Affirmatively Dismantling Fair Housing

Gregory D. Squires, Professor of Sociology and Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University

This column was originally published in Shelterforce.

“Racism is a structure, not an event.” So argues Robin DiAngelo in her powerful book White Fragility. While racist acts do occur, she acknowledges, the real challenge is to dismantle “a complex, interconnected system” from which white Americans benefit no matter their individual attitudes or behavior. There is no stronger bulwark of racism than the segregated housing system that has long persisted in virtually every metropolitan area in the U.S. Consistent with other housing policy presented by the Trump administration, HUD is planning to further entrench policy in the past. HUD has proposed a new “affirmatively furthering fair housing” rule that would make it far more difficult for the agency or any other fair housing group to combat persisting patterns of discrimination and segregation in the nation’s housing markets.

The Fair Housing Act passed in 1968 requires recipients of federal housing and community development funds to take action that will identify the causes and consequences of discrimination and segregation in the nation’s housing markets and create the “truly balanced and integrated living patterns” that Walter Mondale, co-sponsor of the 1968 act, called for on the Senate floor. In other words, they are to affirmatively further fair housing.

But this obligation was virtually ignored before the Obama administration issued a rule in 2015 that provided clarity and muscle for compliance and enforcement. Key provisions included requiring recipients of federal funds to conduct a fair housing assessment to identify policies and practices that led to discriminatory and segregated outcomes, and then to implement programs that would not duplicate, but eradicate those outcomes. Local participation in the formulation and implementation of those plans was a key component of the 2015 rule.

In January 2018 HUD suspended this rule. In January of 2020 the agency issued a proposed rule that eliminates the affirmative planning and local participation requirements along with several other regulations in an effort to provide “clearer guidance to states and local governments to help them improve affordable housing choices in their community.”

“Housing choice” is the new mantra, and the reversal in policy is aptly captured by the change HUD proposes for its definition of AFFH. HUD currently defines AFFH as “taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.” HUD now proposes a very simple definition of “advancing fair housing choice within the program participant’s control or influence.”

The proposed rule makes repeated reference to three primary goals, which are to increase the supply of affordable housing, enhance access to that housing, and improve housing conditions.

But affordable housing does not automatically translate into fair housing. Segregation results from a variety of practices and not just income differences across different groups. Steering by real estate agents, redlining by mortgage lenders and home insurance companies, discriminatory appraisals, and refusing to rent to families with housing vouchers are just some of the practices that perpetuate segregation. These practices can be identified by the fair housing assessments required under the previous rule. Increasing the supply of affordable housing will not make them go away.

The proposed rule calls for collection of data on a variety of housing characteristics including median home value and rent, cost burden, share of units lacking plumbing and kitchen facilities, vacancy rates, frequency of lead-based paints and poisoning, availability of housing accepting housing choice vouchers, and availability of housing accessible to persons with disabilities. However, no data collection with regard to racial or ethnic disparities will be required for these factors or in terms of treatment by real estate agents or mortgage lenders, proximity to good schools, or access to any other neighborhood amenities.

And yet, a wide range of disparity persists in today’s housing markets. Paired testing by a variety of public and private organizations has consistently demonstrated that when equally qualified white and non-white home seekers (families with similar incomes and wealth as well as housing preferences) visit real estate or rental agents they are often treated differently. The most recent national housing discrimination study conducted by the Urban Institute for HUD in 2012 found that in one out of every eight visits white home seekers were told about and shown more homes than were non-whites. In November 2019, Newsday reported on its three-year investigation revealing that almost half of all African American, 39 percent of Latino, and 19 percent of Asian home seekers encountered a range of discriminatory practices in their efforts to find housing on Long Island. A 2015 investigation by Rutgers University public policy professor Paul Jargowsky for The Century Foundation concluded that poor Black Americans were three times more likely to live in a poor neighborhood than poor white Americans. Yet as Solomon Greene of the Urban Institute and Shamus Roller of the National Law Project noted, HUD’s proposed new rule does not even mention racial segregation or racially concentrated areas of poverty—which the Fair Housing Act was designed to address.

HUD should unsuspend the 2015 rule, which, as the Poverty & Race Research Action Council concluded, “provided clarity and real teeth to the mandate and established a new robust framework for fair housing planning (the Assessment of Fair Housing) that yielded promising results from its early rollout.”

As for the proposed rule, HUD should simply drop it. That would advance the agency’s efforts to fulfill its mandate to dismantle the structure of housing discrimination, make fair housing a reality, and lead to the balanced living patterns envisioned when the Fair Housing Act was passed.

***

Gregory D. Squires is a Professor of Sociology, and Public Policy & Public Administration at George Washington University. Currently he is a member of the Advisory Board of the John Marshall Law School Fair Housing Legal Support Center in Chicago, Illinois, the Fair Housing Task Force of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Social Science Advisory Board of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council in Washington, D.C. He has served as a consultant for civil rights organizations around the country and as a member of the Federal Reserve Board’s Consumer Advisory Council. He has written for several academic journals and general interest publications including Housing Policy Debate, Urban Studies, Social Science Quarterly, Social Problems, New York Times, and Washington Post. His recent books include Meltdown: The Financial Crisis, Consumer Protection, and the Road Forward (with Larry Kirsch – Praeger, 2017) and his edited book The Fight for Fair Housing Causes, Consequences and Future Implications of the 1968 Federal Fair Housing Act (Routledge, 2018).

***

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.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Jenny Connelly-Bowen at jenny@communitybuildersstl.org.

Perspectives on Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Reform

An HOLC security map of Philadelphia showing redlining of minority neighborhoods. HOLC maps are part of the Records of the FHLBB (RG195) at the National Archives II. Image attributed to the United States Federal Government [Public domain].

This month, we're sharing perspectives on Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) reform and what it could mean for our communities.

In December, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) & the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed significant changes to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), originally enacted in 1977 to combat the legacy of redlining and hold financial institutions accountable to serving the credit and banking needs of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

As the banking industry has evolved over past decades, community members and professionals have spoken out about a need for revisions to CRA regulation that account for new realities, including the world of online banking. Many are also concerned, however, that the OCC and FDIC's proposed changes could weaken requirements for banks to invest in local neighborhoods. This list of articles includes perspectives from a variety of different voices exploring the issue of CRA reform and the latest proposed changes. Comments on the proposed ruling are being accepted through April 8.

Perspectives on Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Reform

A Tale of Two Community Reinvestment Act Proposals
Oscar Perry Abello, Next City

Fed Has to Pitch In on CRA Makeover
Faith Bautista and Steven Sugarman, National Diversity Coalition

Strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act by Staying True to Its Core Purpose
Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard

Inviting a Return to Discrimination
Charlene Crowell, Center for Responsible Lending

By Staying on Sidelines, the Fed is Protecting CRA
Paulina Gonzalez-Brito, California Reinvestment Coalition

Statement - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
Martin J. Gruenberg, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

Initial NCRC Analysis Of The FDIC And OCC Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning The Community Reinvestment Act
National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC)

A Community Reinvestment Act That Works for Everyone
Comptroller Joseph Otting, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

The Fight Over CRA Reform Just Got More Complicated
Karen Petrou, Federal Financial Analytics

New Penn Institute CRA Research Compendium Suggests Incremental Change Is Best Path For CRA Reform
Josh Silver, National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC)

Editorial: Proposed Banking Changes Could Starve Investment Where it's Needed Most
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board

Don’t Overhaul CRA Just For the Sake Of It
and Give CRA Reform Credit Where It's Due
Kenneth H. Thomas, Community Development Fund Advisors

Protecting the Community Reinvestment Act Is an Investment in Economic Justice
Jaime Weisberg, Association of Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD)

Redlining Would Be Relegalized by CRA Reform Proposal
Frank Woodruff, National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations (NACEDA)

Jimmy Carter signs the Housing and Community Development Act. From the National Archives and Records Administration. Image attributed to the United States Federal Government [Public domain].

***

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.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Jenny Connelly-Bowen at jenny@communitybuildersstl.org.

Congratulations to our 2020 Community Building Awards Honorees!

We’re thrilled to be honoring five incredible individuals and one incredible initiative at our 2020 Community Building Awards on July 29!

We’re also excited to be working with the talented Humans of St. Louis team again this year to put together stories about the important community building work that each of these honorees is doing. Watch our website in July for a special post about each awardee!

2020 Community Building Awards Honorees

Laura Ginn
Green City Coalition Program Manager, St. Louis Development Corporation
Collaboration & Coalition Building

Neighborhood Leadership Academy and Neighborhood Leadership Fellows
Programs of Creating Whole Communities, a collaboration between UMSL and MU Extension
Growing in Equity & Antiracism

Jessica Payne
Board President, Old North St. Louis Restoration Group and Founder/Owner and Social Justice Communicator, Osiyo Design + Engagement
Transparency & Trust

Tonnie Smith
West End neighborhood resident, Board member with Cornerstone CDC and St. Louis ArtWorks, and St. Louis Vacancy Collaborative volunteer with a special focus on reducing vacancy in the West End with the assistance of LSEM; collaborated with West End residents Keaira Anderson, Treena Thompson, and Lisa Potts to apply for and secure one of Invest STL’s first capacity building grants for Cornerstone in 2018
Resident Leadership

Neal Richardson
Co-Founder, Dream Builders 4 Equity and Vice President and Director of Business Impact Group, U.S. Bank CDC
Rising Star in Community Building

Loura Gilbert
Vice President of Community Development, Commerce Bank and founding member of the Metro St. Louis Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Association
Lifetime Dedication to Community Building

Come help us celebrate these incredible folks on July 29!

The Opposite of Deficit-Based Language Isn’t Asset-Based Language. It’s Truth-Telling.

Miriam Axel-Lute, Editor, Shelterforce and Associate Director, National Housing Institute

This column was originally published in Shelterforce.

How do you describe the people you work for and with, or the neighborhoods you work in? Do you use primarily “deficit-based” language like “distressed,” “at-risk,” “vulnerable,” “blighted,” “high crime,” “concentrated poverty”? If so, you’re in good company—terms like this are ubiquitous throughout the field (including in Shelterforce).

It was more than 20 years ago that John Kretzman and John McKnight introduced the idea of asset-based community development, which encouraged community developers to try to counteract these kinds of narratives by identifying the strengths of the places they are working—social networks, history, small businesses, the talents of the people living there—as the starting place for shaping programs. The idea, and tools it spawned, like asset mapping, have definitely become an important approach throughout the field. But deficit-based language, especially in communications and calls to action, remains.

This can be a problem for multiple reasons, as panelists discussed in some detail in the conversation, “Asset-Based Language: How to Avoid the Rescue Syndrome in Our Communications” at the 2019 Opportunity Finance Network conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 21. Emphasizing only negative statistics and disparities tends to “other” the people and places involved—it defines them by their worst characteristics, which no one wants to do, as moderator Katie Coleman from IFF pointed out humorously by asking everyone in the room to introduce themselves to their neighbors using their worst trait.

Deficit-based language also risks reinforcing some of the same negative stereotypes and perceptions that the organizations using the language are actually fighting against, said Mackenzie Price from Frameworks Institute. It can communicate the idea that these are inherent characteristics and not the result of circumstances. It can also contribute to a dynamic where people and places are treated less as partners in a given program or campaign and more like objects of charity. “We end up seeing ourselves as helpers, not partners,” said Jennifer Oldham of The Healing Trust.

These are all very solid arguments, and very legitimate critiques of a nonprofit culture that really does struggle with operating from a position of solidarity rather than charity. Taking the time to lift and celebrate the communities, histories, networks, institutions, creativity, spirit, and strengths of neighborhoods that have long been screwed over and deserve solidarity and reparation is an extremely worthwhile endeavor.

Take for example, the way CityLab’s Brentin Mock describes poet Hanif Abdurraqib’s approach in the New York Times feature “American Road Trip”:

“Abdurraqib introduces and frames each city he visited by how the black people among them are living, in terms of both beauty and struggle. The problems and disparities are present in Abdurraqib’s narrative—gentrification, economic deprivation, disaster, poor protection of queer and trans black folks. But they are carefully couched in tales that speak more to how black people are engaging with and enjoying each other, despite those problems.”

Going Beyond Asset-Based Language

Nonetheless, I was a little skeptical of the framing of this session going in. I wasn’t sure if “asset-based” language was the answer to these problems. Some of the classic examples I’ve seen both didn’t solve the narrative problems and introduced their own. For example, flipping the phrase “at-risk youth” to the phrase “youth eager to learn” in a mission statement is so vague, it’s in danger of being meaningless. Yes, the youth an after-school program works with are absolutely eager to learn and should be honored as such, but so are lots of other kids. Programs that aren’t precise about who they are trying to reach tend to miss their mark in serving the populations who have more obstacles to access.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, using exclusively positive language can have similar kinds of problems with feeding into the “bootstraps” narrative as deficit-based language does—if everything is so great, what’s the problem? Why are we putting resources there? If we don’t name the harm that has been done and assign responsibility, are we really undoing the perception that populations and neighborhoods in trouble brought it on themselves?

General relentless positivity culture has been called out as unhealthy and unhelpful to social justice work, and for good reason.

I was extremely heartened, therefore, to find that the panelists were actually advocating for something much more subtle and powerful than merely using only positive language. They did want us to not lead with negatives when introducing a group of people or a place, and to include those asset-framed stories, which I’m completely on board with, but they weren’t suggesting we pretend there aren’t problems. Their presentation also included a lot of useful communications suggestions about making problems feel solvable and leading with shared values, such as everyone likes to help people achieve their potential. (For more of this sort of thing, see Frameworks Institute.)

However, one particularly part of the approach that the panelists were presenting stood out and seemed to largely resolve the tension I was feeling. And that was their principle “Focus on systems.”

The way to avoid the problem of having the struggles of individual people or places represent something inherent and immutable is to explicitly point out the systems at work—past and present—that cause them. If you’re talking about a problem, use language that reflects that systematic disparities and communitywide problems in fact have systemic causes, that harm has been done, and that these are not self-caused problems, and explicitly describe those systems whenever possible.

“Talk about what the factors are going into the issue,” said Price. “How did we get here? Stats alone don’t tell people why you are sharing that statistic. Don’t forget why you are telling the story.”

She added that when leading with values, we should emphasize values that uphold collective responsibility for solving collective problems. In Frameworks’ work with Enterprise on affordable housing communications, for example, these values included regional interdependence and fairness across places.

“When we focus on the individual,” agreed Ilsa Flanagan of Social Change Strategies, “it’s easy for people to say ‘Why can’t everyone do that?’ Success stories can promote the fallacy of rugged individualism.” Even if you are telling a success story, Flanagan said, take time to spell out the many supports that were required to overcome system-caused obstacles and challenges, and talk about why not everyone can access them.

In fact, when I brought up the question of naming the harm done, Oldham agreed we should, and said that the antidote to blaming the victim was in fact “telling the whole truth.” “Be more specific,” she said. “Yes, it’s more words. Give yourself that space.”

I think this is an extremely important point. It won’t always be easy—we default to commonly understood shorthand for a reason, and I can’t say that I know exactly how to elegantly and succinctly change that in everyday writing. But it’s a goal worth tackling.

Let’s not define people and places by their deficits. But let’s also commit to telling the truth about how those deficits got there.

***

Miriam Axel-Lute is editor of Shelterforce and associate director of the National Housing Institute. She lives in Albany, New York, where she serves on the Community Development Alliance board.

***

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.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Jenny Connelly-Bowen at jenny@communitybuildersstl.org.

Thank you to our 2019 Giving Tuesday donors!

Thank you so much to everyone who donated to CBN on December 3, 2019 for #GivingTuesday!

This was our biggest Giving Tuesday yet, and you were an important part of it.

This work is bigger than all of us and it's only doable when we come together and support each other. Whether or not you were able to donate yesterday, thank you for believing in the power of community with us and for supporting our network with your time, talent, treasure, and friendship, and for challenging us to grow and be better. We couldn't do this without you.

2019 Giving Tuesday Donors

Becky Reinhart
Cindy Mense
Madeleine Swanstrom
Keith Ford
Paul Woodruff

Sara Anderson
Stephanie Co
Susan Bowen
Ted Floros

Applying a Racial Equity Framework to Ending Homelessness in Illinois

Kristin Ginger, Communications Manager, Housing Action Illinois

Bob Palmer, Policy Director, Housing Action Illinois

This column was originally published on the Metropolitan Planning Council’s website.

Kristin Ginger

Black Illinoisans are eight times more likely to experience homelessness than White Illinoisans.

This startling statistic comes from a recently published policy brief by Housing Action Illinois, Black and White Disparities in Homelessness, which analyzes newly available federal data released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Bob Palmer

Although we knew before examining the data that Black people experience homelessness more than White people, it was important to us to find out the severity of the disparity and its geographic scope in order to develop policy responses. We discovered that even among those living in poverty, Black Illinoisans are disproportionately more likely to experience homelessness than White Illinoisans. Black Illinoisans make up 14% of our state population, but 30% of residents experiencing poverty and 59% of residents experiencing homelessness.

The Black-White racial disparity is evident throughout Illinois—in urban, suburban, and rural communities, as well as in communities where few Black people live or where many Black people live. By calculating racial equity severity scores for each region of Illinois, our policy brief contextualizes the HUD data on a state level. Chicago has by far the highest severity of Black-White racial inequity, as it has a high overall rate of homelessness compared to other areas of the state, and those people experiencing homelessness are disproportionately Black. There are other areas with greater rates of racial inequity in homelessness than Chicago, such as northwestern Illinois, but with relatively low rates of homelessness.

While considering data on homelessness, it is important to acknowledge the difficulty of obtaining accurate numbers; it is very hard to know how many people in Illinois are experiencing homelessness at any given moment. There are various definitions of homelessness in use, and understandably, there are people who do not want to share that they lack housing. For our policy brief, we relied on HUD data from federally mandated Point-in-Time counts, a census of sheltered and unsheltered people on a single night.

Although definitions and numbers get muddy, some things are clear: no one should have to experience homelessness, and systemic inequities have led to a large Black-White racial gap in those who do. Decades of segregation and discrimination, as well as a history of vastly unequal government investments, are part of what have brought us to this point. To redress past wrongs, there are steps we can take to dismantle these systems and make progress in ending racial disparities related to homelessness—a necessary step toward ending all homelessness.

To start, we can adopt a racial equity framework for housing initiatives and implementation of services to analyze where policies are impacted by implicit and explicit bias, as well as individual, institutional, and structural racism. Designing policies and targeting spending to promote racial equity in housing is another key component of such a framework.

For example, Illinois’ recent $200 million investment in affordable housing in our state’s first major capital budget in a decade provides an opportunity to put these values into practice. As they determine how to spend these resources, decision-makers should consider the impact on promoting racial equity, including addressing racial disparities in homelessness. One way to do this would be to prioritize these resources for extremely low-income households that need supportive housing (housing combined with additional supportive services) to end their homelessness.

Another key part of using a racial equity framework in an affordable housing context is looking more closely at the impact of the income eligibility guidelines that determine who is able to live in subsidized housing. “Affordable housing” means different things to different people, and common definitions actually have a wide range of affordability. Most programs define affordability based on a certain percentage of the area median family income. For example, serving people who earn 60% of the median family income for the Chicago metropolitan area is a common standard for rental housing programs, including the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Chicago’s Affordable Rental Ordinance (ARO).

However, because the median family income for Black households is generally around half that of White households, available resources do not go as far as they could to address racial inequities. According to recent U.S. Census data, the median family income in the Chicago metropolitan area in 2017 was $83,053.* However, for White families, this figure was $95,446. For Black households, the median family income was $48,047, while the median family income for Hispanic or Latino households was $53,217. Therefore, a significantly lower percentage of families of color can afford the homes created by these programs compared to White households.

The income gap based on race is even starker if one looks just at the City of Chicago. For example, the median family income in Chicago in 2017 was $61,618. For White families in Chicago it was $85,344 and for Black families it was $39,572. There isn’t easily accessible data for the median family income of Black renter families, but undoubtedly it’s even lower. There are programs that are designed to serve families who are extremely low income, such as federal Housing Choice Vouchers, but the resources for those programs fall very short of the need.

Because creating quality affordable housing requires a significant public and private investment, and people with the lowest incomes can afford to pay relatively little rent to contribute to the operating costs of rental housing, addressing racial inequities will be very challenging. If spent with a racial equity framework in mind, Illinois’ recent $200 million capital budget investment will be an important step in the right direction, though a small step within the context of the overall need. We need to look at reprioritizing existing resources within a racial equity framework and ensure that new resources and policies do their best to change a landscape where Black Illinoisans are eight times more likely to experience homelessness than White Illinoisans.

*Data for median family income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars) from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Data for the Chicago metropolitan area only includes Illinois population. The calculations for subsidized housing income eligibility use somewhat different formulas based on special tabulations by HUD.

***

Kristin Ginger joined Housing Action Illinois in 2016 as Communications Manager. She is passionate about making housing policy and programs understandable through storytelling. Previously, she worked in communications and marketing at Women Employed, a Chicago-based advocacy nonprofit that fights to expand employment and educational opportunities for working women. She has also worked in family literacy at a Head Start school, taught ESL classes, and written creative copy for Groupon. She first joined the nonprofit world as an AmeriCorps VISTA at a refugee resettlement agency; during her service year, she interviewed nearly 20 refugees and asylees and compiled their stories for publication in the book This Much I Can Tell You.

Kristin earned her B.A. from Carleton College and completed her M.F.A. in Creative Fiction at Boston University. She is currently a facilitator for the Community Writing Project, an Ambassador for All Chicago, and on the Community Council of the Marjorie Kovler Center.

***

Bob Palmer, Policy Director for Housing Action Illinois, has almost 30 years experience in housing organizing, advocacy, training, and finance.  He joined Housing Action in September 2002. He has spearheaded successful campaigns to create and fund a state rental subsidy program for extremely low-income households, secure money for affordable housing in Illinois’ capital budget for the first time, pass state legislation protecting homeowners and renters during the foreclosure process, and protect state funding for homeless service providers. Recent wins include new rules protecting children in Illinois from lead poisoning and state law protections for homebuyers considering rent-to-own contracts.

Prior to his work at Housing Action Illinois, Bob served as a Policy Specialist with the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, where he led a budget campaign and outreach efforts to address youth homelessness. He also previously worked with Chicago Mutual Housing Network, where he provided training and technical assistance to members of limited equity housing cooperatives.

Bob joined the board of the National Low Income Housing Coalition in 2013. He holds a certificate in Urban Housing Development and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning and Policy from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He earned his B.A. in Psychology from Beloit College.

***

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.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Jenny Connelly-Bowen at jenny@communitybuildersstl.org.

We Should Strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act

Charlene Crowell, Communications Deputy Director, Center for Responsible Lending

This column was originally published in The St. Louis American.

For more than 40 years, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has served as a mechanism for the federal government to hold banks and other depository institutions accountable for meeting the credit needs of low and moderate income (LMI) neighborhoods. Enacted in 1977, the CRA has the power to influence applications for bank mergers, charters, acquisitions, and branch openings.

On October 4, a bicameral group of Capitol Hill lawmakers wrote a letter to federal regulators, making clear the need for CRA to be strengthened—not weakened—under the guise of modernization. The letter also requests hearings on the issue in both the House Financial Services Committee and in the Senate Banking Committee.

Although the lawmakers acknowledged how banking, like so many other industries, has changed over several decades, the thrust of their letter was that any modernization must also reflect CRA’s original intent: to serve all communities with “the types of credit and investment those communities need.”

“Regulators cannot determine how a bank is serving the needs of its local community by relying on a simple ratio or dollar volume metric”, wrote 21 Members of Congress and 8 U.S. Senators. “Instead examiners should review whether banks are reaching the borrowers and neighborhoods that CRA was intended to serve.”

“While it is important that, in the face of new technologies and products, we appropriately assess lenders’ efforts to serve all communities with the types of credit and investment those communities need, it is even more essential that the original purpose of the law not be undermined,” added the lawmakers.

The lawmakers’ concerns are reinforced by worsening income inequality and the growing and persistent racial wealth gap.

For example, a 2018 joint report by the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program and Gallup found that when it comes to race, the economic playing field is far from equal. The Devaluation of Assets in Black Neighborhoods, published last November, zeroed in on homeownership, often the building block for financial stability, wealth accumulation, and how well the credit needs, i.e. mortgages, of a community are being met. This report’s key finding was that owner-occupied homes in Black neighborhoods are undervalued by $48,000 per home on average, a cumulative loss of $156 billion.  

“Laws have changed, but the value of assets—buildings, schools, leadership, and land itself—are inextricably linked to the perceptions of Black people, states the Brookings report. “And those negative perceptions persist.”

More recently and this spring, the Roosevelt Institute, the nonprofit partner to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum and the University of California at Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society collaborated with the Ford Foundation in a multi-phased project on the nation’s nagging racial wealth gap (RWG). Their report states in part, “The research illustrated how solutions that were long assumed to lessen economic inequality—such as equalizing wages and educational opportunities and outcomes—will not actually close the RWG.”

One of the key conclusions reached in the Ford-sponsored research was “[t]he problem is structural and historical, not individual”.

In other words, systemic, long-term approaches—not quick fixes—are essential to achieving racial economic parity. Just as the full faith and credit of the United States backs deposits of these institutions, it seems fair to hold them accountable to serve the entire public—especially consumers and communities that include low-to-moderate income households.

At the same time, it is equally important that federal financial regulators speak and act with a united voice, dedicated to equity and fairness. The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, more commonly known as FDIC, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) must speak and act in unison with financial equity as their ultimate goal. If financial policies can lay the groundwork for broad and sustained economic progress, they will well serve the nation, and begin to address the persistent racial wealth gap.

“Now is the time for consumers, communities, small businesses and others to remind our leaders that CRA is a vital part of our collective economic futures,” said Nikitra Bailey, an EVP with the Center for Responsible Lending. “Access to mortgages, small business loans, and community development capital are just as much a part of CRA as preserving full-service bank branches.”

***

In a career that spans posts in three state capitols and major markets in the Midwest and Southwest, Charlene is an articulate spokesperson and seasoned journalist. As a Smart Growth lobbyist, she has championed affordable housing, land use and transportation. As a communicator, she has served as press secretary to both a state attorney general and mayor, managing strategic and crisis communications over a broad range of public policy developments.

Honored by the Texas Publishers Association and twice by the National Newspaper Publishers Association for her feature and editorial writing, she currently writes a weekly commentary on consumer finance as a standing assignment with the Center for Responsible Lending.

The Charlene M. Crowell Collection, housed at the Calumet Regional Archives at Indiana University Northwest, makes available to scholars and researchers many of her noteworthy government and journalism papers.

***

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.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Jenny Connelly-Bowen at jenny@communitybuildersstl.org.

Segregation and a Path Forward to Inclusion in St. Louis

Henry S. Webber, Executive Vice Chancellor & Chief Administrative Officer and Professor of Practice at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work and the School of Architecture & Urban Design at Washington University in St. Louis

The original version of this article was published on Washington University in St. Louis’ website.

Editor’s note: Segregation and a Path Forward to Inclusion in St. Louis is adapted from an address given during Facing Segregation: Building Strategies in Every Neighborhood, the 2019 annual conference of the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council, on April 12, 2019, at Central Baptist Church, St. Louis, Missouri. This Perspective is presented here through a partnership between the Center for Social Development and the council.

A little over 50 years ago, America declared war on segregation. We’ve learned much during that time. We are now very clear about the negative effects of segregation on those who live in low-income neighborhoods of highly concentrated poverty. In the 1950s and 1960s, we believed that segregation was bad for kids. Now, it is an established fact.

The policy tools available to fight segregation are much better than they were 50 years ago. We now know how to implement policies like inclusionary zoning, how to design community land trusts, and how to ensure fair housing. We have not solved all of the problems of policy design. We need much better tools to promote equitable development in very disadvantaged communities, but we have made progress.

Unfortunately, we have also learned that human psychology makes segregation difficult to solve. As my colleague Jason Purnell notes, we are hard wired to form tribes and to be more comfortable with those like us. We all need to work against our prejudices.

The bad news is that, despite knowing more about segregation now, including that segregation is wrong for America, we have made much less progress in reducing segregation than we would hope and want. We increasingly live in areas where everyone is much like us.

There are many reasons for this lack of progress. Federal public policy has promoted segregation, our own preference to live near people like us is a challenge, and local control of land use, an American norm, makes reform difficult. Land use decisions in the United States are, in almost all cases, made by local communities, regardless of the greater good. Suburban communities across the nation can and do set minimum lot sizes that only allow the building of single-family homes. These are often the communities that also tend to have the best school districts. The result is very little affordable housing and continued segregation of educational opportunity.

But the real problem is public will. We and our allies have not done our job of moving public opinion, nor have we done the political work needed. I have been involved in public policy issues for over 30 years. What I have painfully learned is that politics is more important than policy because, without good politics, there is no room for good policy. National Section 8 policy is made by Congress and the executive branch of the U.S. government. Elections and advocacy determine these decisions. The decision on whether St. Louis City has inclusionary zoning is made by the city’s Board of Aldermen. They work for us.

In stressing how much politics matter, I do not suggest that deciding what to do is easy. People with strong social values and great competence will disagree. Choosing the best tactical approach to engagement is hard. But it is what we must do.

I have one request for all of us today: that we ask three questions about all public policy proposals:

1. Does the proposed policy reduce segregation?

2. If the policy does not reduce segregation, can it be revised to reduce segregation?

3. What can I do to make the proposals I believe in become a reality?

I am realistic; sometimes there will be good reasons to support proposals that do not reduce segregation; reducing segregation cannot be our only goal, but the question should always be asked.

We need to face facts: The St. Louis region has not achieved what it should have achieved in the last 50 years.

We each have our own ways to define success. My criteria for regional success are growth in population, growth in per-capita income, and reductions in the Black–White income gap. On all of these criteria, we are behind most large American cities. We are not at the bottom, but we are below the mean.

But we have made some progress in the last decade. The Cortex Innovation District has become a national model, and the Central Corridor of the City of St. Louis has strengthened considerably. LaunchCode and programs like it are opening the door of the new economy to diverse populations, and we have focused on important and productive ways to advance racial equity. But we are still not where we need to be.

Let me end with a dream for St. Louis. We can move mountains if we, all of us, decide that is what we must do. What if St. Louis dedicated itself to becoming the national model for inclusive growth, growth that benefits all of us: White, Black, and Brown, rich and poor? What if the region put the same efforts into this that we put into building sports stadiums or the interstate highway system? Let us commit together to a nation without segregation and a city of equal opportunity.

***

Henry (Hank) Webber is Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Administrative Officer and a Professor of Practice at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work and the School of Architecture and Urban Design at Washington University in St. Louis.

Mr. Webber oversees a wide variety of administrative and external affairs functions including on and off campus University real estate and facilities, human resources, University operations, information technology and security, with combined operating and capital budgets of over $500M annually and over 1,600 University and contracted staff.  He has joint responsibility with the Provost for information technology and the Chancellor for external affairs.  He also chairs the University’s administrative cabinet.

Since coming to Washington University in 2008, Mr. Webber has led the development of the University’s real estate and sustainability master plans, long-term housing strategy and leads, along with the Provost and Chief Financial Officer, the University budget process. He lead “Campus Next: Enhancing the East End of the Danforth Campus,” the largest capital project in the history of Washington University.  He has played a key role in the development of CORTEX, a 200-acre urban biotech redevelopment effort with 6,000 jobs and over 400 companies.

Outside of his administrative functions at the University, he is Chair of the Board of Directors of Invest STL, the St. Louis region’s community development effort,  the Washington University Medical Center Redevelopment Corporation and CORTEX and on the Boards of Directors of The Downtown Partnership, Provident, RISE, and the Jewish Federation of St. Louis.

Mr. Webber obtained has a Master's degree in Public Policy from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

***

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.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Jenny Connelly-Bowen at jenny@communitybuildersstl.org.

Refugee Resettlement and Community Building Go Hand-in-Hand

Diego Abente, President, International Institute Community Development Corporation

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees estimates that more than 70 million people are currently forcibly displaced. Today, there are 25.9 million refugees (up from 22.5 million in 2016) who have fled their homelands due to a well-founded fear of persecution; are vetted; and have, in some cases, waited decades for a bona fide resettlement opportunity.

In 2016, the White House administration, recognizing the unprecedented global humanitarian crises the world faced, increased the refugee resettlement ceiling to 115,000. Many of the folks who arrived in the U.S. thanks to this increase are now contributing to our economy as loyal employees and budding entrepreneurs, and helping our communities grow stronger as engaged neighbors and close friends.

The refugee crisis is on a world-wide scale, but the contributions refugees make are local and significant. The International Institute of St. Louis, our region’s leading refugee resettlement organization, has helped more than 24,000 families restart their lives here. These proud new Americans are doing their part to move our region forward and helping our community thrive. They are exemplary entrepreneurs, hardworking employees, professors, doctors, and community members. They strengthen our neighborhoods and make St. Louis a better place to live. Data from the St. Louis Regional Chamber shows that the 600 refugee and immigrant-owned businesses we have helped to start or expand since 1999 have contributed to more than $180 million in positive regional economic impact. In addition, in 2017 alone, refugee job placements by the International Institute resulted in $45 million in labor income and $250 million in economic output.

Unfortunately, these important contributions appear to have been overlooked by the current White House administration, which reduced the annual refugee resettlement cap to 45,000 in 2018 and to 30,000 in 2019. These cuts in resettlement numbers have put the lives of thousands of vulnerable people around the world at risk, including religious and ethnic minorities, Afghan and Iraqi allies, and victims of torture. 

The administration is now in the process of setting refugee admissions for 2020 and early reports suggest the administration will propose effectively ending the refugee program by setting the number of refugees admitted to zero.

This is a mistake. Refugees share with us the most important of our cultural values: love of country and family; hope for a better life for our children; desire for a home and a community where we can grow up free and safe. Supporting the refugee program strengthens these values and secures America for future generations.

The International Institute stands strong with other resettlement agencies across the nation, elected officials, and concerned community members in opposition to any further reductions in refugee resettlement. We urge the administration to set a robust resettlement goal. Our economy is strengthened by the presence of refugee communities. Our neighborhoods are more vibrant and resilient when many stories, perspectives, and life experiences are gathered around our shared tables. Our national security is heightened by honoring our international obligations. Our foreign policy options are broadened with resettlement as a tool. The ceiling for refugee admissions should be raised.

We hope that St. Louisans will raise their voices for the voiceless and advocate for the preservation of the U.S.'s time-tested humanitarian refugee resettlement program.

***

Diego Abente is Vice President of Economic Development of the International Institute and President of the International Institute CDC. In his capacities with the Institute he plans, monitors and evaluates the agency’s economic development services, including a micro-lending fund, small business development, Individual Development Accounts, and an urban farm.

Diego also leads the International Institute Business Solutions Center (IIBSC), which provides interpretation and translation services, as well as cultural competency trainings. Diego regularly speaks to and trains community members in the corporate, non-profit, and government space to identify, learn from, and leverage the rich cultural diversity of our society.

Diego has a degree in Law, a Masters in Governance and International Development, and an Executive Masters in Business Administration from Washington University in St. Louis. Prior to joining IISTL, he spent several years managing non-profit programs in Africa and Washington D.C.

***

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.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Jenny Connelly-Bowen at jenny@communitybuildersstl.org.

Community Development at Work: Edison Avenue Lofts in Granite City

From a Haunted House to Home: Shining a Light on Edison Avenue Lofts

What do a former YMCA, haunted house, movie set, and alleged REO Speedwagon venue have in common? All are ways that the property at 2001 Edison Avenue in Granite City have been used. Coming up next in community development for the Metro East is a partnership between CBN member Rise Community Development (Rise), the City of Granite City, and many other organizations. CBN recently had an opportunity to meet with Colleen Hafner of Rise to learn more about the Edison Avenue Lofts project. The former Tri-City YMCA and current city-owned historic building will contain 37 affordable rental units located across from City Hall in the city’s downtown.

After the Tri-City YMCA moved from the Edison Avenue location to a new building in 2004, the property was purchased by the City of Granite City the following year. Tax credits and financing have played a role in securing funding for the project from government and financial institutions. One of the first steps in renovating the building was asbestos removal. Sources of support for the project include tax-increment financing, low-income housing tax credits, historic tax credits, and a grant from the HOME program. 

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program is a federal block grant issued through United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is designed to create affordable housing for low-income households and allows for flexible funding uses. HOME funds are provided by Madison County Community Development and the Illinois Housing Development Authority; they will make construction and permanent financing of the Edison Avenue building possible. 

Funding for the project is also present through partnerships with CBN member financial institutions. Justine PETERSEN is a member of the Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) Coalition, a partnership of eight CDFIs that share a common mission to empower a comprehensively healthy St. Louis community through support for nonprofits, small businesses, and communities facing disinvestment. CDFIs differ from traditional banks and lending institutions in that they provide financial services to underserved areas where traditional lending institutions leave gaps. Both FCB Banks and Justine PETERSEN are playing an important role in making the Edison Avenue Lofts project happen: FCB Banks, a traditional bank, is providing a construction loan and Justine PETERSEN will provide services like financial literacy training and homeownership counseling for future residents of the affordable rental units. 

Affordable housing is central to both this project’s funding and to building strong communities. Housing affordability for counties across the country is determined through a statistic measured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development called area median income (AMI). Area median income marks the point at which half of area families earn less than the amount, and half of area families earn more than the amount. For the fiscal year of 2019, Madison County’s median income for a family of four was $81,309. Housing programs through the Department of Housing and Urban Development must address three levels of affordability relative to the area’s AMI: at or below 30% AMI, between 31% and 50% AMI, and between 51% and 80% AMI. The Madison County Housing Authority is also providing 10 Project-Based Rental Assistance Payment program vouchers, which are a variation of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Costs of the rental units will range from $525 to $750. Altogether, the building will have 25 one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom units. 

Building accessibility for the Edison Avenue project will address not only financial accessibility, but also accessibility for people with disabilities. One of the building improvements will include the addition of an elevator. Four of the 37 total units will be fully ADA accessible, and all units will be visitable by people with disabilities. Although the building was not originally designed with accessibility in mind, renovations will allow a wider range of people to be a part of the building’s community. 

The future site of the building’s accessible entrance

Greater accessibility for people with disabilities is just one way that the Edison Avenue Lofts will offer residents not just a place to live, but also a strong community with a deep connection to the arts. The building’s boiler room will be transformed into art studio space. There will also be an opportunity for an artist-in-residence to live at Edison Avenue Lofts and contribute to Granite City’s arts community, where initiatives like the artist-run Granite City Art and Design District (G-CADD) in the city’s downtown are bringing the community together through art exhibitions and events.

The Edison Avenue building has been bringing people and organizations together for almost 100 years. Since the space was first built in 1924, the building that will be known as Edison Avenue Lofts has had many uses. Soon the lights in the Edison Avenue Building will be on again. The project is a community transformation made possible through support from the government, nonprofits, and financial institutions. The addition of affordable rental units in Granite City at Edison Avenue Lofts will strengthen the Metro East community and provide a place for many people to call home.

Written by Laura Muther, CBN Communications Intern