Park is a summer-long, youth-run project that 

helps inner-city neighborhoods reclaim crime-ridden parks for 

recreational and community uses. By creating a process in which 

neighborhood residents work together to meet local needs, 

Take Back The Park has begun to chip away at the feeling of 

dependence on external forces to solve community problems. 

The program works to replace these negative attitudes with a 

new awareness of available resources and a sense of local 

empowerment. 

Background 

Many inner-city neighborhoods face a shortage of recreational 

space and activities for young people. During the mid-1980’s, 

this trend was exacerbated in many urban neighborhoods by 

increases in crime and drug dealing in public parks, which made 

the parks unusable by neighborhood residents. 

With support from the Citizens Committee for New York City, a 

nonprofit organization established to support and strengthen 

local volunteer efforts, Take Back The Park addresses the lack 

of usable urban recreational space for youth and their neighborhoods. The program began in 1987 when 25 young people from 

neighborhood housing projects and local welfare hotels initiated 

programs in 3 parks in New York’s Chelsea area—also known 

as Hell’s Kitchen—to provide positive recreational, cultural, and 

educational activities for young people. 

Since then, the project has relied on young volunteers who 

receive valuable training and experience through their 

participation. 

Approach 

Every summer, Take Back The Park targets a number of New 

York City neighborhoods to reclaim local parks that have been 

taken over by drug dealing, vandalism, and substance abuse. 

The program mobilizes and trains a range of partners, including 

youth representatives, the police department, parks department 
86 

Youth organizers 

learn how to 

reach out and 

create a peer 

support group 

based on the 

mutual discovery 

and use of 

personal 

strengths. 

personnel, community leaders, and 

representatives from tenants associations and community boards, to take 

an active role in the collaborative 

planning process. 

Each year the Citizens Committee 

recruits 25 “at-risk” youth between the 

ages of 14 and 25 to participate as 

program organizers. Youth organizers 

work on all aspects of designing and 

implementing program activities, 

including sports tournaments, concerts, and issues forums. They 

receive 25 hours of leadership and 

community organizing training on 

program planning, outreach, community problem solving, and strategies for addressing drug trafficking 

and substance abuse. Trained youth 

organizers conduct a needs assessment survey in the targeted community to determine what types of 

changes or programs neighborhood 

residents desire. Once youth organizers have established a network with the police, parks and recreation 

departments, community-based agencies, tenants associations, 

and community boards, each Take Back The Park project creates 

a 6-week calendar of events detailing daily activities, such as 

sports, movies, concerts, gardening, arts and crafts activities, 

and educational forums. 

The reliance on youth leadership is a unique feature of the program 

that fosters the sense of intergenerational ownership. By training 

young people from local communities and placing them in leadership roles, the program acknowledges the skills, perspectives, and 

voices that young people can bring to community problem solving. 

The program challenges a contemporary urban reality—fear of 

inner-city youth by the community. Because many of the youth 

leaders are or have been considered at-risk (high school dropouts, 

former substance abusers, and children who have experienced 

family homelessness or substance abuse), Take Back The Park 

also helps to “take back” young people. 

Funding for the program comes from a variety of public and private 

sources. A large portion of program funds come from the city and 

the State, including the State Office of Substance and Alcohol 

Abuse and the New York City Department of Parks. To offset the 
effect of city and State budget cuts, the Citizens Committee has 

secured increased grant funding from several private charitable 

foundations. 

Impact 

Through organizing and implementing community activities in 

neighborhood parks, Take Back The Park also helps young people 

identify and draw on their personal and peer resources. Youth 

organizers learn how to reach out and create a peer support group 

based on the mutual discovery and use of personal strengths.Young 

people learn how to access external resources in their communities, 

including churches, nonprofit organizations, city agencies, community boards, the police department, local merchants, schools, and 

concerned individuals. Working cooperatively with law enforcement 

agencies to ensure the safety of Take Back The Park events has led 

to attitudinal changes about police among program participants. 

By developing organizational skills and a knowledge of community 

resources, young participants come away with a new understanding 

of the interconnectedness of the urban fabric and a heightened 

sense of their own potential. With community organizing skills 

learned from the program, many former Take Back The Park participants have chosen careers in human services. Today, one former 

youth organizer is an Assistant Director for Youth Unlimited while 

another is Director of the Neighborhood Youth Leadership Center. 

Since 1987, 15 of some of New York City’s most distressed neighborhoods, including Chelsea, Harlem, Bushwick, Fort Greene, and 

Washington Heights, have reclaimed parks and playgrounds from 

violence, crime, and drugs. More than 22,000 people, approximately 

1,500 people per neighborhood, have participated in Take Back The 

Park summer programs, and more than 160 young adults have 

received valuable experience through their critical leadership roles 

as youth organizers. 

Scaling Up 

Take Back The Park is transferred to new participating neighborhoods each summer. Communities, inspired by the project’s training 

and technical assistance, continue to collaborate and plan programs 

addressing other community issues. 

Take Back The Park is clearly an important model that is easily 

replicated in any city or community that possesses the interest and 

energy to restore harmony in their public spaces and will lend their 

young people the support and credibility to prove themselves as 

leaders. 

Take Back 

The Park also 

helps to ❝ take 

back❞ young 

people. 

87 
By training young 

people from local 

communities and 

placing them in 

leadership roles, 

the program 

acknowledges 

the skills, 

perspectives, and 

voices that young 

people can bring 

to community 

problem solving. 

Since its creation in 1987, 

Take Back The Park has: 

■	 Reclaimed more than 15 parks plagued by crime, vandalism, 

and drugs in some of New York City’s most distressed areas. 

■ Reached more than 22,000 people through its programs. 

■	 Provided 160 disadvantaged, primarily minority youth with 

advanced leadership training. 

Contact: 

Mr. Michael E. Clark


Citizens Committee for New York City, Inc.


305 Seventh Avenue, 15th Floor


New York, NY 10001


Phone: 212–989–0909


Fax: 212–989–0983


88 
Tent City 

■	 Tent City Cor por ation 

Boston, Massachusetts 

89 

Located in the heart of downtown Boston, Tent City is a unique 

mixed-use development that includes 269 units of mixed-income 

housing, 5 stores, a day care center and after school program, 

and a community room. It is an integrated community of people 

who live together as a vital part of their immediate neighborhood 

and their broader community. Tent City is the realization of a 

vision that people of all races and incomes can and should be 

able to live together in socially and physically integrated housing. 

Tent City today stands as a testimony to a vision that took 20 

years to turn from ideals into bricks and mortar, but one that sets 

a precedent for the continued social and physical integration of a 

diverse neighborhood. The success of Tent City has the power to 

show other communities that living together in a diverse neighborhood can truly bring harmony to the community and to a city. 

Background 

The vision of Tent City was born in a demonstration on April 28, 

1968, following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 

when a group of community activists occupied a large parking lot 

site and amassed tents into a “tent city” as a way to protest the 

demolition of older housing carried out under the city’s urban 

renewal policies. The site had been cleared for a parking lot for 

nearby commercial development. The demonstrators demanded 

its replacement with affordable, mixed-income, racially and 

ethnically integrated neighborhood housing. 

The first demonstrations were followed by the 1974 formation of 

a Tent City Task Force, which successfully halted an 18-story 

luxury apartment tower. Yet, renewed development interest in the 

site continued. In 1978, when Urban Investment and Development Corporation (UIDC), a private developer, proposed Copley 

Place—a large commercial development with offices, hotels, and 

retail space—it was clear that the economic pressure against the 

development of affordable housing was mounting. After many 

years of attempting to get private developers to accept the vision 

of an integrated community, and trying to force the city of Boston 

to support the needs of all of its citizens, it became apparent that 
90 

Because of 

the success of Tent 

City, the principles 

of mixed-income, 

integrated 

development of high 

quality design have 

become the 

standard for all 

new construction 

in the South End 

urban renewal 

area. 

the best way of ensuring the success of the development of affordable housing was for the residents to incorporate as a local nonprofit community development corporation, the Tent City Corporation 

(TCC), and become the developer themselves. 

Approach 

In 1984 incoming Mayor Raymond Flynn announced his support 

for the development of affordable housing at a hearing in Boston’s 

South End. This support paved the way for progress on the Tent City 

development. His political agenda laid the groundwork for successful negotiations between UIDC and TCC, which in the beginning 

had obviously competing goals. 

Subsequently, TCC forged important partnerships among different 

lenders, government agencies, private investors, and charitable 

foundations to finance the development. TCC was assisted in the 

project development by The Community Builders, a Boston-based, 

nonprofit corporation that acted as development consultant with 

responsibility for assembling financing and managing the development team and property. 

In an innovative approach, UIDC traded the surface and air rights 

on its land for the right to build a garage beneath the entire 3.3-acre 

site. To facilitate this compromise, Boston Redevelopment Agency 

(BRA) assigned two parallel 99-year leases, the subsurface to UIDC 

and surface and air rights to TCC. As a testament to the vision of 

racial and economic inclusion and grassroots control of development, Tent City has been in full scale operation since 1988. 

Tent City has one of the most innovative and complex financial 

structures of any mixed-income housing in Massachusetts. In total, 

13 different sources were woven together to support the $36 million 

project. Seed money for the 

project was raised from eight 

different lenders. Development costs were funded 

through such varied sources 

as the Massachusetts 

Housing Finance Agency, 

grant funds from BRA, UIDC 

itself, and equity syndication 

funds. Continuing rental 

assistance comes from the 

State Housing Assistance 

for Rental Production Program and Neighborhood 
Development Funds, whose source is the repayment to the city of 

the UDAG loan for Copley Place. 

Impact 

The most immediate and tangible result of the community-initiated 

and controlled process that created Tent City is the 269 units of new 

affordable housing. This housing was developed at a time when the 

displacement of low- and moderate-income residents of the South 

End due to gentrification was rapidly accelerating. Because of the 

success of Tent City, the principles of mixed-income, integrated 

development have become the standard for all new construction 

in the South End urban renewal area. Tent City has demonstrated 

that integration works. 

Furthermore, Tent City has demonstrated that high-quality design 

is achievable in affordable housing. The standards of quality exhibited at Tent City have given affordable housing in Boston a new 

benchmark that is broadly supported and replicated both in the 

South End and across the city. From the perspectives of the individual residents, quality design supports a strong sense of ownership by providing a sense of “personal turf.” The project also includes a mechanism for conversion to cooperative ownership by 

the year 2003. 

Tent City’s success demonstrates that dedicated individuals and 

community groups, through their determination and perseverance, 

can bring about change in their immediate neighborhood, as well 

as in the public policies of the community at large. 

Scaling Up 

The program for Tent City is a successful attempt to break away 

from the stigma of publicly assisted housing that often results from 

skeletal budgets and minimum standards for low-income housing. 

Tent City has created an environment that is desirable for all income 

groups. Its admirable design manages to make sense both economically and aesthetically and adds to the city’s body of excellent 

architecture. 

On a local level, innovations for Tent City have been successfully 

adapted for Langham Court, a mixed-income cooperative also 

located in the South End. Similar to Tent City, Langham Court is 

result of municipal involvement, community activism, architectural 

commitment, and complicated financing. The winning design in 

BRA’s Request For Proposal for the development was created by 

the same architectural firm responsible for the design of Tent City. 

❝ We are proud to 

be associated with 

Tent City, a living 

monument to our 

community’s 20-year 

struggle to realize 

a vision that people 

of all races and 

incomes can and 

should live together 

in socially and 

physically integrated 

housing, and a vital 

precedent for the 

preservation of 

diversity in the 

South End.❞ 

David Price, 

Executive Director 

91 
Tent City’s success demonstrates that: 

■	 Dedicated individuals and community groups, through their 

determination and perseverance, can bring about change in 

their immediate neighborhood, as well as in the public policies 

of the community at large. 

■	 Residential development can succeed if there is advocacy and 

support at all levels of government. 

■	 Social and economic integration, coupled with quality design, 

is possible and workable. 

The struggle to build Tent City helped to change the city of Boston’s 

housing policies. Tent City’s innovation serves as a useful model for 

communities beyond Boston. Tent City stands today as a testimony 

that grassroots activism can bring to life complex partnerships 

based upon an inclusionary vision of how our communities 

should be. 

The innovations of Tent City have been recognized with two 

major awards: 

■	 The Urban Land Institute presented Tent City with its 1990 

Special Award, which “recognizes development projects in 

the United States and Canada that exemplify superior design, 

relevance to contemporary issues and needs, and resourceful 

utilization of land, while improving the quality of the living 

environment.” 

■	 A representative of Tent City traveled to Curitiba, Brazil, to 

receive the 1994 World Habitat Award from the England-based 

Building and Social Housing Foundation. 

Contact: 

Mr. David Price, Executive Director


Tent City Corporation


434 Massachusetts Avenue


Boston, MA 02118


Phone: 617–262–4103


Fax: 617–262–8713


92 
Transforming 

Neighborhoods Together 

■	 Center for Neighborhood Development 

Knoxville, Tennessee 

93 

Transforming Neighborhoods Together (TNT) is a comprehensive, 

resident-led neighborhood planning program that seeks to overcome problems of crime, unemployment, and housing and 

commercial deterioration in Knoxville, Tennessee. The program 

assists leaders in low-income areas to create visions of their 

neighborhoods’ future that represent the hopes and aspirations 

of the citizens of the neighborhood. It helps them develop the 

skills, networks of contacts, and strategies that enable residents 

to work together to make that vision real. To date, this relatively 

new program has affected more than 14,000 individuals living in 

6 low-income, inner-city neighborhoods. 

Background 

Urban planning has long been the domain of professional planners working for government agencies. As a result, the level of 

citizen participation varies with the political climate and viewpoint 

of the agency. Top-down, professional plans are also less likely to 

include strategic plans for implementation and are rarely detailed 

enough to take into account small area and neighborhood concerns. These plans also do not generally address factors such 

as business creation, neighborhood blight, or increasing poverty 

and crime. 

TNT, a program of the nonprofit Center for Neighborhood 

Development (CND), brings planning to the neighborhood level. 

Created by the Partnership for Neighborhood Improvement— 

an important citywide coalition of neighborhoods, lenders, public 

agencies, and other public and private businesses—CND contracted with the East Tennessee Community Design Center, a 

highly respected technical assistance provider, to help develop 

the TNT concept and training manual. The TNT program has 

five main goals: 

■ To create an active, informed group of neighborhood leaders 

who are committed to developing a long-term vision for their 

neighborhoods. 

■ To establish a process for achieving resident input and 

consensus. 
94 

Residents decide 

what changes they 

want and negotiate 

for resources and 

improvements. 

■ To develop and organize a comprehensive body of knowledge 

about the neighborhoods. 

■ To study the neighborhoods parcel by parcel and develop 

long-term, written policies for neighborhood development. 

■ To develop written action plans with goals and strategies for 

achieving desired results. 

Approach 

Transforming Neighborhoods Together shifts the 

traditional urban planning 

process from a largely 

technical endeavor led by 

city agencies to a visionand values-driven process 

led by the neighborhood. 

TNT has helped Knoxville 

neighborhoods organize 

themselves, decide what 

changes they want, and 

negotiate for improvements and resources. The 

program does this without sacrificing technical quality by using the 

oversight of a city planner on the CND staff. 

TNT uses public participation, neighborhood committees, and 

nonprofessional neighborhood-resident planners to address innercity decline. CND staff guide the neighborhoods through a set 

program with a timeline and general parameters concerning subjects to explore (see photo above). Neighborhoods, however, are 

free to reject or add issues to fit their individual circumstances. 

CND then facilitates monthly skill-building workshops for neighborhood team members that also provide a place to network and share 

findings and concerns. The workshops teach skills such as data 

collection, community assessment, and the writing of action plans. 

Neighborhood team meetings, held on a monthly or biweekly basis, 

allow participants to report on their activities and to talk about future 

tasks. The neighborhood teams periodically hold public meetings 

to collect input from residents who are not otherwise involved in 

the program. These meetings are used to brainstorm about neighborhood problems and strengths, gather ideas for improvements, 

and inform residents about current TNT activities. 

The neighborhood planning teams select a neighborhood planner 

from among interested residents, paying a small stipend provided 

through the Neighborhoods Small Grants Program. These funds are 
available to any neighborhood that is eligible for Federal Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. The nonprofessional 

neighborhood planners are residents who gather, analyze, and 

map neighborhood data; prepare and facilitate meetings; and write 

neighborhood plans. 

Since the initiation of TNT, two important developments have occurred. First, after making a full evaluation of the process and 

products of the first three TNT neighborhood plans, CND made 

significant improvements in the process. Second, CND successfully 

negotiated with the Knoxville Department of Community Development to obtain Neighborhood Strategy Area designation for neighborhoods that complete the TNT planning process. Designation as 

a Neighborhood Strategy Area assures a neighborhood that a city 

staff person is available to work with residents and ensure priority 

consideration for public improvements. This designation also provides rehabilitation assistance and small grants for implementation. 

Impact 

In its 3 years of existence, TNT has helped residents in six different 

low-income inner-city neighborhoods in Knoxville. The program 

has given 14 neighborhood leaders experience as paraprofessional 

planners and brought them into direct working relationships with key 

staff members of the city’s Department of Community Development, 

Police Department, and Metropolitan Planning Commission. An 

additional 60 to 70 people have been active participants in the 

planning process as members of working teams. More than 15,000 

residents of low-income neighborhoods will benefit by improved 

prospects for neighborhood stability and enhancement. 

The program has also facilitated improved communication within 

and across neighborhood boundaries. One neighborhood has 

started a bimonthly newsletter; neighborhood activists are talking 

more to each other; and communication among neighborhoods is 

more frequent, direct, and constructive. The number of crime-watch 

groups has increased by three or more, and more residents are 

willing to involve themselves in crime reporting and prevention. 

Improvements to four neighborhood parks are underway; three 

of the parks will be remodeled and the fourth expanded. 

The housing picture is also showing improvement. The city has 

stepped up demolition of dilapidated and unsafe structures, demolishing 1 house and placing at least 11 others on the priority 

list for demolition. As many as 20 houses have been identified for 

rehabilitation and sale to owner-occupants. Neighborhood organizations are currently acquiring properties and identifying developers, financial resources, prospective owners, and other resource 

❝ It was a real 

eye-opener for us. 

We didn’t realize 

we had so many 

resources and that 

has helped us 

realize we have a 

neighborhood worth 

saving. Plus, the 

more we’ve worked 

together, the 

stronger we’ve 

become.❞ 

Veste Hudson, 

Parkridge Community 

Association TNT Planner 

95 
96 

Through the Transforming Neighborhoods 

Together program, Knoxville has: 

■ Helped more than 15,000 residents of low-income 

neighborhoods benefit from increased neighborhood stability and enhancement. 

■ Helped residents in six low-income neighborhoods 

become involved in the planning process for their 

neighborhoods. 

■ Given 14 neighborhood leaders experience as 

paraprofessional planners. 

■ Made decisions to demolish at least 11 dilapidated 

and unsafe houses and rehabilitate 20 houses for 

resale to owner-occupants. 

■ Initiated improvements to four inner-city parks. 

providers. In addition, eight 

new houses are scheduled 

for construction by nonprofit 

organizations. 

Scaling Up 

The potential for other cities to 

repeat the success of TNT is 

high. Many cities already have 

existing citywide coalitions of 

neighborhood-based groups, 

and many city agencies are 

interested in ways to improve 

relations with and services to 

low-income neighborhoods. 

Programs such as TNT build a 

foundation of skills that promote 

neighborhood values and empowerment that lead to long-term 

community changes. Incorporating the input of low-income citizens 

in the planning process has tremendous potential to make the 

public practice of urban planning more sensitive and relevant 

to the lives of inner-city residents throughout the Nation. 

The TNT program is a model that other cities and towns can modify 

to meet their unique needs and concerns. But professional planners 

involved in this type of process must be able to exercise the restraint 

necessary to make this truly the neighborhood’s program. This may 

involve some painful situations as the neighborhood learns from 

experience what will work and what won’t. Clear recognition of the 

value of “ownership” is a vital ingredient—grassroots organizations 

are more likely to fight for improvements that they themselves 

identify and articulate. 

Contact: 

Ms. Susan Moriarty 

Center for Neighborhood Development 

220 Carrick Street, Suite 312 

Knoxville, TN 37921 

Phone: 423–522–5935 

Fax: 423–522–5085 
The Winds of Change: 

Meeting the Needs of Rural 

Resort Latinos 

■	 Asistencia para Latinos 

Glenwood Spr ings, Colorado 

97 

In the Roaring Fork Valley of Colorado, The Winds of Change 

program advocates a new image of their Latino community, 

removes the label of “burden,” and replaces it with the concept 

that the Latino community is an untapped market and resource. 

Program goals are achieved by assisting new businesses and by 

educating nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, and 

Anglo citizens on the assets and needs of Latinos. The Winds of 

Change promotes equity in service provision, increases a sense 

of pride in the Latino population, devises ways to develop mutual 

respect, and assists the Latino and Anglo communities to recognize the economic and social power of the Latino population. 

Background 

Glenwood Springs, near Aspen, Colorado, is known for its 

majestic mountains, world-class skiing, summer music festivals, 

outdoor adventures, spiritual seeking, and arts and crafts. This 

resort town projects an image of affluence, lavish vacation 

homes, luxurious hotels, and exciting recreation. 

To provide this luxury, however, resort areas like Glenwood 

Springs rely on the labors of thousands of service workers— 

positions that increasingly have been filled by Latinos. Although 

Roaring Fork Valley had only 500 Latino-speaking residents in 

1989, almost 12,000 first-generation Spanish-speaking immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Belize, and other Latin American countries lived there by 1995. Although new immigrants 

are drawn by wages that are much higher than those in their 

home countries, they are low in terms of the cost of living in the 

United States. Low incomes and discrimination make it difficult 

for Latino immigrants to find affordable housing, especially in 

upscale resort communities. Therefore, most Latinos live in rural 

areas outside of where they work. Some have daily commutes 

as long as 90 miles. 

Having a sizable Latino community is relatively new in Colorado’s resort areas, and language and cultural barriers still tend 

to isolate Latinos from social services and full participation in 
98 

The private 

sector, most 

notably banking, is 

directing efforts 

toward Latino 

economic 

development. 

community life. This new diversity challenges both the new residents 

and the existing community. Most businesses, services, and government agencies had not yet developed the capability to operate 

bilingually. The Latino immigrants face many challenges, including: 

■ Language and communication barriers leading to social 

isolation. 

■ High rates of social and health problems, including domestic 

violence, substance abuse, and AIDS. 

■ Difficulties in comprehending U.S. laws and the legal system. 

■ The need to function within mainstream society while retaining 

cultural identity. 

■ Recognizing when a situation requires mental health care 

and locating appropriate treatment. 

■ Dealing with the frustrations of low income. 

■ Lack of familiarity with U.S. values and cultural traditions. 

Approach 

Asistencia para Latinos is a private nonprofit corporation whose 

mission is to empower the Latino community of Colorado’s Roaring 

Fork Valley to achieve self-sufficiency through service, education, 

advocacy, and interagency collaboration. The Winds of Change 

program was created in 1992 as a bridge to span the cultural 

distance in the 100-mile-long Roaring Fork Valley. It now operates 

in five counties. 

The Winds of Change is best known by residents and visitors for 

the annual “Latin American Festival in the Mountains” (see photo, 

left) that brings together the Latino 

and Anglo communities. More than 

6,000 persons attended the festival 

during the past 2 years. But The 

Winds of Change is much more 

than a festival. Their services, 

aimed at building capacity in the 

Latino community, concentrate on 

four areas: health and human 

services, education, business, and 

public safety/immigration. The 

program assists in communication 

and outreach by providing translation and interpretation services, and 

by producing a Spanish news page 

published in local newspapers. 
Caseworkers conduct substance abuse prevention programs and 

make presentations on cultural diversity for health care providers 

and educators.To help Latino persons access community services, 

information and referrals are provided to more than 300 clients per 

month. Finally, the program advocates for Latino needs in the work 

place, encourages mentoring and internships for Latino workers, 

mediates conflicts with businesses, and advocates for the hiring 

of bilingual personnel in key public positions. 

Two years ago, Asistencia para Latinos began to move away from 

the traditional approach of focusing on needs, deficiencies, and 

problems and took a new direction: discovering and making use 

of the Latino community’s capacities and assets. The program now 

facilitates interaction between the Latino population and the larger 

community while educating the Anglo community on the assets 

that Latinos bring to the area. Instead of writing grants for Latino 

projects, the program collects data on the Latino population and 

provides it to business, government, nonprofit organizations, and 

the media to help them realize the social and economic power of 

the local Latino community. 

The Winds of Change creates far-reaching institutional change in 

the Roaring Fork Valley by assisting agencies and individuals with 

diverse cultures and languages. The program brought together 

a coalition of 100 professionals, educators, law enforcement 

personnel, and Latino and Anglo community members to work 

on integration and issues affecting Latinos. 

Asistencia para Latinos insists that recipients help sustain the 

program that serves them by paying fees for service. Program 

organizers believe that this creates a sense of pride and ownership 

in Asistencia para Latinos and promotes the ethic of self-sufficiency. 

Impact 

Since Asistencia para Latinos’ The Winds of Change movement 

began in 1992, it has served more than 5,000 persons. It has 

improved the lives of Latino participants by increasing their capacity 

for economic advancement, while educating the Anglo community 

and motivating them to change. Because of Asistencia para Latinos’ 

persistence, every human service agency in Pitkin County now has 

a bilingual staff person. The program fosters mutual respect and 

cooperation between Latinos and Anglos—a recent partnership 

between law enforcement officers and Latino youth is just one 

example. 

The program’s emphasis on the Latino community as a market 

and resource has stimulated business interest. The private sector, 

most notably banking, is directing efforts toward Latino economic 

The Latino 

community is 

now taking more 

pride in itself. 

99 
100 

Since The Winds of Change program began in 1992: 

■ More than 5,000 persons received services. 

■ More than 6,000 persons attended the Latino Festival in the 

Mountains. 

■ Latinos opened 10 new businesses. 

■ An Anglo/Latino coalition of 100 professionals, educators, law 

enforcement personnel, and community members are working 

on issues affecting Latinos. 

■ Every human service agency in Pitkin County has a bilingual 

staff person. 

development. Ten 

new Latino-owned 

businesses have 

opened since the 

program started in 

1992. 

Perhaps the most 

important impact, 

however, is a growing 

sense of pride. The 

Latino population 

feels ownership of 

The Winds of Change 

activities. For instance, the Festival in the Mountains shared Latino 

cultures with the Anglo community. The first festival did not have a 

single Latino volunteer; it was as if the Latino community was not 

aware that it had anything to offer. The second year, half of the volunteers were Latino. One observer noted, “The Latino community is 

now taking more pride in itself instead of hiding out in the back of 

the restaurant.” 

Scaling Up 

Neighboring communities are asking for help to develop programs 

modeled on The Winds of Change, including Summit, Delta, Lake, 

and Durango Counties. Although the program has not been replicated elsewhere, it could be used in other communities with large 

influxes of Latinos. Nationally, Latinos comprise the fastest growing 

ethnic minority in the Nation; in the past 10 years this population 

has grown by 53 percent to 22.4 million persons. The Winds of 

Change concept also could be adapted in many parts of the United 

States or even in other countries with new immigrant populations. 

The Winds of Change has the potential to be transferable to any 

community struggling to enrich its native culture with an understanding and problem-solving approach to the issues of multiethnic 

communities. 

Contact: 

Ms. Jackie Morales, Executive Director 

1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 110 

Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 

Phone: 970–945–4060 

Fax: 970–945–4065 
The World/BRIDGE Initiative 

■	 BRIDGE Housing Cor por ation 

San Francisco, Califo r nia 

101 

The World/BRIDGE Initiative, a collaboration between World 

Savings and Loan and BRIDGE Housing Corporation, uses 

pension funds to finance affordable housing for low- and very 

low-income households. Through this program, two of the largest 

pension funds in the United States, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State 

Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS), agreed for the very 

first time to invest in construction loans for nonprofit affordable 

housing, much of it in distressed, inner-city minority neighborhoods. By late 1995 nearly 400 new homes were completed and 

available for sale or rent, and 600 more units were financed or 

under construction. 

Background 

BRIDGE Housing Corporation (BRIDGE) made it its business 

in 1993 to raise investment capital for construction of affordable 

housing in low-income areas of San Francisco, using public 

pension funds as its source. What seemed an impossible task 

at first—considering the traditional risk-adverseness of pension 

fund investors—has now grown into a $340 million revolving 

fund, financed largely by low-interest loans from the two largest 

pension funds in the United States and two banks. 

Before the World/BRIDGE Initiative, pension funds played no 

part in investment programs in very low-income communities. 

Frequently, only token investments are available in low-income 

areas, causing chronic and acute shortages of financial capital 

and a great waste of human potential. As a result, governments, 

philanthropic organizations, and a very limited number of 

private-sector organizations are left to bear the entire burden. 

The World/BRIDGE Initiative addresses the acute shortage of 

capital available for affordable housing construction financing, 

particularly in high poverty areas. Because few funding sources 

had the financial resources to consider such a large match, 

BRIDGE focused its efforts on pension funds. 
102 

What seemed 

an impossible task 

at first ... has now 

grown into a 

$340 million 

revolving fund. 

Approach 

The World/BRIDGE Initiative is the 

product of a collaboration that began 

in February 1993 between The World 

Savings and Loan Association, a 

private-sector financial institution, 

and BRIDGE, a nonprofit, tax-exempt 

homebuilder. Initially World Savings 

offered BRIDGE a $15 million interestfree loan for the creation of low-income 

housing throughout California if 

BRIDGE could obtain a matching 

commitment of at least $150 million. 

To make this offer a reality, BRIDGE tapped into the large sums of 

investment capital held in pension funds. 

After 14 months of diligent campaigning, officers of CalPERS and 

CalSTRS became convinced that loans for affordable housing were 

both profitable and low risk. The matching fund that resulted exceeded BRIDGE’s most optimistic expectations: CalPERS agreed 

to a $150 million match and CalSTRS agreed to $75 million in credit 

enhancements. In addition, The Bank of America and Wells Fargo 

Bank committed an additional $100 million, while the Ford Foundation joined the effort with $3.7 million in grants and concessionary 

loans at a 1-percent interest rate. 

This critically important undertaking demonstrated how the cooperative effort of diverse partners who share a mutual commitment to 

affordable housing can create a major community investment. The 

creative financial leadership of the initiative generated a construction loan funding pool and credit enhancements of $340 million, 

which provides for the development of thousands of affordable 

homes. All funds in the lending pool were originally available at an 

interest rate of one percentage point above the prime rate, and the 

financing structure has been carefully crafted to deliver the greatest 

number of affordable homes to families with the lowest possible 

income. 

Projects funded by the initiative are subject to local approval, 

which ensures local consideration of economic, social, and environmental concerns. The private and public partners make programmatic decisions in concert with local governments. Investments 

cross regional boundaries and address housing needs throughout 

California. 
Impact 

Recognizing the unusual significance of this innovation, Henry 

Cisneros, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, took part in the public announcement of the 

World/BRIDGE Initiative. Secretary Cisneros praised the initiative 

as “truly an historic innovation” and “a wonderful example of what 

is possible” in the field of subsidized housing. Additionally, U.S. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California added her support at the 

public announcement by proclaiming the World/BRIDGE Initiative 

an affordable housing “blockbuster.” 

So far, nearly 400 new homes capable of housing more than 1,000 

people are ready for sale and rental, and more than 600 units are 

being built or are about to start construction. Another 4,000 homes 

are planned for the next phase of construction, providing residences 

for more than 10,000 people. 

Several World/BRIDGE projects are currently underway across the 

State. These include the development of 34 townhouses as part of 

an inner-city project in the northern California city of Richmond; 

residential construction in Marin City, a very low-income, minority 

area in northern California’s generally wealthy Marin County; and 

the construction of 344 units in San Diego County. In both the 

Richmond and Marin City projects, BRIDGE has integrated the 

construction of new houses with more than 250,000 square feet of 

new commercial development, providing new businesses, economic 

development opportunities, and more than 800 newly created 

permanent jobs. Large supermarkets were built in both communities, which previously had access to only convenience or liquor 

stores for virtually all of their grocery shopping. In addition, both 

projects provide major public facilities, including police stations, 

child care centers, libraries, inter-city bus terminals, senior care 

centers, churches, and a series of parks and roadways. 

Scaling Up 

The commitment of pension funds with their enormous potential 

for worldwide investment represents a vast new source of prudent 

and productive capital that can be replicated on both a national 

and an international level. 

The significance of the World/BRIDGE Initiative as a blueprint for 

others to follow and build on cannot be overstated. The initiative has 

created a partnership among nonprofit developers; public pension 

funds; and traditional financing sources such as thrift institutions, 

banks, and charitable foundations. In doing so, the initiative has 

brought together a coalition that can be replicated across the United 

States and in other countries as a new solution to the persistent 

❝[T]ruly an historic 

innovation [and] a 

wonderful example 

of what is possible.❞ 

HUD Secretary 

Henry Cisneros 

103 
Through its innovative use of pension funds to


finance affordable housing, the


World/BRIDGE Initiative:


■	 Has generated a construction loan funding pool and credit 

enhancements of $340 million to finance thousands of affordable 

homes. 

■	 Has created nearly 400 new homes, with an additional 600 new 

homes currently being built or about to start construction. 

■	 Plans to construct more than 4,000 homes during its next phase 

of construction, providing housing to more than 10,000 people. 

■	 Is creating hundreds of permanent jobs and economic development opportunities in low-income communities throughout 

California. 

shortage of affordable housing. In addition, positive results from 

the initiative could lead pension funds to invest in the higher risk, 

but higher return, area of pre-development financing. 

The success of the World/BRIDGE Initiative has heightened the 

interest of leaders in many parts of the country and the world. 

Nelson Mandela has met with the president of BRIDGE to discuss 

utilizing South Africa’s substantial pension funds as a way to invest 

in that country’s critical need for affordable housing. The replicability 

of the initiative’s financing for low-income housing will largely be 

contingent on the willingness of nonprofit development organizations to work together to convince pension fund officials to invest 

in affordable housing. U.S. pension institutions hold an estimated 

$3 trillion that could potentially contribute to the Nation’s investment 

in affordable housing. In addition, the initiative could induce the 

leaders of other large pools of risk-adverse capital—including 

insurance company holdings and university endowments—to 

venture into investing in affordable housing. 

Contact: 

Ms. Carol Galante


BRIDGE Housing Corporation


One Hawthorne Street, Suite 400


San Francisco, CA 94105


Phone: 415–989–1111


Fax: 415–494–4898


104 
Yard Waste Recycling Project 

■	 City of Lindsborg 

Lindsborg, Kansas 

105 

In Lindsborg—a town of 3,300 that lies along the Smoky Hill 

River on the prairies of central Kansas—yard waste that just 4 

years ago was burned or buried in the landfill is now shredded 

and composted to create a large supply of finished compost and 

mulch for public parks, tree stations, and homeowners. Lindsborg 

began its Yard Waste Recycling Project in 1991 out of a sense of 

environmental stewardship. Since then, stiffening environmental 

regulations that protect ground water, soil, and air have caused 

Kansas to close two-thirds of its landfills and, increasingly, to ban 

yard wastes from those remaining landfill sites. These factors 

have raised interest in the Lindsborg model in the State of 

Kansas and beyond. 

Background 

With its innovative Yard Waste Recycling Project, the small 

Kansas city of Lindsborg is addressing an issue that many 

communities recognize as an impending crisis: the disposal of 

solid waste. Household yard wastes—grass clippings, leaves, 

and dead wood—make up one-fifth of a community’s solid waste 

stream. In the past, yard waste has gone into the landfill or was 

burned, a practice not only wasteful but unsustainable. 

Lindsborg’s Yard Waste Recycling Project began August 6, 1991, 

as the Kansas Department of Health and Environment issued 

the town an experimental composting permit. The project, under 

the leadership of Project Director Wes Adell, had the support 

and encouragement of other civic leaders, including Mayor Don 

Anderson and the city council. Some experts believe that a small 

community cannot run a cost-effective yard waste program— 

that labor costs are too high and that the market value of the 

finished products is too low. Lindsborg did not accept this conventional wisdom. Instead, the city chose to take a proactive 

approach to reduce the amount of waste going into its landfill 

and, at the same time, produce usable products that benefit 

the environment. 
106 

❝ A community 

can create a lot of 

end-use value with 

a little creativity and 

effort. In the 

beginning, there 

was a little spark. 

Now, there’s a 

fire going.❞ 

Project Director 

Wes Adell 

Approach 

“A community can create a lot of end-use value with a little creativity 

and effort,” commented Project Director Wes Adell. “In the beginning, there was a little spark. Now, there’s a fire going.” The community responded enthusiastically to the recycling idea. The first 

year, volunteers brought 250 tons of grass clippings, leaves, and 

small yard waste to the new composting site near town, where they 

were mixed all winter by a city compost turning machine (see photo 

below). In the spring, the Lindsborg Parks Department and the Tree 

Board used 10 tons of compost in the two town parks and in the 

downtown area, and then issued an open invitation to the community. Over the next few days, a city vehicle loaded the remaining 35 

tons of compost into 107 pickups and trucks, headed for community 

gardens all over the Lindsborg area. 

The Yard Waste Recycling Project has taken shape as the means 

through which one small midwestern community expresses and 

nurtures a strong commitment to environmental stewardship. The 

project relies on citizen involvement, volunteers, and an extensive 

network of partnerships, working across jurisdictional boundaries 

with State and local governments, schools, and civic groups. 

The project is strictly voluntary—facilitated by, rather than run by, 

local government. No mandate was given to create it. The project 

started because the people of Lindsborg felt it was the right thing 

to do, and it runs on cooperation and goodwill. Since its inception, 

the sense of stewardship expressed in the project has received 

steady media support from the local newspaper, the Lindsborg 

News-Record. Supported through a network of partnerships, 

volunteer efforts, and citizen participation, the project vigorously 

pursues outreach educational activities and puts on a regional 

“Composting Works!” conference. 

In the beginning, 

there was no 

charge for the 

service. The 

project held down 

costs from its 

implementation, 

with only about 

$10,000 in labor 

costs in the first 

year. The city 

government 

invested $20,000 

to purchase a 
chipper/shredder; then after 2 years, each household was charged 

$1 per month for the purchase of a large $180,000 commercial 

wood chipper/shredder that is shared by all communities in the 

county. The bottom line, however, is that everyone directly benefits. 

The city uses finished compost and wood chip mulch for the tree 

station, city flowerbeds, and landscaping. Citizens receive compost 

and mulch at no cost. 

The Lindsborg model balances environmental, economic, and 

social concerns. The people of Lindsborg had an environmental 

concern about the treatment of yard waste and had to find an 

economically feasible way to address that concern. Volunteers 

provided the solution. Widespread volunteer participation, in turn, 

strengthened the social fabric of the community. 

Impact 

The Yard Waste Recycling Project has had considerable impact. It 

is estimated that the program recycles more than 60 percent of the 

town’s yard waste and prevents 1,200 tons of solid waste per year 

from reaching the landfill. Residents of Lindsborg receive direct 

benefit from the program, in public spaces and their own homes. 

The project has spurred a communitywide volunteer effort and 

involvement, including elementary, secondary, and college-age 

youth. The compost and mulch are both used to grow 30,000 young 

tree seedlings a year to beautify Lindsborg and the entire State of 

Kansas. 

In 1994, as a direct result of the Yard Waste Recycling Project, the 

National Tree Trust chose environmentally conscious Lindsborg 

as a site for a Regional Tree Growing-Out Station, a designation 

generally awarded to much larger cities such as Dallas, Texas; 

Baltimore, Maryland; or Seattle, Washington. Working in partnership 

with Lindsborg, the Trust is providing site development, seedlings, 

and growing materials. Lindsborg is providing the 5-acre site, water, 

and electricity for the Trust-funded irrigation system, which is necessary in this drought-prone region. In keeping with the Lindsborg 

approach, community volunteers are planting the seedlings, and 

products from the Yard Waste Recycling Project will mulch them. 

The facility will soon be sending out 30,000 to 50,000 sapling trees 

each year. Lindsborg will distribute 20 percent of these locally, and 

the Kansas Urban Forestry Council, another partner in the effort, 

will distribute the remaining 80 percent of the saplings across 

Kansas. 

As its most basic effect, however, the Yard Waste Recycling Project 

has raised public awareness of the tangible, everyday benefits to 

a community that result from environmentally conscious behavior. 

❝ This is the 

first project in the 

Nation, that I 

know about, 

that combines 

composting and 

waste wood 

utilization with 

tree planting, 

then provides a 

unique educational 

conference to 

encourage others 

to practice 

environmental 

stewardship.❞ 

George Cates, 

Maj. Gen. USMC (Ret.), 

and Executive Director 

of the National Tree Trust, 

Washington, D.C. 

107 
108 

It has changed the behavior of a whole town, shifted old ways of 

thinking, and made a good end use out of previous trash. It has 

provided a forum for shared responsibility and sparked a growing 

vision for new environmental programs and improvements. 

The project has generated new interest in reducing waste and 

beautifying communities in the city of Lindsborg, throughout 

Kansas, and beyond State borders. 

Scaling Up 

From its beginnings, the Yard Waste Recycling Project emphasized 

public education activities. Lindsborg supplies information on 

composting and recycling through slide presentations, small group 

discussions, leaflet distribution at conferences, and other formats. 

The city has given yard waste recycling assistance to more than 80 

cities and countries, as well as 15 States and the Island of St. Lucia. 

The project has been the subject of stories in print and electronic 

media. Lindsborg received $10,000 in Solid Waste Utility planning 

funds to host a March 1995 conference—Composting Works!— 

which drew 221 people from 12 States. In 1996 the conference 

drew 300 attendees. 

Commented one conference attendee on the Lindsborg community 

recycling approach, “It’s something every community should be 

totally involved in—making something out of nature, which we’re 

losing. We’re losing our green spaces, 

our open spaces. There have got to 

be better ways to go about conserving our resources. Getting everyone 

involved in the world problem, the 

way they’re doing it here, is the best 

way to approach it.” Through the Yard 

Waste Recycling Project, Lindsborg 

has changed a problem into a resource and an opportunity. As a 

result, what began as a small 

community project has grown 

vastly in reputation and influence. 

Contact: 

Mr. Wes Adell, Project Director 

Yard Waste Recycling Project 

110 South Main, P.O. Box 69 

Lindsborg, KS 67456 

Phone: 913–227–2424 

Fax: 913–227–3740 

Through its Yard Waste Recycling 

Project, the city of Lindsborg: 

■ Diverted 20–25 percent of the solid waste 

stream away from the landfill. 

■ Worked with 37 partners, crossing sectors 

and traditional policy areas. 

■ Provided yard waste recycling assistance 

to more than 80 cities and countries, as 

well as 15 States and the Island of St. 

Lucia. 

■ Made major conference presentations in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Wichita, 

Kansas; Manhattan, Kansas; Omaha, 

Nebraska; and Spearfish, South Dakota. 

■ Hosted a major yard waste educational 

conference, with 221 attendees from 12 

States. 

■ Attracted a large tree-growing facility, 

which will provide at least 300,000 trees 

for planting in Kansas over the next 10 

years. 

❝ There have 

got to be better 

ways to go about 

conserving our 

resources. 

Getting everyone 

involved...the way 

they’re doing it 

here, is the best 

way to approach it.❞ 

Attendee, 1995 

Composting Works! 

Conference 
National Excellence 

Awards Finalists 

The following 28 finalists in the National Excellence Awards for 

The City Summit (Habitat II) represent some of the most innovative 

approaches for strengthening communities in the United States. 

The program summaries that follow provide a brief synopsis of 

each project’s departure from “business as usual” in addressing 

community challenges. 

Affordable Housing Program of the 

Federal Home Loan Bank System 

Federal Housing Finance Board


The Affordable Housing Program (AHP) encourages Federal


Home Loan Bank System member institutions to expand their


participation and support for efforts that increase the supply of


affordable housing by subsidizing the interest rate on loans. The


program provides a decentralized and flexible housing finance


program to help create affordable housing for very low-, low-, and


moderate-income households and for the elderly, handicapped,


and near-homeless. AHP loans and direct subsidies may be used


with other sources of public and/or private assistance programs.


After more than 5 years of operation, AHP commitments have


totaled $377.1 million toward financing 2,620 projects. More than


250,000 people have benefited from the program, which is


available in all 50 States and Commonwealths.


Federal Housing Finance Board


1777 F Street, NW.


Washington, DC 20006


Phone: 202–408–2890


Fax: 202–408–2947


Bronx Community Paper Company 

Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association 

The Bronx Community Paper Company seeks to reclaim an 

abandoned urban industrial site and create 1,000 jobs for local 

residents. This project uniquely links a grassroots community 

development organization with both private industry and a nationally 

recognized environmental advocacy group to develop an environmentally sound and technologically advanced paper manufacturing 

plant in the South Bronx. Banana Kelly spent nearly 2 years conducting community outreach and information dissemination on the 

project through public meetings and hearings. Onsite day care, job 

109 
training, and the sponsorship of six additional community


improvement projects are included in the up-front cost of the


plant’s construction to ensure community investment.


Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association


863 Prospect Avenue


Bronx, NY 10459


Phone: 718–328–1064


Fax: 718–991–3242


Central Cities Initiatives/Partnership Offices 

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)


Fannie Mae is a national business that purchases mortgages


from banks and mortgage companies and sells them as mort­


gage-backed securities on the stock market. In an effort to expand


services to inner cities, Fannie Mae sought to establish 25 Part­


nership Offices across the country and maintain 2 Central Cities


Initiatives.To date, 21 Offices are operational and respond to the


specific housing needs of their city, based on different needs,


partners, resources, capacity, and expectations. Local lending


activity in these cities has increased as a result of individualized


investment strategies, housing needs assessments, and develop­


ment of 5-year investment plans.The Chicago Partnership Office


alone has assisted in the purchase of more than 25,000 single-


family homes and the financing of more than 2,200 multifamily


rental units. Partnerships between Fannie Mae; government; and


local nonprofit organizations, foundations, and lending institutions


are a vital component of this program’s success.


Fannie Mae


3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW.


Washington, DC 20016


Phone: 202–752–6576


Fax: 202–752–4230


Classic Community Centers 

New York City Housing Authority 

Classic Community Centers (CCC) improve the lives of New York 

City public housing residents by improving and transforming their 

housing and living environments. The CCCs are located in each of 

the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Districts and offer 

safe, secure areas for residents to participate in programs on 

computer literacy, general education, English as a second language, 

job readiness, and parenting skills, as well as cultural activities, 

scouting, and sports programs. During the first 6 months of 1995, 

110 
total CCC participation was 36,612 residents. Security is provided


by the NYCHA Operation Safe Home program, which partners


police, residents, and building management in an effort to clear out


criminal activity in the public housing area. A total of 311 foot patrols


and 14,000 resident volunteers across the city are collectively acting


as a deterrent to crime. CCC’s comprehensive support package has


revitalized the public housing environment.


New York City Housing Authority


250 Broadway


New York, NY 10007


Phone: 212–306–3416


Fax: 212–306–8888


Community Economic/Housing 

Revitalization Project 

Southeast Raleigh Community Development Corporation


The Southeast Raleigh Community Development Corporation


(SERCDC) adopted a comprehensive approach to revitalize its


target community of low- and moderate-income African-American


households. The project addresses the interrelated problems of


poverty, unemployment, lack of decent and affordable housing,


preservation of cultural identity, and racism through the political,


economic, physical, and social development of their clients. They


are currently constructing 72 moderate-income homes, training 30


school dropouts in construction trades, and helping 20 nonprofit


organizations and small businesses through their Small Business


Resource Center. The SERCDC, which works closely with two


historically black universities, is also sharing their ideas and


conducting training for like-minded organizations across the


State, Nation, and world. SERCDC is also establishing a


worldwide network for organizations to share expertise.


Southeast Raleigh Community Development Corporation


734 Rock Quarry Road


Raleigh, NC 27610


Phone: 919–834–8101


Fax: 919–834–7917


Community Partnerships 

Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake 

Salt Lake County’s Housing Authority is partnering with all types of 

agencies, companies, schools, and church groups to become an 

access point for community services. The Community Partnerships 

program integrates and incorporates public housing tenants into 

the life of the larger community.They provide tutoring to children, 

111 
housing to more than 50 homeless persons with severe mental


health and substance abuse problems, and “school” lunches to


600–700 children a day during the summer months. The Salt Lake


City Housing Authority also established a $25,000 fund to pay for


classes, exams, books, and fees for tenants to complete their high


school education. They are currently rehabilitating senior housing.


Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake


3595 South Main Street


Salt Lake City, UT 84115


Phone: 801–284–4403


Fax: 801–284–4406


Comprehensive Homeless 

Assistance Providers’ Taskforce 

Colorado Springs, Colorado


For 8 years, the Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Providers’


Taskforce has met monthly to coordinate assistance and related


support services for the homeless and near-homeless in Colorado


Springs. Partnerships formed among the local government; commu­


nity-based, advocacy, civic, and religious organizations; and the


public schools facilitate this process. Committees of interested


persons work together on a specific issue and draw from community


resources to accomplish their problem-solving goals. The program


has created group homes for people with mental illnesses, afford-


able housing facilities, and transitional housing for families.The


Taskforce also established a voice mail service for area homeless


to connect them with more opportunities.


Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Providers’ Task Force


30 South Nevada Avenue, Suite 302


Colorado Springs, CO 80903


Phone: 719–578–6912


Fax: 719–578–6543


Cougars Committed to the Community 

Shawnee, Kansas 

Students in Shawnee, Kansas, are providing underfunded city 

programs that serve the elderly, drug abusers, and needy children 

with a needed boost—their time. Prompted by the mayor, the local 

high school and the city formed a partnership to organize a community services program that has already reached thousands of 

people. This program has evolved into a special class offered during 

school hours for 35 students each semester. Students provide 

112 
general assistance at nursing homes, retirement centers, a non-


profit community services retail store, troubled youth centers, and


youth correctional centers. This program has also provided financial


assistance to two children in Central America.


Cougars Committed to the Community


11110 Johnson Drive


Shawnee, KS 66203


Phone: 913–631–2500


Fax: 913–631–7351


East St. Louis Action Research Project 

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and


Winstanley Industrial Park Neighborhood Organization


In this community reconstruction and development program, East


St. Louis residents plan and work together on projects that address


the virtual economic, social, and political collapse of their inner city.


Through the program’s grassroots, participatory process, 1,500


local university students have benefited from community service


experience. Other achievements include comprehensive plans for


five neighborhoods, designing and developing four neighborhood


parks, establishing a successful farmer’s market, improving or


rehabilitating several dozen homes, clearing vacant lots, and


forming citywide neighborhood-based advocacy coalitions.


East St. Louis Action Research Project


1003 West Nevada Avenue


Urbana, IL 61801


Phone: 217–244–5394


Fax: 217–244–1717


Eldertel 

Grace Hill Neighborhood Services 

Eldertel links senior citizens with youth to enhance the social framework of the St. Louis metropolitan area. Education and literacy for 

both the young and the elderly is the core of the program. Senior 

citizens who read and write with difficulty sharpen their literary 

skills, then go into the community to speak at schools, libraries, 

and community centers. Reaching 1,000 people a year since its 

inception in 1989, the program fosters community cooperation, 

civic spirit, and social and racial integration—youth realize that 

someone cares, and the seniors gain a sense of belonging. Key to 

the success of this innovation are the partnerships formed among 

the State government, the private sector, nonprofit organizations, 

academia, and the media. 

113 
Grace Hill Neighborhood Services


2600 Hadley


St. Louis, MO 63106


Phone: 314–241–2200


Fax: 314–241–8938


Family Self-Sufficiency Program 

San Antonio Housing Authority


Initiated in 1992, this comprehensive 5-year Family Self-Sufficiency


program reaches people whose families have relied on public


housing for generations. Participants receive individual assistance


from San Antonio Housing Authority (SAHA) staff to develop a plan


to move out of public housing and off public assistance. Twenty-two


organizations work in partnership to provide direct services to


participants and help them overcome barriers to self-sufficiency.


The services include transportation, child care, affordable housing,


employment, job skills training, money management, parenting


skills, domestic violence, and substance abuse. Program graduates


have an opportunity to gain entry-level employment at SAHA,


access to an emergency loan program, and receive a monthly


newsletter that provides information to both graduates and potential


participants. Since its inception, more than 100 individuals have


participated in the program. In addition, some program graduates


have gone on to college, and a few have become homeowners.


San Antonio Housing Authority


818 South Flores


San Antonio, TX 78204


Phone: 210–220–3259


Fax: 210–227–9307


Genesis Homes 

The H.E.L.P. Organization 

This organization’s innovative model of community revitalization 

has successfully integrated permanent low-income housing with 

comprehensive resources and services. The Genesis Homes 

complex houses 150 homeless and low-income families. It strengthens generations of children and adults by making previously unavailable resources and services such as day care, counseling, 

and education and medical services, available through its onsite 

community center. Partnerships and linkages with local and citywide 

service providers have made it possible to address the multiple 

challenges and concerns of Genesis Homes residents. 

114 
Genesis Homes


30 East 33rd Street, Ninth Floor


New York, NY 10016


Phone: 212–779–3350


Fax: 212–779–3353


Hilltop Neighborhood Development Program 

Tacoma, Washington


The Hilltop Neighborhood Development Program (HNDP) is a


variety of projects that form a comprehensive vision to area de­


velopment in Tacoma, Washington. Neighborhood residents and


outside partners from 18 community, public, and private organiza­


tions formed a consortium to give direction to this program, which


sought to construct new and rehabilitate low-cost housing as a first


crucial step to convince financiers to invest in this 250-block area.


HNDP’s ultimate goal was to achieve overall social, economic, and


environmental revitalization of the neighborhood. A wide range of


public agencies, private organizations, and individuals have worked


together to build or extensively renovate 238 units in the past 2


years and provide housing for 610 low-income children and adults


with incomes well below the city median. HNDP efforts have also


provided many with jobs; since January 1, 1995, 30 percent of new


hires on HNDP projects have been required to be Hilltop residents


or be employed by companies doing at least $100,000 worth of


business in the Hilltop area.


Hilltop Neighborhood Development Program


747 Market Street, Room 1200


Tacoma, WA 98402


Phone: 206–591–5567


Fax: 206–591–5123


Kutztown University EDGE Center Program 

Kutztown University 

Kutztown University in Pennsylvania established the EDGE Center 

to promote change in its community by teaching its students entrepreneurship.The Center addresses the interconnected problems of 

training minorities, women, and low-income entrepreneurs; creating 

international opportunity and commerce; and educating a new 

generation of business leaders. Although the minority population 

of the city is estimated to be nearly 50 percent, these groups had 

historically been underrepresented in the business community. 

Through a multitiered business assistance program, students 

and community volunteers work in the business center to help 

local entrepreneurs develop their business plans and conduct 

115 
international and domestic market research. The EDGE program,


a partnership among city and county governments, educational


institutions, local business leaders, and nonprofit organizations,


led to the expansion or start of more than 60 businesses.


Kutztown University EDGE Center Program


601 Penn Street


Reading, PA 19603–0253


Phone: 610–375–4220


Fax: 610–375–4229


The L.A. Housing Exchange 

L.A. Housing Exchange


Originally designed to provide housing information to people in­


fected with and or affected by HIV/AIDS, the Los Angeles Housing


Exchange (LAHE) now provides an array of services designed to


create a “department store” approach to providing easily accessible


housing information and referrals to individuals or families who are


homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. LAHE works with prop­


erty owners, managers, and supported-living programs to maintain


a current list of housing options. Its unique tracking system provides


current information on who is looking for housing, where housing is


being sought, what levels of care are being requested, and what


gaps in service may exist. LAHE has provided more than 7,600


housing lists to requesters since 1992.


Los Angeles Housing Exchange


P.O. Box 2778


Redondo Beach, CA 90278


Phone: 310–331–4544


Fax: 310–978–1334


Life in Jacksonville:


Quality Indicators for Progress


Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. 

Jacksonville citizens were the first in the Nation to develop indicators of the quality of life for their city and to monitor and measure 

that quality.This innovation developed a model that enhances the 

ability of citizens and public officials to assess local problems by 

monitoring, measuring, and reporting selected quality-of-life indicators. The citizens who developed the model, selected the indicators, 

set the targets, and established priorities were broadly representative of the Jacksonville community. The model addresses education, 

the economy, public safety, health, the natural and social environments, government/politics, recreation/culture, and mobility. Prior 

to this project, Jacksonville citizens were unable to determine 

116 
community progress on a comprehensive basis at a given point


in time. When annual data is released, citizens now develop part­


nerships and committees to tackle and improve documented


deficiencies.


Jacksonville Community Council, Inc.


2434 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 100


Jacksonville, FL 32207


Phone: 904–396–3052


Fax: 904–398–1469


Low-Income Co-Operative Housing 

Peoples Housing, Inc.


This urban initiative creates self-sustaining, self-managed, and


economically viable housing for the working poor through part­


nerships with community-based organizations and a community


development corporation. Its individual and community-level bene­


fits are many. By signing a conventional lease and paying a small


amount each month in addition to market-rate rents, residents gain


ownership of their dwellings. At the end of 3 years, residents receive


co-op shares and assume ownership. Twenty-two families have


secured safe, affordable housing and are involved in a series of


training programs on maintenance and repairs, tax preparation,


personal financial management, and cash-flow planning. Program


participants have learned from monthly meetings about the respon­


sibilities of cooperative ownership and about the business opera­


tions of a large building. At the community level, the stabilization


of a long-abandoned building has stimulated local real estate and


increased the number of stakeholders in the community.


Peoples Housing, Inc.


7510 North Ashland


Chicago, IL 60626


Phone: 312–262–5900, Ext. 109


Fax: 312–262–7033


Maya Angelou Project 

Housing Our Families 

Begun by a group of women who were concerned about the lack 

of affordable housing for women-headed households, this project 

involves tenants in the affairs of their housing complex and creates 

civic pride by enabling them to participate in efforts to invigorate 

their declining neighborhood. Fueled by partnerships between 

local and State governments and community and technical assistance organizations, the project renovated a problem-ridden 

housing complex and now provides 42 households with decent 

117 
and affordable housing. Residents, who are involved with maintenance and operational decisions, feel they are one large family 

with an obligation to share responsibility. The surrounding neighborhood has also benefited from this project—in the past 2 years, 

11 houses belonging to low-income or senior homeowners were 

painted and 20 other homes were repaired. In addition to initiating 

after-school programs for children, residents launched a successful 

neighborhood foot patrol program. 

Housing Our Families 

5315 North Vancouver 

Portland, OR 97217 

Phone: 503–335–0947 

Fax: 503–281–0933 

Milwaukee Community Service Corps’ Partnership 

Milwaukee Community Service Corps


This project targets the widespread problems of unemployment and


lack of job skills and experience among young people ages 18 to 23


residing in public housing. The innovation places participants in jobs


that lead to permanent, well-paying positions. A unique partnership


among the city of Milwaukee, local unions and general contractors,


the State and Federal Governments, and Wisconsin’s largest bank,


allows the Corps to bid competitively, obtain bonding, and secure


job guarantees from building trades contractors. In addition to


providing training and employment, the program offers participants


help in completing high school, securing day care, and obtaining


counseling that enhances their personal development and encour­


ages them to become active members of the community. Since


1993, 85 young public housing residents have been hired to work


on 21 different public housing developments across the city, which


has also resulted in a benefit to other public housing residents.


Milwaukee Community Service Corps


1150 East Brady Street


Milwaukee, WI 53211


Phone: 414–276–6272


Fax: 414–276–7330


Multi-Family Mortgage Enforcement Agreements 

Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition 

This groundbreaking initiative links community-based grassroots 

organizing to sophisticated financial and institutional analysis to 

restructure one of the Nation’s most important lending institutions. 

For 21 years the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition 

(NWBCCC) has worked to prevent housing abandonment and bring 

118 
about community reinvestment for the development of safe and


affordable housing. NWBCCC initiated an investigation by the U.S.


General Accounting Office, which determined that “inaccurate and


incomplete appraisals led to over financing and to uninformed


servicing leading to conditions that result in hazardous housing


violations and require emergency repairs and are severe enough


to threaten the health and safety of tenants in the buildings.” The


NWBCCC-led investigation changed the way buildings are evalu­


ated and financed, and viable mortgage rules were created that


have improved the living conditions in several hundred buildings in


the Bronx.


Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition


103 East 196th Street


Bronx, NY 10468


Phone: 718–584–0515


Fax: 718–733–6922


Neighborhood-Based Micro Entrepreneur 

Training and Loan Program 

Neighborhood Development Center, Inc.


By partnering with community-based development corporations in


low-income neighborhoods, the Neighborhood Development Center


(NDC) has designed a unique approach to micro-enterprise devel­


opment. NDC has contracts with 11 community development corpo­


rations to inform neighborhood residents of training programs via


newsletters, door-to-door flyers, and word-of-mouth. With the


assistance of a professional trainer, NDC provides instruction on


developing a business plan to groups of 7 to 10 neighbors. After


completing the 16-week training course, participants are eligible


to apply for a startup loan. To ensure the long-term viability of these


neighborhood-based businesses, participants receive ongoing


technical assistance and form support groups after startup. By


September 1995 NDC had trained more than 330 persons in 11


neighborhoods throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and


disbursed about 50 startup loans.


Neighborhood Development Center


651-1/2 University Avenue


St. Paul, MN 55104


Phone: 612–291–2480


Fax: 612–291–2597


119 
The Neighborhood Environmental 

Leadership Institute 

Citizens Committee for New York City, Inc.


The Neighborhood Environmental Leadership Institute trains


grassroots community activists on environmental issues and


effective participation in community affairs. Low-income, minority


communities often have the greatest concentration of environmental


problems. The Institute targets these communities and provides free


ongoing workshops and followup technical assistance to organize


inner-city community activists and make them more effective at


reversing environmental decline in their neighborhoods. Originally


intended to serve 100 people per year, the Institute has provided


training to more than 1,200 participants since opening in June 1993.


Support from local government, nonprofits, and the Federal Govern­


ment, as well as community organizations and a university, has


helped this program achieve its high level of success.


Citizens Committee for New York City, Inc.


305 Seventh Avenue, 15th Floor


New York, NY 10001


Phone: 212–989–0909


Fax: 212–989–0983


The Oregon Model of Community Visioning 

Oregon Visions Project Committee 

In an effort to break urban and regional planning out of a regulatory 

mode, this model uses community values to drive planning efforts. 

The program helps citizens anticipate and plan for change—not 

simply growth—in their communities and has formed partnerships 

with local jurisdictions, conducted workshops, and published technical reports.The program has also developed the guidebook A Guide 

to Community Visioning: Hands-On Information for Local Communities, which was distributed around the country and is the winner of 

the American Planning Association’s 1995 National Chapter 

Achievement Award. 

Oregon Visions Project 

Steven Ames Planning 

325 Southeast 14th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97214 

Phone: 503–235–3000 

Fax: 503–235–6000 

120 
Planning & Design Center 

Riverfront/Downtown Planning & Design Center


Individuals, private companies, community organizations, and


students gather at the Design Center to plan, design, learn, debate,


refine, explore, and build consensus for public and private develop­


ments. This program was initiated to rectify the decline of a down-


town area that had been drained of much of its retail and all of its


residential development, experienced racial and social conflicts,


and had been beset by the decay of industrial areas along its


waterfront. The Design Center has generated $334.7 million in


development since 1988 and has helped develop the identity of


the city, particularly its downtown and riverfront, in a way that has


brought together local government, the private sector, and a


university.


Riverfront/Downtown Planning & Design Center


Miller Plaza, Second Floor


850 Market Street


Chattanooga, TN 37402


Phone: 423–266–5948


Fax: 423–266–2757


Project STEP 

The Los Angeles Free Clinic


Project STEP’s (Short Term Employment Program) unique day


labor and job skills preparation program is an integral part of


Hollywood’s social service network for young homeless and run-


away youth ages 16 to 19. STEP provides breakfast, lunch, and


transportation to jobs, which may range from light clerical tasks to


manual labor. Employers hire youth through STEP on a daily,


weekly, or longer term basis. STEP also provides a daily, 1-hour


session on topics such as employment readiness, job search


preparation, and self-esteem, and pays youths after each day’s


work. After 4 months, a young person is eligible to graduate to a


6-month job placement and more intense support and supervision.


At the end of that sixth month, the young person is helped to secure


a permanent job. Project STEP has employed nearly 1,500 young


people since its inception 5 years ago.


The Los Angeles Free Clinic


8405 Beverly Boulevard


Los Angeles, CA 90048


Phone: 213–653–8622


Fax: 213–651–5026


121 
Southtown—The Historic Urban Village 

Mainstreet Alliance of San Antonio


One of the few projects in the Nation that addresses historic preser­


vation issues in a low- and mixed-income area, Southtown’s com­


munity revitalization program is stimulating business and housing


development while preserving the character of the neighborhood.


Conceived through a Master Plan; implemented through partner-


ships among neighborhood associations, its 50,000 residents, the


business community, and the city of San Antonio; and supported by


a volunteer board of directors, the area has experienced economic


growth at the rate of 1 new business start every 3 weeks. This has


resulted in more than $10 million in private investment. Of the more


than 50 new businesses created since 1992, more than half are


minority-owned and two-thirds are women-owned firms. Arts and


public involvement, including an annual “Art in the ‘Hood” event


that highlights neighborhood artists, have also been incorporated


into this outstanding program’s holistic approach to community


revitalization.


Mainstreet Alliance of San Antonio


322 Martinez


San Antonio, TX 78205


Phone: 210–226–0888


Fax: 210–299–1666


Supportive Housing Program 

Lakefront SRO Corporation


By combining single-room occupancy (SRO) buildings with needed


social services, this program maximizes a tenant’s ability to stay


housed and lead an independent life. Very low-income residents of


this type of a facility live in one-room, dormitory-type settings, often


with shared bathroom facilities. Buildings in this program have an


onsite social service team that provides counseling, case manage­


ment, referrals, followup, and recreational activities. The team also


offers tenants substance abuse prevention programs, an employ­


ment program, and life skills training. Through the purchase and


renovation of the worst SRO buildings in the community, the pro-


gram is providing affordable, stable housing and enhancing the


surrounding neighborhoods. To date, the Lakefront SRO Corpor­


ation has improved the lives of more than 600 individuals living in


single-room occupancy buildings.


Lakefront SRO Corporation


4946 North Sheridan


Chicago, IL 60640


Phone: 312–561–0900


Fax: 312–561–4693


122 
Transitional, Intergenerational Group Residence 

Shared Housing Center, Inc.


Initiated in response to increased homelessness in the Dallas area,


this assistance and support program provides homeless elderly


and single-parent families with long-term transitional housing in an


innovative, home-like setting similar to that of an extended family.


The unstaffed houses have private bedrooms and common kitchen,


dining room, and living areas to help create a sharing environ­


ment—one that includes people from different generations, ethnic


backgrounds, and races. In addition to 12 months of housing, the


program also offers tutors and instructors who address educational


and literacy issues; nurses and nutritionists who present classes on


health, food, and nutrition; recreation and children’s programs; and


crime and public safety training—all of which lead to independence


and increased self-esteem. This program has helped change the


lives of 155 people since it began in 1989. It is supported by local


government, private and public foundations, businesses and corpo­


rations, civic clubs and church groups, and community volunteers.


Shared Housing Center, Inc.


3110 Live Oak


Dallas, TX 75204


Phone: 214–821–8510


Fax: 214–828–9623


123 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

HUD USER

P.O. Box 6091

Rockville, MD 20849

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Permit No. G–795 

HUD 

POST

FIRST

AGE & FEES P

-CLASS MAIL 

AID 

ARTMENT OF H

PE

OU

D 

S 

M 

. 

IN

.S U

G 

AN 

T NE

D URBAN DEVELOP 

Equal Housing 

Opportunity