With projects like these, the strategy has been to bring power to neighborhoods that have traditionally been shut out. They call for intensive work with and by residents in those communities, with the goal of turning at least some of them from bystanders into leaders. Though most foundations are loath to use the term, the fact remains that CCIs are one of the few substantial sources of funding for community organizing. Few major foundations are now willing to simply pay for an organizer to help tenants keep sheltered and safe, for example. Instead, large funders of community development have dedicated cumulative millions to CCIs, on the premise that attacking one problem at a time is futile.
Foundations reqiure a demanding range of tasks.
Groups that don't already have a lot of experience with community organizing may struggle to achieve these goals, manage intense reporting requirements and still keep residents in the loop. Indeed, gains are often measured in an evolution in attitudes and relationships between players in a neighborhood. CCIs are unfashionably inefficient. As these three profiles of RCI projects show, that's their greatest power, and their downfall. A neighborhood congress has kept fractious enclaves working together-with money that will soon run out.