1

Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative

Strategic Plan: 2015-2020

Outline

A. Goal of the CSHCDC Strategic Planning Process

B. Existing Conditions

i. Original mission of the CSHCDC

ii. Successes to date

iii. Function

iv. Strengths

v. Weaknesses

C. Environmental Scan

D. 2015-2020 Strategic Plan

i. Vision Statement

ii. Goals

iii. Strategies

E. Resources

i. Funding

ii. External Stakeholders

F. Metrics

G. Conclusion

Appendix A – List of Stakeholder Interviews

Appendix B – List of Municipal Interviews

A. Goal of the CSHCDC Strategic Planning Process

The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative

(CSHCDC) has been in existence for five years. Since that time, the housing market has

changed and new issues have arisen. The goal of the strategic planning process is to

reflect on the Collaborative’s progress, reassess the state of the housing market,

evaluate the structure and long-term sustainability of the Collaborative, and determine

what the Collaborative wants to accomplish in the next 3-5 years. Below is a list of

questions that we hope to answer through this process:

1. Reflect on CSHCDC’s progress

a. Reassess state of the housing market

b. How has the housing market changed since 2008?

c. What is the current state of the housing market subregionally/regionally?

d. How will the priorities of the Collaborative change given the present and

forward-looking economic climate and housing market?

2. Determine what CSHCDC’s vision for the next 3-5 year period and what does

CSHCDC wants to accomplish moving forward

a. What are the metrics for success?

b. What are goals/scope of accomplishments given current economic and

housing climates?

2

c. What are the roles of external partners, MPC, and MMC moving forward and

how do they support these goals and aspirations?

3. Evaluate the structure and long-term sustainability of the CSHCDC

a. What about the Collaborative’s structure has worked well? What hasn’t?

b. What is the ideal structure for the Collaborative?

c. What does financial sustainability mean for the Collaborative?

d. What steps can be taken to make the Collaborative more financially

sustainable?

In order to answer these questions, staff from the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC),

Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) and CSHCDC interviewed a number of

stakeholders including: active member municipalities, inactive member municipalities,

staff from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Cook County,

DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS), BRicK Partners, the South Suburban Land

Bank and Development Authority (SSLBDA), and Regional Housing Partnership (RHP)

members (see appendix for more detail). We also examined data trends to determine

how the housing market in the south suburbs has changed over the years. This report

provides a summary of our findings and a plan for the future direction of the Chicago

Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative.

B. Existing Conditions

i. Original mission of the CSHCDC

The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative

(CSHCDC) formed in 2008 in response to a growing awareness of the need for a more

coordinated response to the subregion’s housing crisis. The southern suburbs were

disproportionally hard hit by foreclosures. In 2010, the Southland had 51 foreclosure

filings per 1,000 mortgageable properties, exceeding rates seen in the region as a

whole and the City of Chicago itself. (Chicago City and Regional Foreclosure Activity

2010) Coupled with shrinking municipal budgets and low staff capacity, the Southland

was forced to rethink its approach to neighborhood stabilization and revitalization. With

assistance from the Regional Homeownership Preservation Initiative (RHOPI) and

partners such as the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and Metropolitan Planning

Council (MPC), the Southland was able to secure funding from The Chicago

Community Trust and Grand Victoria Foundation to hire a shared staff person to work to

address housing challenges on behalf of multiple communities. Collaboration was not

new to southland municipalities, as many had been involved in collective economic

development and legislative efforts through the South Suburban Mayors and Managers

Association (SSMMA). Housing challenges, however, had traditionally been dealt with

on a town-by-town basis. Working collaboratively through a shared staff person based

at SSMMA would allow member municipalities to leverage more funding and the

needed expertise to address foreclosure and vacant property issues.

ii. Successes to date:

Over the last 5 years, the CSHCDC has experienced many successes, including

leveraging a significant amount of funding to support its projects. Listed below are

some highlights of the high level CSHCDC successes to date:

3

Twenty one communities collectively submitted an NSP 1 application, resulting in

almost $9 million in funding from Cook County. Unfortunately, the County ended

up parceling out the award to 11 individual municipalities and excluding the

Collaborative from the process. However, the fact that communities were able

to come together and submit a collective application was a clear early win for

the CSHCDC.

In 2010, SSMMA was awarded a $2.4 Million HUD Challenge Grant. Part of the

award helped the CSHCDC to seed the South Suburban Land Bank and

Development Authority (SSLBDA) and the TOD Loan Fund.

Six South Suburban Communities were awarded $6.6 Million from the

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) to purchase and

rehab or demolish vacant or abandoned homes and to upgarde water-sewer

lines and roads in the vicinty of the targeted housing projects. The award was the

result of a joint application submitted to DCEO by the CSHCDC.

CSHCDC has been the recipient of free staff assistance from the Chicago

Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) through its Local Technical Assistance

(LTA) Program. Projects have included the Homes for a Changing Region housing

policy plan and the development of a Housing Investment Tool.

CSHCDC was part of a successful team application to the Illinois Attorney

General’s Office for National Foreclosure Settlement Funding. The funding award

of $335,536 will be used to work with a team of partners to help the southern

suburbs address the presence of investor-owned small multifamily and single-

family rental properties in the area and increase subregional code enforcement

capacity.

By no means is this list exhaustive, but it clearly shows that the CSHCDC has had great

success attracting funding to the Southland to initiate new policies and programs.

iii. Function:

CSHCDC members and stakeholders were asked to identify what they believe the

function of the Collaborative to be. Responses included:

To identify trends, policy changes, and resources that will impact the south

suburbs

Be a housing thought leader; educate municipalities on best practices and

connect the south suburbs with regional entities

Coordinate and bring together the south suburbs to address housing and

economic development

Provide education and added capacity to low-resource towns

Mobilize regional organizations to meet municipalities’ needs

Create a platform for municipalities to:

– Apply for funding and co-manage grants

– Share ideas and best practices

– Attract new development

– Discuss challenges and take joint action to address them

Overall, interviewees see the CSHCDC as an entity that stays up-to-date on the latest

housing policy innovations and trends, while connecting its members to other

4

organizations that can help address shared municipal challenges. Interviewees have

also seen CSHCDC as an entity that attracts funding and new development

opportunities for its member communities.

iv. Strengths:

Interviewees identified a number of strengths of CSHCDC. Overall, members and

stakeholders see the CSHCDC as an important organization and subregional effort that

should be commended for its success to date, including attracting funding to its

member communities, providing a platform for municipalities to brainstorm and analyze

solutions to common housing challenges and connecting the Southland to regional

organizations that can provide expertise and resources. Noted strengths of the

CSHCDC included:

Opens up new funding channels and supports joint applications for state and

federal resources

Secures philanthropic, County, State, and federal resources to think through

policy challenges

Creates opportunities for information sharing and collaboration between

municipalities and potential local and regional partners

Vehicle for innovation, such as the GIS Consortium and the South Suburban

Land Bank Authority (SSLBDA)

Strong alignment of vision and values between CSHCDC and SSMMA, SSLBDA,

and TOD Fund

Local and regional credibility with strong municipal buy-in

Cook County views the CSHCDC as a reliable representative of the region and a

worthy investment

South Suburban Mayors and Managers (SSMMA) staff are well-respected and

connected in the communities they work in; their understanding of local policies

and practices is critical to the Collaborative’ success

Overall, members and stakeholders can see the value in the CSHCDC and would like it

to continue to operate moving forward.

v. Weaknesses:

Despite it strengths, interviewees identified a number of areas of improvement for the

CSHCDC. Overall, member municipalities and stakeholders recognize that there are a

limited number of staff at CSHCDC and SSMMA, and that staff capacity needs to be

added in a few specific areas. Over the last 5 years, the MMC and MPC have provided

a substantial amount of assistance to the CSHCDC when applying for both

philanthropic and capital grant programs. In order for the CSHCDC to be sustainable in

the long-term, its fundraising and grant management capacity needs to be

strengthened. In addition, both members and stakeholders recognized that the

CSHCDC needs to clearly define its role and specific responsibilities related to other

organizations in the Southland, such as the SSLBDA and TOD Loan Fund.

Other areas for improvement included:

Need active involvement across Collaborative towns to yield greatest benefits;

specifically, a large portion of the 23 Collaborative municipalties do not attend

5

the monthly meetings and participate in projects, which reduces the

effectiveness of the organization overall

Need a clearer communications and marketing strategy to attract developers,

realtors and investors

Uncertain buy-in from some state and federal agencies (i.e. grants often do not

allow Collaborative entities to apply)

Collaborative could benefit from additional capacity to manage its data

projects, including the Atlas tool and GIS Consortium, and it was suggested that

CSHCDC engage data expert organizations when embarking on data projects

moving forward.

Collaborative needs additional organization capacity and technical expertise

relating to:

– Implementation of coordinated programs

– Administration and management of large grants

– Development and rehab of homes

The input received through the strategic planning process was taken into consideration

when crafting the goals and strategies for the CSHCDC moving forward.

C. Environmental Scan

An important part of the strategic planning process is identifying how the housing

market has changed since the Collaborative’s inception five years ago. The team

looked at a number of indicators to understand which issues should be focused on

moving forward. Many of the findings below speak to the strained housing market and

slow economic recovery that still exists throughout the Southland. Housing values in

much of the subregion are still well below 2000 levels, and a large percentage of low-

and moderate-income households are housing cost burdened, paying over 30% of their

income toward monthly owner costs/gross rent. Foreclosures and long-term vacancy

have also been persistent challenges, although filings have decreased significantly in

the last year which is a positive sign. However, with property values slow to rebound,

investor owners have entered into housing markets throughout the south suburbs and

many member municipalities are concerned that they are showing little interest in

making positive, long-term investments in these communities. Overall, the data shows

that many of the issues that the Collaborative came together to originally address are

still present today. This is not to say that the Collaborative has not had success in its

efforts; simply put, the resources available to address these issues have not been nearly

enough to make a sizeable impact on the crisis. Moving forward, the CSHCDC should

continue to focus on developing and implementing collaborative strategies that the

results of the foreclosure crisis and the increased presence of investor owners in the

subregion. The graphs below show data that was examined through the strategic

planning process in order to determine the health of the housing market in the southern

suburbs.

6

$51,637

$62,366$60,560

$80,514

$34,044 $34,927

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

SSMMA MSA (Chicago, Joliet, Naperville)

Me

dia

n H

ou

seh

old

Inco

me

Geography

Median Household Income by Tenure

All Households

Owner Occupied

Renter Occupied

Source: 2012 ACS 5-Year Estimates

Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers

Using the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville MSA as a point of comparison, median household

income by tenure illustrates the financial health of home owners and renters. Data

shows that homeowners across the Southland have significantly lower incomes than

those around the region. The fact that homeownership in the south suburbs is attainable

for households with a wider range of incomes could be an indication of low housing

values. Southland renters, on the other hand, have similar incomes to the rest of the

region.

7

Source: 2012 ACS 5-year Estimates

Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers

Households that are housing cost burdened are defined as those paying 30% or more of

their income toward monthly owner costs/gross rent. This spending includes both

housing (rent or mortgage) and housing-related costs, such as property taxes,

insurance, and utilities. Housing cost burden is greatest amongst low- and moderate-

income households but prevalent across all income levels. Housing cost burden is

greater for renters making less than $35,000, and greater for homeowners making more

than $35,000.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

% o

f H

ou

seh

old

s P

ayin

g 3

0%

or

Mo

re o

f In

com

e

Tow

ard

Mo

nth

ly O

wn

er

Co

sts/

Gro

ss R

en

t

Household Income

Housing Cost Burden

Rental Households

Owner Households

8

Source: HUD PD&R and 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Includes the following HUD programs: Public Housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, Mod

Rehab, Section NC/SR, Section 236, Multi-family Other, and LIHTC

Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers

The number of assisted housing units speaks to the investment by the federal

government in creating affordable housing options for moderate- and low-income

households. Subsidized housing is a sizeable share of the total affordable housing stock

in our region. The percentage of assisted housing units as a total of all housing units for

both SSMMA and the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville MSA is just above 7%.

10,780 254,471

128,136 3,176,288

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SSMMA MSA

% o

f To

tal H

ou

sin

g U

nit

s

Geography

Assisted Housing Units

Housing Units Receiving NoAssistance

Assisted Housing Units

9

Source: HUD Location Affordability Index

Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers

Regional Median Income (RMI): Household Size= 2.7, Income $60,574

RMI refers to full Chicago-Naperville-Joliet IL, IN, WI metro area (including portions

of Wisconsin and Indiana).

Transportation costs often make up a considerable portion of household expenditures,

and have added a new dynamic to affordability in our region. Some households that

are not housing cost burdened are now finding their monthly budgets stretched thin

due to high transportation costs. Both renters and home owners at RMI are spending

well above 45% of their income toward housing and transportation costs, highlighting

the need for affordable housing and public transit options in the Southland. Housing

and transportation costs as a percentage of household income are significantly higher

for homeowners than for renters.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

H&T H&T Own H&T Rent

% H

ou

seh

old

Inco

me

To

war

d H

ou

sin

g an

d

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Co

sts

Housing and Transportation Costs

Housing and Transportation Costs

RMI

80% RMI

10

Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies

Geography: South suburban subregion

Housing values in the Southland are beginning to show some signs of recovery, but

housing values in two out of four south suburban submarkets are significantly below

2000 levels. Low housing values will make it harder for the Southland to attract new

investment to its communities. It’s also likely that many homeowners are underwater on

their mortgage.

In comparison, housing values in Cook County are beginning to rebound, and most

areas have experienced nominal price appreciation since 2000. Single-family home

prices increased 20% from the first quarter of 2000 compared to the fourth quarter of

2013. However, struggling submarkets like those found in the graph above illustrate why

it has been so difficult for housing prices in Cook County to fully recover.

Source: http://www.housingstudies.org/dataportal/info/2013-housing-market-

conditions-report/

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

% C

han

ge in

Ho

usi

ng

Val

ue

s

Year (Quarter 4)

% Change in Housing Values Since 2000 (Seasonally Adjusted)

Orland Park/ Tinley Park

Oak Forest/ Midlothian

Calumet City/ Harvey

Chicago Heights/ Matteson

11

Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies

Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers

Foreclosure filings peaked in 2010 and remained elevated through 2012. In 2013, filings

took a large dip and for the first time in 6 years and dropped below 2006 levels.

DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS) notes that new foreclosure filing activity

decreased significantly between 2012 and 2013 in all markets, not just the south

suburbs. This can be seen as positive sign that homeowners are facing less economic

hardship than they did previously. However, a 2013 market conditions report released

by IHS points out that despite recent declines in new foreclosure filings, persistent and

high levels of foreclosure activity have left certain areas weak and significantly

foreclosure distressed. One of the significantly foreclosure-distressed areas includes

municipalities in south Cook County.

Source: http://www.housingstudies.org/dataportal/info/2013-housing-market-

conditions-report/

Cook County as a whole follows a similar trend to that of the Southland. After reaching

a peak of over 48,000 residential foreclosure filings in 2010, and with filings remaining at

about 40,000 in 2011 and 2012, the County saw a dramatic drop in 2013 to fewer than

24,000 filings. Even though these trends are promising for Cook County and the

Southland, South Cook has had the largest number of foreclosure filings per year of any

region in suburban Cook County since 2011.

Source: IHS Data Portal

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# o

f Fo

recl

osu

re F

ilin

gs

Year

Total Residential Foreclosure Filings

12

Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies

Geography: South Cook

Properties in the Southland vacant for longer than 24 months peaked in 2013 and

declined slightly in 2014, although the 2014 rate is still higher than it was in 2010. Both

South Cook and Cook County show a steady increase in the long-term vacancy rate

starting in 2010, which begins to level off between 2013 and 2014. Comparison data for

Cook County shows long-term vacancy rates below those of South Cook. In the first

quarters of 2013 and 2014, Cook County’s long-term vacancy rate was 2.5%, up from a

low of 1.7% in the first quarter of 2010. Although foreclosure filings have recently

decreased in the south suburbs, municipalities are still struggling with vacant property

issues. Source: IHS Data Portal

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ad

dre

sse

s V

acan

t 2

4+

Mo

.

Year (1st Quarter)

Long Term Vacancies in South Cook

13

Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies

Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers

Business buyers as a percentage of all residential sales in the Southland has been

climbing since 2010, and is over 20 percentage points higher than it was in 2006. In 2013,

29.2% of all residential sales were made by business buyers. All of suburban Cook

County and the City of Chicago have seen increases in the percentage of residential

properties sold to business buyers between 2012 and 2013. In 2013, 19.2% of all

residential properties in Cook County were sold to business buyers, an increase of over

11% since 2006. IHS points out that business buyers represent a range of investor types

from small mom-and-pop investors to large Wall Street-traded equity funds. These large

institutional investors are often purchasing lower-value and foreclosure-distressed single

family properties to convert to rental housing – the next graph examines this property

type in greater detail (source: http://www.housingstudies.org/dataportal/info/2013-

housing-market-conditions-report/). South suburban municipalities have expressed

concern about whether investors will be good community partners and maintain

quality rental properties.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bu

sin

ess

Bu

yers

in T

ota

l Sal

es

(Pe

rce

nt)

Year

Business Buyers of All Residential Sales

14

Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies

Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers

Investor-Owners Business buyer sales in the Southland have steadily increased since 2006, making up

over 31% of all single-family home sales in 2013. 1,300 single-family homes in Cook

County were bought in 2013 by the institutional investor Blackstone, the leading

purchaser of homes in the County and one of the world’s largest private equity firms.

The latest data from IHS shows that 19.8% of single-family homes in Cook County sold in

2013 went to business buyers. However, acquisitions have slowed over the last year.

Purchases of single-family homes in Cook County by the largest investors in the first

quarter of 2014 were down 63% compared to the same time in 2013. Source:

http://www.housingstudies.org/news/blog/examining-patterns-concentrated-

institutional-inve/

In conclusion, a review of these data shows that there is still a need for collaborative

action in the Southland to address the issues that the municipalities came together to

address in the first place. In addition to reducing the impact of foreclosures and

vacant property, the CSHCDC will want to focus on making sure new investment

benefits local communities and that current residents have access to a variety of

housing options appropriate for their income level. While foreclosure activity may be

declining, vacant property challenges have increased and should addressed moving

forward. The next section of the report addresses these issues in greater detail.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bu

sin

ess

Bu

yers

in T

ota

l Sal

es

(Pe

rce

nt)

Year

Business Buyers of Single Family Homes

15

D. 2015-2020 Strategic Plan

The section below outlines the vision and goals of the CSHCDC and the strategies that

will be needed to reach that vision.

i. Vision statement:

By 2020, the Chicago Southland will be a stable, thriving region that is pursuing housing

investment and revitalization strategies that support subregional economic

development activities and ensure that limited public and private capital is being

deployed strategically to advance local and regional goals.

In order to achieve this vision, the Chicago Southland Housing and Community

Development Collaborative will build its member municipalities’ capacity to address

pressing housing and community development challenges related to neighborhood

stabilization, foreclosure and vacant property issues, while supporting larger SSMMA

economic development activities.

ii. Goals:

From this vision, the following goals have been developed for the Collaborative:

1. Identify shared housing challenges through tracking relevant data trends

2. Propose interjurisdictional initiatives and/or policy innovations to address these

housing challenges; designing and pursuing implementation strategies

3. Convene member municipalities, developers and the local and regional

nonprofit community to develop and support these subregional housing

strategies

4. Serve as a single-point of entry for government agencies and private actors

related to housing issues

5. Educate member municipalities on lessons learned from the Collaborative’s

activities and best practices from around the region and nation

6. Pursue funding to sustain the Collaborative’s operations and implement its

programs; increase internal grant management capacity

iii. Strategies

In order to achieve the vision and goals, CSHCDC needs to pursue a number of

strategies. Many of these strategies are a continuation of work that has already started.

CSHCDC has made great strides in the last 5 years and it should continue with a specific

focus on housing strategies that support broader economic development efforts of the

SSMMA. The Collaborative should implement housing programs and policies that

support transit-oriented development (TOD), job access and growth, neighborhood

stabilization and subregional economic development priorities. It will be important to

continue to pursue activities related to foreclosures and vacant property. The following

implementation activities were identified through the strategic planning process:

1. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

a. Convene the Loan Fund and Consortium team that consists of Enterprise

Community Partners, Chicago Community Loan Fund, MPC, and Center

16

for Neighborhood Technology to continue identify policy challenges and

potential developments on a biweekly basis.

b. Identify potential TOD sites for redevelopment, undertake site analysis to

identify potential challenges, engage municipal staff and leadership, and

work with Enterprise Community Partners to outreach to housing

developers interested in developing these sites.

c. For developers that approach the TOD fund for capital on their own

accord, the Collaborative will utilize SSMMA’s Housing Investment Tool to

confirm that the development meets local and regional goals around

location efficiency.

d. Continue educating and promoting transit-friendly housing and retail

development as a redevelopment model to municipalities and

developers across the region and with key government leaders who set

policy and funding priorities; ideally the Southland TOD Loan Fund is a

revolving fund that has its own momentum.

e. Enterprise Community Partners will undertake site development work in

Blue Island, Richton Park and Olympia Fields that will further this activity

and goal.

Meets Goals: 3, 4

2. Housing Plus

a. The Housing 'Plus' Model, A Live, Learn, Earn Initiative is an effort to create

affordable and workforce housing that is close to transit, retail, recreation,

health care, day care, and government services. The model aims to

create opportunities for education, job training and entrepreneurial

activities, anchoring interdisciplinary community and economic

development for the specific property and for the Chicago Southland

more broadly. The broader Live, Learn, Earn Initiative will also facilitate

access to workforce development, and a range of social and health care

services. The Housing Plus developments will provide the community

entrepreneurs with access to the manufacturing "fab labs," via a well-

designed building and training program.

b. Work to secure planning funds to build a Housing Plus pilot team, with the

goal of creating a replicable model for municipalities and subregional

collaborations.

c. Build a partnership with developers, employers, local service providers,

educational institutions and others to further the Housing Plus model.

d. Educate member municipalities about the Housing Plus model and

encourage them to utilize this model in their own communities. Assist

municipalities in raising funds for Housing Plus developments.

Meets Goals: 2, 5

3. Attracting Investment

a. Develop a marketing plan for the south suburbs that highlights the area’s

livability, transit access, and other amenities; a robust marketing plan will

help reshape the negative public image of the south suburbs and will help

with outreach to potential homeowners, families, and others interested in

living, developing, or opening businesses in the Southland.

17

i. The Collaborative should revisit the marketing plan created for the

CSHCDC by Jason Sherman and determine which

recommendations can be implemented. Seek funding for those

activities that need financial support.

ii. Hold a roundtable event/collaborative meeting to allow

municipalities to share their existing strategies around marketing;

include realtors and possibly local businesses and Chambers of

Commerce in the discussion.

iii. Continue to coordinate marketing activities with NHS.

b. Work with municipalities to standarize their development approval

processes and share theses processes with developers. Use lessons

learned from the Regional Transportation Authority and Chicago

Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s local technical assistance and share

widely with Collaborative municipalities. Continue to promote CSHCDC as

the “first point of entry” in the region and a partner that is familiar with

local development goals.

c. Attract development partners that will build market rate housing in the

south suburbs.

Meets Goals: 3, 4, 6

4. Data

a. Improve the SSMMA’s Atlas GIS system so that regional and municipal

governments are able to regularly use the database for their planning

and development and work

b. Work with DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS) and other MMC AG-

funded partners to create a intermunicipal database that tracks property

conditions and landlord behavior. Determine if/how this database will be

integrated with Atlas.

c. Consult with DePaul Institute for Housing Studies, Woodstock Institute, and

other regional actors to ensure that the Atlas GIS system and any other

data implementation projects are following best practices and aligned

with other data efforts taking place around the greater Chicago area.

Meets Goal: 1

5. Vacant land

a. Continue to partner with and support the South Suburban Land Bank and

Development Authority by:

i. Assisting the SSLBDA in identifying and pursuing grants to acquire

and rehab vacant buildings (e.g. gathering information from

municipalities, assisting with writing, etc.).

ii. Provide the SSLBDA with property analysis information from GIS Atlas

in order to assist in developing priorities for redevelopment areas.

b. Work with the numerous National Foreclosure Settlement grantees in the

Southland to ensure coordination between grantees and with local

municipalities; help grantees focus and direct their housing counseling

and rehabiltiation funding to targeted communities and priority areas

across the Southland to achieve greater impact.

Meets Goals: 2, 4

18

6. Employer-engagement

a. Once Spanish Coalition for Housing is officially the Southland’s EAH

counselor, the Collaborative can work with MPC to establish an employer

outreach strategy and determine a list of potential employers.

b. Make introductions and invite employers to the outreach and education

events; distribute invitation materials (letters, emails, flyers) to local

employers.

c. Assist MPC with planning and hosting an annual outreach event (i.e.

breakfast) or one-on-one meetings with communities and their key

employers.

Meets Goals: 2

7. Homeownership

a. Serve as the liason between Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) and

the SSLBDA and Cook County Land Bank Authority in order to connect

potential homeowners to recently rehabilitated homes .

b. Continue to facilitate the relationship between municipalities and NHS by

communicating local municipal goals to NHS and coordinating outreach

activities.

Meets Goals: 2, 3

8. Rental Housing Quality

a. Work with MMC AG-funded partners, including MPC and the Center for

Community Progress (CCP), to develop strategies to ensure that existing

investor landlords are maintaining high quality rental properties and being

a positive community partner.

Meets Goals: 1, 2, 5

9. Municipal Capacity

a. Work with MMC AG-funded partners to create a pilot program that aims

to increase municipal code enforcement capacity. Once pilot is up and

running, share best practices and lessons learned with other SSMMA

municipalities and assist in guiding other municipalities that may want to

participate in similar efforts.

b. Bring in experts to discuss issues of interest with member municipalities and

hold trainings to increase local knowledge of how to address housing

challenges (e.g. vacant property panel)

c. Consider creating a “buddy system” or pool of volunteers for

Collaborative members that pairs higher capacity municipalities with

lower capacity municipalities and allows for municipalities to share lessons

learned and assist with areas of need.

Meets Goals: 2, 5

10. Sustainability

a. CSHCDC currently operates through indirect financial and office support

from SSMMA , philanthropic grants that are raised and managed by the

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus and Metropolitan Planning Council, and

19

funding from government awards like the HUD Challenge Grant and the

National Foreclosure Settlement Award. Over the past 5 years, key

philanthropic funders have included: The Chicago Community Trust,

Grand Victoria Foundation, the Field Foundation and JP Morgan Chase

Foundation. It is likely the Collaborative will always need to rely on some

level of foundation support. However, as these funders begin to reduce

and/or cut off their support, the Collaborative will need to explore other

funding solutions moving forward.

i. Explore integrating an additional fee into the SSMMA municipal

due structure to raise revenues for housing and community

development programs.

ii. Pursue funding opportunities through local and national banks,

including Bank of America, Wells Fargo and local community

banks.

iii. Consider having a special membership level for Collaborative

communities that want to voluntarily contribute funds and provide

extra acknowledgement for those communities in communication

materials.

b. Historically, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus has served as fiscal agent to

the Housing Collaborative and played a large role in fundraising efforts.

The Caucus will continue to serve this role for existing grants and any other

grants that are pursued in collaboration with the West Cook County

Housing Collaborative. However, any new sources of funds, particularly

fundraising efforts that involve municipal dues should be managed by

SSMMA.

i. The goal should be that SSMMA will manage all Collaborative

grants internally in three years.

ii. There needs to be continued discussion moving forward about how

to increase SSMMA’s capacity to attract and manage grants in

order for this transition to be successful. This discussion lies

somewhat outside the scope of this strategic planning process but

will be important to its success. MMC and MPC remain committed

to assisting SSMMA in resolving this issue.

Meets Goal: 6

11. Structure

a. Currently, SSMMA municipalities may join the CSHCDC by passing a

resolution which appoints a staff member to serve on the Housing

Collaborative Committee. The CSHCDC Committee meets monthly with

the Housing Coordinator leading the agenda. Moving forward, more time

and resources should be spent to better engage elected officials in the

activities of the Collaborative to ensure ongoing buy-in.

i. Over the last year, a Mayor has started serving as the liason

between the Housing Collaborative and the SSMMA Executive

Committee. This structure should remain the same moving forward.

ii. The Collaborative could also consider having an annual meeting

with mayors to update them on activities and get their feedback

on new initiatives to pursue. There is a possibility this meeting could

20

serve as a small fundraiser for the Collaborative and other parters

could be invited. Staff will need to consider the amount of work

involved before making a commitment to this activity.

b. The Collaborative should make an effort to increase both non-member

and member municipalities’ participation in meetings and activities.

c. CSHCDC staff are housed at SSMMA and currently include the Housing

Coordinator and a Planner. Additional staff capacity will likely be needed

moving forward in order to increase the Collaborative’s capacity to

attract and manage grants and conduct effective communications. The

CSHCDC will need to work closely with SSMMA on this staffing issue

moving forward.

Meets Goal: 5, 6

12. Communication

a. The CSHCDC website should be revamped to be more user-friendly, and

a more robust communications plan should be set in motion as a quality

control measure for Collaborative communications materials.

b. The Collaborative will need to build its staff capacity to manage its

marketing and communications materials moving forward.

Meets Goals: 4, 5

E. Resources

i. Funding

The CSHCDC has primarily relied on philanthropic funding to support the staffing

needed for its day to day operations, which include a Housing Coordinator position (i.e.

Deputy Executive Director of Housing at SSMMA) and a supporting Planner position.

Major CSHCDC funders have included The Chicago Community Trust, Grand Victoria

Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation and the Field Foundation. In addition, the

CSHCDC has attracted government grants to support its staff, including grants from

Cook County, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of

the Illinois Attorney General. Current philanthropic funding is listed below:

Chicago Community Trust (expires July 2015) - $5,460

JP Morgan Chase Foundation (expires November 2015) - $22,500

IL Attorney General National Foreclosure Settlement Funds (expires February

2016) - $127,844

Of this funding, $68,158 is available for the Housing Coordinator position. The CCT and

Chase grants broadly support development activities that relate to strategy 1 on transit-

oriented development. Both grants can also support any additional

projects/implementation activities that result from this plan. The IL AG Grant provides

funding for a code enforcement pilot project that supports strategies 4, 8 and 9.

21

SSMMA manages additional government grants that are available to support a portion

of the Coordinator and Planner positions over the coming year. An additional IL

Attorney General Grant awarded to the SSLBDA has funding set aside for funding for

CSHCDC staff to assist with strategy 5 around vacant land. Although there does not

appear an immediate gap in funding to staff the Collaborative, it is likely that there will

be a gap once the grants listed above begin to expire. SSMMA staff will need to work

closely with the MMC (as fiscal agent to philanthropic grants) to monitor the program

budget and determine when new funding will need to be raised. Additional funding

may be needed in order to staff up to execute some of the strategies listed in this plan.

ii. External Stakeholders

Forging relationships with external stakeholders has allowed CSHCDC to bring

additional resources, knowledge and expertise to the south suburbs. External

stakeholders have also relied on CSHCDC, viewing the Collaborative is as a central

point of contact for south suburban municipalities and an expert on local priorities and

goals. The CSHCDC should continue to engage with the following partners moving

forward as it advances it vision and goals:

1. Community and Nonprofit Organizations

a. DePaul Institute for Housing Studies (IHS)

i. The IHS data portal can serve as an important resource in data

collection efforts for metrics related to foreclosure, renter and

ownership patterns, and other key housing and economic

development indicators and trends.

ii. IHS is in a position to answer important policy questions that inform

and can help direct the Collaborative’s work.

b. National Housing Services of Chicago (NHS)

i. Through homeownership counseling and foreclosure prevention

training, NHS can aid the Collaborative’s efforts in working with

residents across the south suburbs to stem the tide of foreclosures.

ii. NHS can also assist the Collaborative and SSLBDA in getting

qualified homeowners into rehabbed homes.

c. The following nonprofit organizations can help with education and

implementation of housing best practices and strategies around the

region: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI), the

Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Community and Economic Development

Association (CEDA).

d. The Regional Housing Partnership (RHP) is going through its own strategic

planning process this year. CSHCDC should remain involved in any

relevant activities that come out of this process.

2. Regional and State Governments

a. Cook County and CMAP

i. The Collaborative should continue to act as an intermediary in

guiding future funding and programs sponsored by the County and

CMAP.

b. Illinois Housing Development Authority

i. The Collaborative should continue to advocate that funding

programs coming out of IHDA be interjurisdictional in their

22

appproach and allow for multiples communities to submit one

application.

3. Realtors, developers and investors

a. The Collaborative should continue its recent efforts to partner with Realtor

organizations and encourage local realtor representatives to attend

Collaborative meetings.

b. CSHCDC should engage both developers so that they better understand

the potential housing and redevelopment opportunities in the south

suburbs

4. Banks

a. Along with the SSLBDA, attend meetings and build relationships with banks

and financial instiutitons to raise funding that supports community and

economic development initiatives.

Aside from the stakeholders listed above, the MMC and MPC should continue to play a

technical assistance role in advancing CSHCDC’s workplan, but the role of both

organizations should be more focused moving forward. MMC and MPC will to develop

the Collaborative’s annual workplan activities and ensure that those activities are

aligned with this strategic plan. The MMC will continue to remain involved in activities

that are of interest to its broader membership. Currently, those activities include those

funded through the AG grant, including increasing code enforcement capacity

through intermunicipal service sharing, landlord incentives and data sharing. MPC is

interested in engaging the development community to support the South Suburban

Community Development Loan Fund and South Suburban Land Bank Authority as they

pursue the objectives of the Sustainable Communities Challenge grant. MPC plans to

continue meeting biweekly with SSMMA and the TOD partners to advance these goals.

Additionally, MPC is part of the code enforcement team and will support the

Collaborative’s efforts to improve housing quality in single-family rental properties. Both

organizations will continue to play a role in connecting the Collaborative to larger

policy audiences.

F. Metrics

Establishing metrics for success to evaluate the Collaborative over the next 5 years is an

important component in understanding the reach, effectiveness and impact that the

Collaborative is having on its member communities. The metrics will be used to engage

CSHCDC stakeholders and funders in a deeper conversation about the value add of

working through a collaborative model. Below are metrics for success developed to

evaluate fundraising and financial sustainability, community revitilization and recovery,

and municipal participation and engagement:

1. Fundraising and financial sustainability

a. Grants applied for

b. Grants approved for

c. New contacts made

d. New requests made

e. Other funding sources established

23

2. Revitalization and recovery

a. Number of newly constructed homes

b. Number of rehabbed homes

c. Number of demolished homes

d. Value of real estate

e. Total residential foreclosure filings

f. Percent of properties vacant for longer than 24 months

3. Municipal participation and engagement

a. Meeting attendance

b. How often are municipalities connecting with Collaborative and taking

advantage of resources that it has to offer?

c. On what and how often is Collaborative sharing best practices?

G. Conclusion

Overall, the Strategic Plan shows the value of the CSHCDC and reiterates the

importance of its past activities and initiatives. The Environmental Scan clearly shows a

need for municipalities in the southern suburbs to continue their efforts to collaborate

on creating new policies and programs to address their collective housing challenges.

The Collaborative should continue to pursue activities that address foreclosure and

vacant property issues while also connecting its housing initiatives to the broader

economic development goals of SSMMA. In order for the Collaborative to be

successful, however, the issue of sustainable funding and organizational and staff

capacity must be addressed. The Chicago Southland Housing and Community

Development Collaborative has been featured in national and regional publications for

its innovation; continuing to raise awareness and implement new policies and strategies

should be balanced with the pressing need to create a stable institution committed to

housing in the Southland.

24

Appendix A: List of Stakeholder Interviews

Name Organization

Russ Rydin South Suburban Land Bank Authority

Andrew Williams Clark Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Bob Dean Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Kendra Smith Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Jonathan Burch Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Geoff Smith DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies

Dominic Tocci Cook County, Bureau of Economic Development

Jane Hornstein Cook County, Bureau of Economic Development

Robin Snyderman BRicK, LLC

Ed Paesel South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association

Adam Gross Business People for the Public Interest (BPI)

Stacie Young Preservation Compact

Becca Goldstein Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago

John Gerut IFF

Katie Buitrago Woodstock Institute

Spencer Cowan Woodstock Institute

Appendix B: List of Municipal Interviews

Name Organization

Gary Gerdes City of Oak Forest

Regan Stockstell Village of Richton Park

David Mekarski Village of Olympia Fields

Mark Miller City of Blue Island

Nicholas Crite City of Blue Island

Ernestine Beck-Fulgham Village of Robbins

Hildy Kingma Village of Park Forest

Mayor John Ostenburg Village of Park Forest

Gary Holcomb Village of Sauk Village

Karen Kreis Village of Midlothian

Ryan Franklin Village of Matteson

Pat Mahon Village of South Holland

Kristi DeLaurentis Village of Lansing