Keeping Healthy Suburban Communities Out of the Poverty Trap

Laura Kinsell-Baer is a Senior Planner with St. Louis County government. Her background is in urban planning with a focus on forecasting as it relates to public policy, research, and urban data management and communication.

As Brooks Goedeker pointed out in last month’s op-ed, neighborhoods in our region are contending with shrinking coffers and dwindling resources. I would extend this to say that certain neighborhoods, especially those that do not have the means to tax themselves, are contending with dwindling resources, while others are doing okay. And those neighborhoods require a “piling on” of our region’s best creative solutions and resources in order to stop or reverse current downward trends.

Studies of inequality often focus on people-based variables, such as educational attainment and income, discounting the effects of neighborhoods on families living in poverty. And yet, as sociologist Patrick Sharkey writes in his book Stuck in Place, the effects of neighborhood disadvantage are deeply entrenched and persist for generations. The effects on children of exposure to violence, hunger, and unemployment do not disappear as they become adults, but continue to affect mental and physical health, educational attainment, and economic opportunities. The cycle of poverty that results from these challenges as well as the stigmatization of high-poverty neighborhoods is exacerbated by structural forces.  

In St. Louis County, as elsewhere around the country, a combination of forces has caused a palpable shift in previously-stable low-middle-income suburban neighborhoods. In the 1990s, federal investment in our most economically distressed families, especially single mothers and their children, dramatically decreased with President Clinton’s welfare reform. More recently, the Great Recession hit hardest in neighborhoods that were the target of subprime lending, and many people lost their jobs, their homes or both, leaving behind large concentrations of vacancies and families in or near crisis. As a result, many suburban communities are now struggling to cope with issues associated with the mortgage crisis, unemployment, and poverty – issues that were previously understood as mainly affecting inner cities or rural areas.

Over the last two years, many of St. Louis County’s leaders in government, the nonprofit sector, and school districts have sought to re-evaluate the structure of local investment both in our youth and in our most distressed neighborhoods, make the changes needed to break the multi-generational cycle of poverty, and halt struggling communities from slipping into the poverty trap. One vehicle for achieving this is the county-wide strategic plan, Imagining Tomorrow for St. Louis County, which is mandated by the county charter every five years and was passed by the St. Louis County Council in October 2013. Once more of a land use plan, the plan has evolved into a broad strategy for addressing changing demographics and economics in a largely built-out county.

Imagining Tomorrow marks the start of a new era whereby St. Louis County seeks to work with partners to try new approaches to community development in a more physically-dispersed, suburban context. More specifically, the policy directives and tactics in the plan are meant to build bridges with our 90 municipalities and 23 school districts to test approaches that we know have worked for other urban counties, develop and test some of our own, and pile on the resources that are available to us.

In that vein, we have joined with partners at Beyond Housing, University of Missouri St. Louis, and the OneSTL team at East-West Gateway Council of Governments to host a policy forum on this topic for anyone who is inspired to contribute their energy and ideas. The event will be held at The MET Center in Wellston, itself a success story in adaptive reuse of a manufacturing facility to a job training center. Next door, an early childhood center is currently under construction as part of a “two-generation” initiative for the young children of students who are in training at the MET Center.

We hope you can join us for this important discussion, where we’ll hear from two nationally-known experts on changing trends in poverty and innovative approaches to community development. Elizabeth Kneebone, fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution and coauthor of Confronting Suburban Poverty in America, will speak on her research on urban and suburban poverty, metropolitan demographics, and policies that support low-income workers and communities. David Erickson, director of the Center for Community Investments at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and senior editor of Investing in What Works for America’s Communities, will speak on innovation in community development around the country by local governments and nonprofits.

A panel of local officials and Q&A session will follow. May 29th, 1-4 p.m., The MET Center, 6347 Plymouth Avenue, Wellston, Missouri 63133.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis

Historic Preservation Means Economic Growth

By Andrew Weil

Andrew Weil is the executive director of the Landmarks Association of St. Louis.

As the Missouri legislature debates the future of the state’s historic rehabilitation tax credit program, I would like to consider the meaning of the term “historic preservation” in the context of economic development.

In this context, historic preservation simply means the repair and reuse of high quality existing buildings.

This building on Cherokee Street was recognized by Landmarks as an endangered property that had been enhanced.

Credit File photos | Provided by Landmarks

Large numbers of useful buildings in town centers and urban areas across the region are under-performing as economic assets because they need to be repaired and brought back into productive service.

These buildings represent a vast untapped economic resource. Consider that the materials in a historic building have already been extracted, refined, transported and assembled. The land has already been prepared for construction, the infrastructure and services are already in place and the vast majority of energy required to create a useful finished product has already been expended. All they really need is large amounts of skilled local tradespeople to put them back in order. These are all important considerations for a society that desperately needs jobs and is increasingly concerned with sustainable practice and rising energy costs.

While it has been well documented that investment in the urban core and in small town main streets can be enormously valuable, this type of growth frequently requires a catalyst.

With an eye toward revitalizing existing, but underutilized buildings, the Missouri legislature approved a new economic development program in 1997; the State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit.

The program was designed to create jobs, attract private investment, and grow the tax base by providing incentives that helped to put buildings back into productive use.

The experiment worked. According to studies by Saint Louis University, Rutgers University and the Missouri Department of Economic Development, the program has produced more than 43,000 jobs, leveraged nearly $7 billion in direct private investment, and returns $1.50 in tax revenue for every dollar the state invests.

The program is literally the most effective economic development initiative in the history of the state. Despite all this, the state auditor’s office recently characterized the performance of the program as merely “fair” as if there were other programs that had put up comparable numbers. He also pointed out some reasonable ways to make the program more efficient. Good, let’s do that. Let’s make a great program even better.

“No” say some in the legislature, let’s make it worse. Right now, the cap on the amount of money the state allocates to the program annually is larger than the amount redeemed. This means that people who want to use the program can build it into their financing packages and have confidence in their project budgets. This is a good thing.

Unfortunately, some of our representatives are trying lower the cap to an amount that is less than what is typically redeemed. This means that every year some people will get to use the program, and others will not. If you build the credits into your financing package, you will be rolling the dice. This uncertainty will lead to paralysis. This is a bad thing.

If the state legislature is serious about creating jobs for Missourians, why is it trying to cripple a program that creates thousands of jobs? If it is serious about cutting taxes, why would it kill a program that grows the tax base? If it is serious about increasing funding for important things like education, why would it kill a program that generates a substantial return on its investments?

Lowering the cap on the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program will chase jobs and investment out of Missouri. Show me how that makes economic sense.

Reprinted with the permission of the author.

 Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis

Special Taxing District and the St. Louis Region

By Brooks Goedeker, Executive Director, Park Central Development ( Mr. Goedeker is the gentleman in the center of the photo wearing a red polo shirt)

Neighborhoods in St. Louis and across America are struggling with the harsh reality of shrinking coffers, dwindling resources and diminished public services.  Each and every day, communities must accept the fact that competition for municipal services is getting tougher and the traditional image of clean and safe streets is no longer a given.  

This revelation isn’t something new.  Neighborhoods have always had to deal with local governments altering their services, priorities and mindsets.  A City is a living organism, shifting and changing every day.  Because of this, some neighborhoods experience stagnation or a slow decline, while others battle through and find ways to become self-sustaining.

To make up for the lack of services many areas establish subscription campaigns, asking each property owner to contribute money to pay for someone to pick up litter and debris, shovel snow, or provide security.  Unfortunately, the success of these campaigns are often hard to maintain and often short lived, because not everyone contributes and some property owners are left footing the bill, while others simply reap the benefits.

In the 1970s, a new mechanism for raising revenues in neighborhoods was developed.   In Toronto, property owners came together and created the business improvement district model (the same as today’s Community Improvement Districts in Missouri).  This approach required property owners (if approved by a majority) within a defined “district” to contribute equally to services.  In short, these property owners took matters into their own hands.

Today, many neighborhoods in St. Louis have learned from this example and have chosen to tax themselves in order to provide services at a level which local municipalities may no longer be able to provide.  In St. Louis, there are almost 200 special taxing districts, such as Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) and Special Business Districts (SBDs).  These special taxing districts allow property owners to capture property and/ or sales taxes within an area, and ensure that the funds collected are invested in the area, and only in that defined area.  This revenue helps fund initiatives to keep streets clear of trash and graffiti, repair sidewalks, market the area, hold special events, create works of art, manage parking, install pedestrian lighting and hire additional police patrols.  These services in turn help to increase property values and improve public perception of an area.

While most areas are drawn towards special taxing districts for financial reasons, the organizational aspect that comes along with CIDS and SBDs may end up being one of the most beneficial aspects.  Funds collected in the special taxing district must be controlled and allocated by a board of directors made up of residents, businesses, and property owners.  There are strict requirements for reporting and transparency with the City and State, forcing districts to become highly organized.  District meetings, committees and special events encourage stakeholders to come together, exchange ideas and hopefully create a shared vision for an area’s future.  Any neighborhood can organize at their freewill, but special taxing districts can help guide the process.

If created and administered correctly, special taxing districts can be a lifeline for struggling communities and a boon to areas being revitalized.  They can and should be part of the puzzle to make many areas of St. Louis great again.  At Park Central Development we have been a part of helping to educate, organize, and administer special taxing districts throughout St. Louis.  We, as well as the participating residents, business and property owners, see firsthand the positive elements that are derived from these districts, including rising property values, decreased crime, and the creation of a shared vision and plan for an area. 

As a way to compound their redevelopment efforts, Downtown, the Loop, South Grand, the Grove, Grand Center, Maplewood, Soulard, and the Central West End have all adopted special taxing districts.  Areas such as Cherokee Street, the Hill, and Lafayette Square are in talks to establish their own.  Logically Midtown Alley, Morgan Ford Business District, Old North, Bevo, and the Macklind Business District could be next.  Hopefully your favorite neighborhood or business district will soon be on that list.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis

Why We Need Workforce Housing in the Suburbs

Cheryl Sommer is a pastoral associate at a local Catholic Church and is chair of the Housing Taskforce for United Congregations of Metro-East.

I vividly remember my shock in 1980 when I learned about “sundown towns” close to where I lived.   I was told that African-American people could come into the town to work the low-wage service jobs but couldn’t live there.  They had to be out of town by sundown.  I learned these sundown towns were not uncommon in southern Illinois. Towns were willing to accept people’s work during the day but didn’t want them living in their towns.   I was happy when these workers no longer faced discrimination like this.  

Unfortunately, as our faith-based community organizing group listened to concerns of people in our suburbs, we heard of another version of this situation.  Now, let me be perfectly clear.  No one was intentionally discriminating against anyone as in the sundown town days.  Unfortunately, for many low wage workers the reality was similar, if not intended.   

 At a time when many suburban cities were adding a lot of businesses with low-wage jobs—banks, assisted living homes, hotels, restaurants, and other retail establishments—the housing added was for people with higher incomes.  Overall, the houses added didn’t match the jobs that were added.  People working these our low-wage jobs couldn’t afford to live in the cities where they contributed their labor.  Teacher’s aides, beginning teachers, certified nursing assistants (CNAs), chefs, medical technicians, housekeepers, and retail clerks, were forced to travel long distances to work.   

The time and money spent traveling to these jobs was challenging to household budgets.  The long commutes created traffic congestion, more air pollution, and greater use of natural resources.  Extra strain was placed on families when parents had long commutes and couldn’t be close to their children’s school or daycare. 

As we spoke of this housing mismatch as a concern that cities should address, we were shocked to hear some of the responses.    Some said including housing that was affordable for all local workers would cause property values to decline.    To our suggestion that if a person was good enough to take care of grandma in assisted living or to be a daycare provider for our child, then they ought to be able to live in our community, some responded that just because you work in a city doesn’t give you the right to live there.  They said people should work their way up to living in their city.

Fortunately, others understood the benefit of having housing that matched the affordability needs of all of a city’s workers.  One grandmother told us of a mixed-income housing development where her daughter lived.  Instead of putting all of the less expensive housing units in one area and the more expensive housing units in another area, they were all mixed together in an architectural design where all the units blended together in an aesthetically pleasing way. This allowed her daughter’s family to live in a more expensive home just a few doors from their nanny’s more affordable apartment.  Because of the good initial design it was hard to tell which housing units were the expensive units and which ones had more affordable housing for the lower wage workers.  Good property managers kept the entire housing project looking good. 

Today, many business leaders are recognizing the benefits of mixed-income developments like this that enable their employees to live in the city where they work.  Employees with less traveling time are more energetic.  They are more likely to stay on as employees thus reducing costs for training of new employees.  The same is true if employees can have their children going to school in the city where they work.  These employees are more likely to do their shopping in the same city, thus helping the local economy and adding to the sales tax revenues.   Employees who live in a town where they work are more invested in their workplace and the city because they have a stake in the city’s well-being.    

Sundown towns are, hopefully, a thing of the past.  The time is dawning when businesses, residents, and government leaders will realize the benefit of promoting mixed-income housing for all workers.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

A Healthy Neighborhoods Approach in St. Louis

Sally J. Scott, Ph.D.Independent Consultant

Recently HUD commissioned a market value analysis of St. Louis neighborhoods, and City officials indicated that the data would help guide the allocation of federal housing and community development funds.  This is an important and positive step forward for community development decision making in St. Louis, and everyone who cares about the city’s neighborhoods should take a close look at the study. 

One piece of the puzzle that deserves effective and coordinated action is the fate of the city’s ‘middle’ neighborhoods.   Middle neighborhoods show signs of wear and tear – modest population loss, lower standards of property maintenance, declining social capital — but are not yet deeply distressed and have significant social and physical assets on which to build.  Long-term population loss and disinvestment in St. Louis mean that such neighborhoods are at risk of sliding into decline, but deep distress is not inevitable.  Given their strengths, these areas could also attract new residents and regain vitality.  The “Healthy Neighborhoods” approach to revitalization may be what these neighborhoods need.

            What characterizes the Healthy Neighborhoods approach?  Pioneered in Battle Creek Michigan in the 1990s by David Boehlke, Executive Director of Neighborhoods, Inc., the approach views the decision-making of current and potential residents – whether to stay or go, whether to buy or look elsewhere — as the key factor in neighborhood decline or revitalization. As Boehlke writes in Great Neighborhoods, Great City, “The necessary ingredient in any neighborhood revitalization strategy must be to create good reasons for people to make decisions that benefit themselves while producing results that serve the whole community.”   

To influence resident decision making in a way that benefits the larger community, the Healthy Neighborhoods approach utilizes strategies that target four elements of neighborhood stability: a positive image, a viable real estate market, good physical conditions, and strong social connections.  In Baltimore, Healthy Neighborhoods, Inc. has used this approach since 1998 to generate over $100 million in investment in 41 neighborhoods throughout the city.   Major federal funds, like a $26 million Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant awarded in 2010, have been integrated into the overarching Healthy Neighborhoods framework.

Could this work in St. Louis, which shares historical ties and market challenges with Baltimore?  The St. Louis Market Value Analysis points to a set of neighborhoods, or parts of neighborhoods, that are candidates for such an initiative, because they are neither deeply distressed nor thriving.  Home sale prices for these areas are in the vicinity of the citywide average ($71,927) and vacancy rates are around or below the citywide average (14.07%).  Middle neighborhoods in St. Louis, as in Baltimore, have significant strengths on which to build: historic and varied housing stock; parks, schools, libraries, and businesses; creative and determined residents.  

A quick scan of the 2000 and 2010 census numbers indicates that middle neighborhoods in St. Louis continue to undergo significant demographic and racial change. Efforts to build social capital and market middle neighborhoods would need to take into account that the only growing segment of the population citywide in St. Louis from 2000 to 2010 was “non family,” i.e., people living alone or not with relatives.  

More difficult to determine is the strength of the associations and organizations working to stabilize these neighborhoods.  In the Baltimore, Healthy Neighborhoods Inc. works with both professionally staffed community development organizations and single-staff or volunteer neighborhood associations.  Having a strong core organization that can creatively generate partnerships among neighborhood organizations, citywide nonprofits, foundations, banks, anchor institutions, and city government has been essential in Baltimore.   

Looking ahead, the critical question is whether strengthening the middle neighborhoods of St. Louis is a priority for city residents and leaders.  If so, a working group representing neighborhoods, nonprofits, banks and city government should form to consider the Healthy Neighborhoods approach to revitalization.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

OneSTL: For a Prosperous, Healthy, and Vibrant St. Louis Region

By David Wilson, American Planning Association, Environment & Community Planning East-West Gateway Council of Governments

A new initiative seeks to “maintain, develop and enhance the unique places and communities in our region through investment that reflects local values, diversity and character.” In a series of meetings held across the region in 2012 and 2013, residents of many different neighborhoods and cities expressed a fondness for the distinctive characteristics of the places they live. As a result, OneSTL, the St. Louis regional plan for sustainable development, has made “distinctive” one of nine key themes around which organizations and local governments can find common ground. Another theme is “collaborative” –to “promote inclusive and on-going efforts that involve communication, cooperation, and action among local and regional leaders and residents.” The Community Builders Network has identified goals of increasing inter-jurisdictional cooperation and strengthening neighborhood and community collaboration as two areas where it can plan a strategic role in this broad regional initiative.

Eleven core partner organizations began the process in 2011, and at the end of the three years of planning, more than 50 organizations had identified key strategies to support a prosperous, healthy and vibrant St. Louis region.

The entire plan is located online at www.onestl.org. The website contains the plan in pdf and in a web-based format, and a Toolkit of Sustainable Solutions that is designed to provide information to local government officials about best practices that are being implemented in the region. The website also contains a library of more than 75 sustainability-related plans and reports, and a dashboard of indicators that will be monitored at a regional scale.

Through OneSTL, individuals and organizations can identify both the broad regional goals and objectives and also the specific activities of organizations that are working to address regional challenges. OneSTL is designed to create a network of people and organizations that are committed to building a more sustainable future.

Everyone is invited to join the OneSTL Network. Individuals can join as an interested resident or as a representative of an organization. There is no membership fee. Simply go to www.onestl.org/component/toolkit/message-join to join the OneSTL Network, which builds upon the partnerships formed to create OneSTL; recognizes people and organizations in the region working toward sustainability; and provides opportunities to exchange information and collaborate. OneSTL will be co-sponsoring events and activities to promote a prosperous, healthy and vibrant region, and also reporting on key measures of success.  Explore the website for areas of particular interest to you or your organization.

You are invited to request a presentation to introduce OneSTL to your organization. Simply e-mail your request to onestl@ewgateway.org and you will be contacted to arrange a presentation.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

Community Building Organizations Should Support Medicaid Expansion in Missouri

Terry Weiss, MD, FACR Member, Provider Services Advisory Board St. Louis Regional Health Commission, Co-founder and Past President, St. Vincent Greenway, Inc.

Every decade since the Theodore Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) the federal government has made an effort to reform the U.S. health care delivery system. The underlying premises have been: 1) health care is a right, not a privilege, and 2) ʻOne can judge a nation by how it treats its most vulnerable citizensʼ (Aristotle).

In 2010 the U.S. Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or “Obamacare.” The goals were to expand coverage, improve quality of care, and lower costs. A principle mechanism for expanding coverage to millions of uninsured Americans is the expansion of Medicaid. Missouri is one of 26 states which has refused to do so. Community organizations should care because of the implications of expanding or not expanding Medicaid.

From the medical standpoint the benefits of expansion include increased access to health care, especially for parents (working and non-working).  Another benefit is preventive care, e.g., vaccinations and disease screening. Medicaid expansion would enhance early detection and treatment, a category in which Missouri ranks thirty-eighth.  What are the implications? Take high blood pressure (hypertension) as an example. Hypertension is an asymptomatic disease. One can have a BP of 150/110 (normal is around 120/80) and feel quite normal. However, untreated hypertension can result in kidney failure, heart attack, or stroke. Which is better and more cost effective? To treat the person with asymptomatic hypertension or wait until the individual has kidney failure and needs dialysis, has a stroke and needs extensive, perhaps life-long care and may be unemployable, or has debilitating heart disease? Finally, there is an emphasis on quality of care through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality established by the ACA.

There are many economic benefits of expanding MoHealthNet, Missouri’s Medicaid program. First, as noted above, increased accessibility, prevention, early detection and treatment will lower health care costs. Second, while the state will invest $431 million between 2014 and 2019 it will receive $94 billion federal dollars over 10 years. Most of the funds to pay for the expansion are federal. The federal government will pay 100% of expansion costs through 2016, 95% of costs in 2017-2019 and 90% thereafter in perpetuity. There will be job creation. Had the legislature expanded MoHealthNet in 2013 there would have been 24,000 more jobs in Missouri in 2014, 5,000 of them in the St. Louis area. These are good, well paying jobs, e.g., for construction of health care facilities, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, nurses, nurses aids, etc. These jobs would also generate substantial state tax revenues.

Lastly, expansion is critical to survival of rural hospitals and health systems. Hospitals currently receive extra federal payments for providing care to the uninsured. Providing such care gives those hospitals a disproportionate financial burden and the extra moneys are referred to as ʻDisproportionate Shareʼ funds (DSH, pronounced DISH). One way the federal government plans to pay for Medicaid expansion is by reallocating DSH moneys from states not expanding Medicaid to those that do. This loss of funds to small  Missouri hospitals will be crippling or even fatal to preserving service in rural and poor areas.

Like Medicaid, community development corporations (CDCs), neighborhood associations, and other community building organizations serve the underserved and work toward creating opportunity and a higher quality of life for all. Community building organizations’ constituents include a large number of those who would benefit from MoHealthNet expansion. Collaboration between community building organizations and those seeking to expand Medicaid is a natural. You can help:

• Your CDC, neighborhood association, and the CBN could pass resolutions supporting MoHealthNet expansion;

• You can join the Missouri Medicaid Coalition: http://www.momedicaidcoalition.org/;

• You can send your resolutions to your legislators and to the Coalition;

• You can write letters to the editor and to your legislators telling them why you support expansion:

• If you have residents who have stories to tell about their difficulties with lack of insurance you can encourage them write up their stories and submit them to the Coalition.

Join in the struggle, as you do every day in other ways, to improve the quality of life for your constituents. Join in the effort to expand MoHealthN

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

The Case for Participatory Budgeting in St. Louis

By Zach Chasnoff is a community organizer Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) working for economic and social justice in the City of St. Louis.

We are living in exciting times. Vibrant public discourse about the transparency of our government and the average citizen’s ability to access those systems of governance is happening on national and local levels.

The City of St. Louis is no exception. We have been grappling with this issue in the form of very low voter turnout and engagement as well as a lack of oversight, or even basic understanding, of how the city operates. As a community we are searching for solutions to both the problem of transparency as well as the problem of getting real, engaged citizen participation.

One answer has already made waves in some parts of the country and accomplished big things here in the 6th ward.  It’s called Participatory Budgeting (PB). PB is a structured, step-by-step process by which citizens get a direct vote in how pots of public money are allocated. Through a bottom-up process, citizens decide what community projects are needed, determine a budget for expenditures of available ward funds, and work with city agencies to see the projects through to completion.

Starting in Brazil in 1989, Participatory Budgeting first appeared in the United States in Chicago’s 49th ward. After its successful implementation there, several other Chicago wards followed suit. Shorty thereafter PB was implemented in multiple New York City Districts. Later the entire city of Vallejo California turned over its budgetary decision making to its residents through Participatory Budgeting. 

Brad Lander, the Council Person in New York City who initially implemented PB there, first introduced the idea to a St. Louis audience at the 2012 SLACO conference.  A buzz was created in the city when Michelle Witthaus ran against Christine Ingrassia for 6th ward Alderman on a platform of direct democracy that included PB. Ingrassia won that race but believed enough in Participatory Budgeting that she reached out to Michelle so that they could work together to implement it.

PB is correlated with increased citizen participation. The Participatory Budgeting Project in New York states:

One of the most striking findings about who participated in PB is how the data compares to other types of civic engagement, particularly voting patterns in NYC elections. Across the districts, PB engaged communities that have traditionally been uninspired by politics. People of color, low-income people, and some immigrant groups turned out at higher rates than in previous elections. More than just getting people to vote, PB deepened the connections between residents and government.

In Chicago residents report that “…with this approach the people wielding power are not the rich or well-connected. Instead, they’re regular citizens who choose to put in the time.”  This is civic empowerment that transcends the budgetary arena.

Working together, Alderwoman Christine Ingrassia, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), Participatory Budgeting St. Louis (PBSTL) and 6th ward residents have recently completed the first phase of the first-ever PB process in St Louis. Turn-out has exceeded expectations and is representative of the racial and economic diversity of the area. Residents will move to vote on the allocation of 40% of the annual ward budget in capital funds by April of 2014.

PBSTL recently announced planned implementation in Scott Olgilvie’s 24th ward. Our goal for 2014 is to have Participatory Budgeting in four wards total by the end of the year. For this program to have a true impact on the city as a whole it needs to be in as many areas as possible. PBSTL is also interested in moving the process beyond the allocation of capital funds and into exciting diverse city arenas such as the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) and HUD allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.

One of the many beauties of Participatory Budgeting is its elasticity.  A 6th ward steering committee has tailored the process to meet the unique qualities of their ward but the process will look a little different in the 24th ward and can be tailored to the CDBG process just as easily.  For instance, organizations could submit their applications and St. Louis residents could be allowed to vote on the projects that they wanted most. Working with community organizations to get the word out will ensure diverse and meaningful participation from all sectors of the city population. The most important thing is that we get a broad spectrum of St. Louis citizens engaged and excited about civic participation.

Participatory Budgeting is by no means a silver bullet that will cure all of our civic woes, but it does open previously closed doors and provides clear one-to-one correlations between citizen input and tangible results. St. Louis has the chance to be a national leader in an exciting innovation. If transparency is the goal, then let’s open up the process.  If we want to hear what the people of this city have to say, let’s listen to them, and let’s give them a vote.

For more information on Participatory Budgeting please contact PBSTL at pbinstl@gmail.com.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

Measuring CDFIs Impact…and Then Telling Everyone You Know

By Colleen Kirby, Asset Manager, Compliance, St. Louis Equity Fund, INC

Leaders in community development have called Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) the “next big thing” in community development (CD) finance. They say that what the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC ) has done over more than 25 years for affordable housing development, CDFIs will do for financial products and services. Yet, this “next big thing” has actually been around for more than 15 years and St. Louis is home to several CDFI credit unions and loan funds. Why then do so few people, even in the CD world, know what CDFIs are, and understand the impact they have on our communities?

A little background first. CDFIs fall under a division of the US Treasury (The CDFI Fund) which was created out of a 1994 bipartisan initiative to promote economic opportunity and community development in underserved communities. Many CDFIs existed before the creation of the CDFI Fund, though now they were being officially recognized by the Treasury as an important piece of the community development puzzle. CDFIs complement rather than compete with traditional banks and lenders. The CDFI Fund certifies entities that provide these products and services, and Missouri is home to 24, three of which are loan funds, the rest of which are banks, depository institutions and credit unions. To be certified an organization must show that it offers financial tools and development services that are focused on serving the community development finance needs of a specific target market.

Great, so it sounds like CDFIs would be a big benefit to our communities – but who are the CDFIs in our region and what do they do? Why are these organizations still flying under the radar? Can they really be the “next big thing” for St. Louis? A coalition of CDFIs serving Missouri has recently been formed and one of the goals is to ensure our missions are known and our investments can grow.

The three Missouri-based loan funds, International Institute CDC, Great Rivers Community Capital, and Gateway Community Development Fund, Inc. all focus on different aspects of CD finance by providing micro lending to new immigrants and small businesses, and real estate loans to developers of affordable rental housing. IFF, a large CDFI based in Illinois but with a presence in St. Louis, also provides housing developers with loans, as well as financing for charter schools, community health centers, and vehicles. CDFI credit unions, like the St. Louis Community Credit Union, focus on providing crucial financial products and services to under banked and economically disadvantaged families and individuals coupled with financial education.

The only way these organizations can  truly change the way financial products and services are delivered in our region is if they are able to grow their capital base and expand their lending and service provision to even more corners of each CDFI’s “target market”. To do that, they need consistent investment by traditional financial institutions, which may be motivated by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements.  But investors can also be enticed by good returns and reasonable risk, as well as recognition of their impact by key players in the communities they serve. This means making sure elected officials, business, education, and civic leaders know about the work of CDFIs .  

More importantly, CDFIs themselves must tell their stories, and not just to those outside the CD world. We have to measure and report on our progress toward our missions, analyze the impact we have on our target markets, and evaluate the opportunities for improvement by listening to our customers and communities. CDFIs must also identify concrete indicators of success. Results-driven funders want to know exactly how their investment improves the financial well-being of the individuals and communities they wish to serve.  If we listen to the communities we serve, identify success stories, and tell each other as well as the outside world, then CDFIs really could become “the next big thing” in community development.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.