The PD does CDBG and CDCs
The PD front-pages the effects of national Community Development Block Grant cuts on the city. Becky Gaylord does a good job connecting it to the unique role of community development corporations in Cleveland.
Wendell implies that they got the idea from this post. Nice thought, but I think it’s more likely that the importance of the story is dawning on a number of people at the same time. The fact that the city is starting to thin the herd of neighborhood programs getting CDBG support certainly has something to do with it.
I know a number of folks besides Wendell who think de-funding some CDCs is a good thing, or at least inevitable. I disagree, but it’s hard to argue the point productively without developing a much clearer picture of the city’s unique system for neighborhood services, development, planning and civic participation — the whole integrated apparatus of CDCs, ward councilmen, civic groups, block clubs, neighborhood service and health centers, ward block grant and capital funds allocations, etc., etc.
I think this system works far better, when it’s done well, than most people give it credit for — in fact it’s the envy of neighborhood activists in many other cities. The way the City has deployed CDBG funds, including ward allocations, is a major reason why.
But the whole thing operates on a semi-conscious basis. None of Ned Hill’s colleagues at CSU or Case has ever bothered to study the whole thing, describe it, give it a name in the “reputable literature”. Lots of people kind of know it’s there and work it, but hardly anyone tries to see it whole. So when the funding gets cut or CDCs get crosswise with block leaders or Councilmen, there’s little imperative to settle differences, pull together and keep the whole machine in good working order. (You could argue that understanding this problem and managing it — keeping the machine functional, fueled, and inclusive — is now the defining job responsibility of a “good neighborhood Councilman”. It’s certainly something I use as a voting criterion.)
The slashes in Cleveland’s CDBG resources — together with the pressure on City resources in general — are starting to put this “Cleveland system” to the test, and it will fragment or crumble in some neighborhoods. The possible upside: Maybe more of us will grasp the value of our unique networks and resources, the ways we’ve learned to share power and get neighborhood work done, if we’re forced to confront the possibility of losing them.
Of course it’s always easier to fight to keep what you have, than to get it back once it’s gone.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Thanks for this post, Bill. I remember reading entires books on CDBGs in college policy implementation classes. I remember thinking, duh, it’s amazing that they haven’t always been in place. And now, how many people - what percentage of the public - do you think even knows what that acronym stands for?
October 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
The CDCs have indeed been quite successful, in particular Tremont West Dev. Corp, OCNW, and Famicos on the East Side. But with dwindling population in the city, we certainly don’t need 50 of them!! Some CDCs are filled with slackers and they are slowly being identified and listed for defunding, I’m sure.
In some instances, I’m concerned that CDCs are little more than middlemen.
Many of the CDCs coordinate low-interest loan programs. They take calls and coordinate with the banks. Surely, homeowners could go directly to the bank once a deal is made with the CDC. A middleman is not needed. Same for the free
paint program. Let the City’s Neighborhood Services program handle it.
In the case of the paint program, CDC who are not taking precautions are actually aggravating the lead hazard problem by exposing children to paint chips and flakes.