Community Development: Strengthening the Connection between Goals, Practice and Research
Elizabeth Mueller
and
Alex Schwartz
Community development came of age in the 1960s. Over the next three decades it
continued to grow, and as it gathered momentum, conceptual and operation definition
out-paced existing empirical research. And now, this disconnect is hindering progress by
making it difficult to ground strategies and conceptual models of the field in existing
research.
Part of the problem arises from the lack of consensus over what constitutes community
development: Is it about physical revitalization of neighborhoods? Political
empowerment? Fostering meaningful relationships among community members? Some
combination of the above? In common usage, community development refers to efforts
to revitalize geographically defined communities, often by providing affordable housing
to the community’s low and moderate-income residents, often in combination with other
services. The work is done by community development corporations (CDC), which are
usually nonprofit organizations where members of the community play a role in defining
the agenda.
Over the past few years, arguments for broadening the scope of community development
to include softer forms of development, to achieve a more holistic revitalization of
communities, have gained acceptance. The broader definition incorporates CDCs and
other organizations, and includes work on housing as well as on other issues that lead to
community revitalization.
The shift to a broader definition of community development has created a practical
dilemma because data in the field is not being systematically collected under the new
definition. In fact, there is no one data source on community development as it is now
defined. The data source most commonly referenced in discussions of community
development is the survey conducted by the National Congress on Community Economic
Development [NCCED]. This survey is useful because it provides basic information
about the number of CDCs in existence, their funding sources, the scale of their housing
production, and general trends, but unfortunately, even the NCCED survey isn’t
comprehensive when working with the new definition. It is possible to get a rough
estimate of the number of organizations working in the broader defined community
development field by collecting data from a variety of different sources. However,
estimating the impact of the work these organizations are doing remains a challenge.
The implications of the change in thinking about what constitutes community
development go beyond the number of groups involved or the scope of their work or
scale of their outputs. It is also a qualitative change in the way fieldwork is done – it
emphasizes the importance of the relationships among the different players and the basis
for successful partnerships.
1
Current Work: New Growth Strategies
Taking cues from the current economic and political climate and lessons learnt from its
four-decade history, the community development sector has developed some new growth
strategies. The first set of strategies work towards making sure that the community
development sector get access to the benefits of economic growth. These include work
force development initiatives that connect residents to good jobs. Past approaches failed
because they focused primarily on upgrading skills and fighting discrimination while
ignoring the social and business networks that connect job seekers and employers. Other
initiatives aim at linking private investors to poor communities because public funds for
community development are inadequate, and dwindling. Then there is the work being
done by Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) which aim to increase
the amount of capital available to individuals and inner city businesses who can’t access
mainstream financial capital markets. CDFIs offer financial products that are very
different from those offered by traditional financial institutions. They also use different
methods to assess credit worthiness and often provide financial training and technical
assistance to borrowers.
A second set of strategies, based on the politics of funding, have a comprehensive
development focus, extending beyond physical revitalization to the social fabric of the
community. Ironically, community development’s past success at physically transforming
neighborhoods has led many to conclude that physical change is not enough. For
example, after large swaths of the South Bronx were successfully rebuilt and repopulated,
CDCs became painfully aware that not only were these communities not stable but their
organizations also were not stable without further change. Under the new approach, there
is an emphasis on viewing community needs comprehensively, on bridging gaps between
sectors served by existing community-based organizations, and on developing strategy
through inclusive community planning. This movement to forge a more holistic approach
to community development is embodied in diverse collection of initiatives called
“comprehensive community initiatives” (CCIs) or “community building initiatives.”
CCIs arose in response to frustrations over disparate groups tackling different aspects of a
community’s problems, at times working at odds with each other and weakening the
overall impact.
A third set of strategies focus on capacity building by making existing work more
effective. Capacity building efforts often result in a CDC focusing on its core competency
– usually housing. Capacity building efforts may be motivated by funder interest in
making investments more effective. And at times capacity-building efforts can be at odds
with the priorities of community building.1 Not surprisingly, this approach, while
important for getting local funding support for community development, can create
tension between funders and technical assistance professionals and those CDCs that are
attempting to conduct broader, community-driven work that is not as tightly focused on
quantifiable outputs. Capacity building efforts can result in pressure to rationalize work
1
Capacity building efforts often speak of building the capacity of residents to represent themselves and
participate effectively in efforts to improve their community. We consider these efforts to be qualitatively
different from what we are discussing here and best considered as part of community building.
2
by avoiding overlapping catchment areas or investments in multiple organizations
pursuing similar goals or by encouraging ‘mergers’ of CDCs.
And finally a fourth set of strategies focus on building community development capacity
where none exists. Mike Eichler, an IAF-trained organizer, has come up with a model to
build community development capacity from scratch. It centers on ‘consensus
organizing,’ in which stakeholders are identified and brought together by a trained
organizer. The model’s organizing principles include2:
 Solutions based on the people involved. The approach positions people and
institutions based on their interests, capabilities and relationships, and does not
simply import programs that worked in other situations.
 Giving the people experiencing the problem a central role in developing solutions
because when solutions are imposed upon people they typically fail. And helping
them engage partners and set up support structures.
 Harnessing the self-interest of diverse stakeholders by looking for ways in which
the interests of corporate leaders, government officials, civic players and
community residents overlap.
 Being savvy about building support for solutions. To avoid strategies being
dismissed as risky or idealistic, approaching people in a way that makes sense to
them.
 An effective problem-solving strategy is self-sustaining. The relationships and
problem-solving infrastructure developed should become locally owned vehicles
for lasting change.
Research in Community Development
While scholars and certain funders are interested in the connections between community
development and urban problems and in new ways of conceiving of community
development, most of the research to date deals with basic issues such as documenting
the activities of community development organizations, understanding their sources of
support, and developing methodologies for evaluating complex place-based initiatives.
As a foundation for building knowledge about the community development sector,
collection of basic information on CDCs and their activities has been a high priority in
research. Several of the most prominent, and costly, studies in community development
present descriptive information on CDCs and their activities. These studies include
CDRCs’ Rebuilding Communities, NCCED’s tri-annual censuses, the NCDI evaluations,
the Urban Institute study of CDCs for HUD, and Edward Goetz’s survey of state and
local government reliance on and support for CDCs. Several recent studies of community
development have also been concerned with the capacity of community development
corporations and other organizations.
A core theme in community development research is the ability of CDCs to develop and
sustain affordable housing. Many studies examine the obstacles CDCs face in developing
2
From Consensus Organizing Institute website: http://www.consensusorganizing.com.
3
low-income housing and the assistance they require to overcome them. A much smaller
body of work looks at the difficulties of managing housing so that it remains viable on a
long-term basis. The research literature repeatedly emphasizes the same common
difficulties in housing development, all related to the difficulty of financing projects.
These include the need for multiple funding sources, undercapitalization of projects, the
scarcity of pre-development financing and lack of long-term operating support.
Many of the same studies that examine the challenges CDCs face, also assess the
institutional support available to CDCs for addressing these issues. The studies examine
how government, foundations, intermediaries and other organizations assist CDCs. They
also examine the relationships between CDCs and other institutions and the effect of
these relationships on CDCs’ priorities and allegiances.
Perhaps the highest priority at present for community development research and
evaluation is to assess the extent to which CDCs improve the quality of life for the
residents of the target neighborhoods. While previous studies document CDC activities,
such as the number of housing units rehabilitated, few attempted to demonstrate with any
rigor how CDC activities affect the quality of life within a community.
Closely related both to the assessment of CDC capacity and its impact, is the question of
CDC efficiency and effectiveness. Funders are interested in knowing whether CDCs
provide services and improve neighborhood conditions in a cost-effective manner. The
stakes are high -- if CDCs are found to be less efficient than for-profit organizations or
government agencies in achieving the same results, they risk losing support.
A curious gap in research on community development concerns the role of housing in the
agenda of community development groups. Housing has long been central to the work of
community development organizations. Yet, as the field has expanded to areas such as
economic development, workforce development, public safely, community organizing, it
has become less and less clear how housing fits into the broader agenda. Most studies
stress the multidimensional value of housing. One question in need of further research is
the extent to which experience in housing development provides the groundwork for
addressing other community needs.
Finally, a quick look at some of the issues research in community development has had to
cope with. Research has been based on strong assumptions about a number of key issues - perceptions about what has and hasn’t worked in the past, priorities of funders and
often-repeated stories about a handful of innovative organizations. Next, thinking on
issues such as the role of housing in community development, strategies for fostering
economic change and the role of advocacy in the field have been largely shaped without
the benefit of systematic research. Third, funding for research in community development
has been scarce. Most research is small in scale and carried out by individual researchers
with minimal funding
4
Recommendations for the Future
Research in community development needs to improve its coverage of current practice
and produce a stronger empirical basis for assessing the effectiveness of new approaches
and definitions. A richer, more comprehensive research agenda for community
development should include the following:











The role and impact of resident participation in community development
organizations and initiatives.
Comparative analysis of the different types of organizations that engage in
community development
Analysis of ‘faith-based” approaches to community development
Ethnographic perspectives on how community building programs and other CCIs
change the way neighborhood residents and local institutions respond to problems
and capitalize on opportunities.
The lessons for community development organizations that might be derived from
other types of nonprofit organizations that provide services to disadvantaged
communities
The role of race in community development
The role of housing in community development
The impact of devolution on the degree of competition and collaboration among
community development groups within individual cities.
The effectiveness and contributions of new types of community development
organizations, such as CDFIs.
Comparative analysis of CCIs
The effectiveness of community development organizations and initiatives in
improving neighborhood conditions.
There are several ways these research needs can be met. First, replicating previous
research because several of the most informative studies of CDCs and their support
systems have become dated and should be updated. With the Internet, it would not be
difficult to compile fairly comprehensive inventories of what have been “fugitive”
reports. Second, improving ongoing research. The community development field is
fortunate to have a recurrent source of information -- NCCED’s periodic survey,
however, the survey would be more useful were its results made available on a more
disaggregated basis. Third, investing in cutting edge research. Vehicles should be created
to sponsor more scholarly research in community development.
Elizabeth J. Mueller is Research Scientist at the University of Texas at Austin where she conducts
research and teaches courses in the areas of affordable housing policy, community development and urban
politics. She is co-author of From Neighborhood to Community: Evidence on the Social Effects of
Community Development. Alex Schwartz is Chair of the Urban Policy Analysis Program at the Milano
Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy at New School University. He is also Senior Research
Associate at the New School's Community Development Research Center.
The authors can be reached by email at: ejmueller@mail.utexas.edu and schwartz@newschool.edu.
5
6