Retreat Summary February 22, 2011 2/22/20111Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S

Retreat SummaryFebruary 22, 2011

2/22/2011 1Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S.

Table of Contents

A look at what’s inside.

3 Retreat objectives and expectation

5 Lessons Learned

Cornerstone evaluation, national best practices, sustainable community models and theories

10 Approach to Community DevelopmentTiered approach. Key Strategies, Investor’s Role

30 Next StepsUnderstanding success factors and being candid about our past misses helps us learn how to better serve MI.

31 Meeting Evaluation


Retreat Objectives


Participant ExpectationsCreate future plans for LISC and region

Determine how we can strategically help place matters agencies and neighborhoods move forward

Identify public policy level priorities

Determine how to make systemic changes

Figure out how to build neighborhood capacity to sustain work

Celebrate accomplishments

Determine how to best align with Cities and Counties

Think about how to expand or replicate place matters in other neighborhoods

Determine future of place matters

Learn how to work better Improve the place matters model

Leave a legacy

Learn from best practices, theories and models

Better coordinate investments Align foundations with LISC, CBI and place matters

Identify who is leading neighborhood transformation

Determine how to exit without impacting work

Identify what we have learned and how to benefit from learning

Determine what impact we have had in areas like crime and health

Determine how to evolve place matters

Develop a two year strategic framework


PLACE MATTERS EVALUATIONBEST PRACTICES

MODELS AND THEORIES

Lessons Learned


place matters EvaluationCornerstone provided highlights of lessons learned:

1. place matters has been defined over the last four years to mean “transformational change”

2. place matters – requirements to be successfula. Anchor with neighborhood support organization or community based organization acting as a HUB or go to

organization in a neighborhoodb. NSO/CBO needs to be well-led, of the community, have credibility and can get things done.c. Patient investments; time is needed to achieve resultsd. Flexible resources

3. place matters is a branda. place matters is important but not the only thing you can do in a neighborhood that is worthwhile b. Don’t try to force place matters to do different things in different neighborhoods


place matters EvaluationCornerstone evaluation continued:

1. Public involvement/alignment and public/private partnerships leads to more resources, more neighborhoods, flexibility and political cover

2. place matters investors are building the partnership rolea. Need to influence public policyb. Resource mapping needed


All NeighborhoodsLeveraging of Funds & Resources

Total Dollars Leveraged through place matters

Grants (Lead and Collaborative) 2010

Avondale –

$1,589,000

Covington –

$3,801,655

Price Hill –

$11,013,711*

These dollars were grants (lead and collaborative), dollars

leveraged, fundraising, and donations.

*Includes 7.1M Elberon Project

Neighborhood 2007 2008 2009

Avondale $35,000 $425,000 $396,120

Covington --- $280,000 $5,000,0000

Price Hill --- $2,698,980 $3,157,260

Fundraising


Avondale --- --- ---

Covington --- $3,000 $10,900

Price Hill --- --- ---

Donations


Avondale $5,000 $5,000 $6,200

Covington --- $2,800 $2,800

Price Hill --- --- ---

In-Kind Support/Other


Avondale --- --- $36,500

Covington --- $20,900 $25,100

Price Hill --- --- ---2/22/2011 8Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S.

All NeighborhoodsCommunity Engagement & Diversity Inclusion

Number of Community Volunteers Involved in Neighborhood Strategies

Avondale 2007 2008 2009 2010

Housing --- 100 120

3,129

Youth Development – School-Age --- 50 79

Youth Development – Early Childhood --- 240 360

Financial Stability --- 80 110

Community/ Organizational Involvement --- 3,075 3,314

Covington 2007 2008 2009 2010

Housing 0 20 1,200

5,443

Youth Development – School-Age --- 180 339

Youth Development – Early Childhood N/A N/A N/A

Financial Stability 0 7 10

Community/ Organizational Involvement 1,067 2,109 4,660

Price Hill 2007 2008 2009 2010

Housing N/A 15 1,243

4,399Community/ Organizational Involvement 450 565 1,498

Community/ Organizational Involvement – Santa Maria volunteers 501 585 712

Community Youth Volunteers-Youth/Education CAT N/A N/A 4442/22/2011 9Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S.

Summary and Recommendations: Avondale

• Evidence of Capacity Building in Youth Development. Community Impact in strong in Early Childhood and Health with potential and perhaps evidence for transformational change, particularly if scale up continues and data support continues showing that community benefits are maintained.

• The community was enhanced by significant funding acquired for Health and Community development projects.

• To ensure transformational change for the Avondale community, strategies will need to be increasingly comprehensive to address complex community issues. Services will need to be further integrated to include schools (youth development), government, and social service work. Finally, additional funds will need to be leveraged to broaden the potential for impact.


Summary and Recommendations: Covington

• Positive and steady progress in Housing/Neighborhood Development, Community Engagement, and Youth Development.

• Models are sustainable but scale-up is needed to ensure broader community impact.

• Initiatives are also focused and increasing collaborative to integrate schools and government.

• Recommendations are to strengthen health initiatives and outcomes for early childhood and financial stability.

• Also consider aligning goals to funder priorities to increase sustainability without compromising CGN priorities.


Summary & Recommendations: Price Hill• Santa Maria/PHW is coordinating a number of initiatives in the areas,

with impact and transformational change in early childhood, housing, and community engagement.

• Price Hill’s Center for Financial Stability and health/wellness initiatives are building capacity and have achieved their initial set of goals while working on a number of policy issues aimed at improving quality of life for residents in Price Hill.

• Santa Maria’s/Price Hill’s ability to engage volunteers, partners, as well as to engage funders and leverage dollars has been significant

• Recommendations are to continue to strengthen alignment and to demonstrate effective and replicable models of impact that can be spread to other communities.


Alignment with National Best Practices

United Way Bold GoalsEducationIncomeHealth

Five levers of changeCitizen engagementBest practicesPolicy developmentCohesion Sustainability

HUD Livability PrinciplesProvide more transportation choicesPromote equitable, affordable housingEnhance economic competitivenessSupport existing communitiesCoordinate policies and leverageValue communities and neighborhoods

Sustainable CommunitiesDevelop, Preserve and Invest in the Physical Environment.Increasing Family Income and WealthStimulate Economic Activity, Locally and RegionallyImprove Access to Quality EducationFoster Livable, Safe and Healthy Environments


Increasing AlignmentModel for Developing Shared Outcomes for PM and

Aligning Place Matters Outcomes with Bold Goals

Place Matters Housing Youth/Early Childhood

Financial/Workforce

Health CommunityEngagement

Bold Goals EDUCATION INCOME HEALTH

Avondale

Price Hill

Covington

Rate of foreclosure/Foreclosure prevention

Number of homes sold and/or rehabilitated

*Number/% ready for school

*4th Grade Achievement

* High School Graduation

*% of individuals gainfully employed

**Median income

**Disadvantaged youth

*% overweight

*% having a medical check up within 12 months

*Number/ % rate health as very good or excellent

**% who rate the neighborhood as a desirable place to live

Number of volunteers and new community partners

*alignment with UW Bold Goals **Neighborhood Level indicator tracked over time


Alignment with Regional Initiatives

Agenda 360 Vision 2015 Strive United Way Bold Goals Plan Cincinnati


Exercise

What are we doing well?

Investors/Funding• Collaboration of investors• Longevity of investors• Funder alignment/collaboration is working better• Using LISC resources better• Targeted investments focused in three areas is working; place based strategies are working• Patient philanthropy – commitment to stay at the table• High level of solidarity among funders• Funder’s support of place-based strategy

Alignment and Collaboration• Complimentary strengths leveraged with LISC and CBI• Alignment of organizations• Flexibility – no one person/partner/group has all the answers• Diverse partners working collaboratively• Only community with LISC, NeighborWorks and private funders focusing on the same neighborhoods• Lead Agencies• NSO perspective – initially a shaky start; investment partners open to dialogue;, improved relationships• NSO increased capacity to do work


ExerciseWhat are we doing well?

Community Engagement• Community engagement and organizing are beneficial• Community engagement is key driver of sustainability – renewed leadership

Models and Approaches• More comprehensive approach• Bringing in best practices• Place based focus is expanding• seen progress and evolution in the way we are doing business• Time and space to figure it out and get it right; figuring out our roles• Recognition/awareness and incorporation of neighborhood culture• Comprehensive focus (physical and social)

Other• We are talking about it• Good balance of roles between investors and lead agencies• Recognition that the work has to evolve organically• A lot to be learned from not being successful• More sharing across neighborhoods


ExerciseWhat can be done to improve impact and effectiveness of community development?

Funding• Expand resources at the table• Bring in business community and other non-traditional partners; Find win-wins for corporations and neighborhoods

(example: Quality of Life equals business attraction); direct other private and family foundations to neighborhood investments; engage key Corporate leaders (Duke, P&G, Kroger, Macy’s, etc.) and other foundations

• Create CDFI to finance work/patient capital• Intentional sustainability planning• Figure out funding strategy for long-term sustainability; how funding is allocated; what makes it work; will it be a

political issue as well• Transparency of funder priorities• Creative solutions that work require new money• Connect neighborhoods with resources• Need brain power to show private investors the value of community development products and patient capital• Identify conduit for individuals who what to donate in a different way

Lead Agencies• Increase capacity of lead agencies• Insist on foundation of core competencies• Training• More grass roots involvement at beginning of effort


ExerciseWhat can be done to improve impact and effectiveness of community development?

Expansion and Alignment• Scale to impact in City/region• Pick future neighborhoods carefully; less distressed and smaller places• Build City/suburb connections• Connect higher level strategies• Key stakeholders need to be at the planning table to increase impact• Identify the goals up front

Communications and Marketing• Increased marketing• Increase coordination with neighborhood groups and regional initiatives• Communicating results/successes; tell the story to specific audiences (Corporate, local government, foundations,

etc.); communication within and out; best practice sharing• Better explain long-term process• Communicate what place matters is and what it has accomplished (put accomplishments in context)• Communicate and celebrate the plan and accomplishments


TIERED APPROACHFIVE KEY INTERMEDIARY STRATEGIES

Approach to Community Development


Opportunities To Align Moving Forward

Cincinnati HUD Challenge grant – Unified Development Code

Covington HUD Challenge grant – Downtown action plan

Social Innovation Fund – financial stability Revive 1-75 Lick Run / MSD Communities of the Future Transit Oriented Development (TOD)2/22/2011 21Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S.

Geography of Existing

Efforts


Recommendations Moving Forward

Community development technical support to communities and groups of communities based on their current capacity

Tiered approach based on Indianapolis LISC model

Meets communities where they are and builds from there

Similar to the Covington “pyramid” model


Tiered approach to technical support

Tier 1 - Engagement and operational support for initial community organizing

Tier 2 - Quality of Life Planning, early action projects, and organizational development

Tier 3 - Ongoing implementation support


Support for place matters Communities: 2012-13

Covington and Price Hill • Provide the model for fully functioning communities• Tier three operational support• Continue to fund some organizational capacity, move

programming to other funding streams, and support additional fundraising efforts

Avondale• Continue to support organizational development• Tier two support • Fund organizational start-up, planning and board

development


Five Strategic Roles for Intermediaries

Help city governments shape their community development approach, investments, and strategies

Help institutions and business organizations develop and maintain productive community engagement strategies and relationships

Support ongoing work in place matters neighborhoods Expand comprehensive, place-based support network

into new communities using custom tiered approach Align community development work with important

local and regional initiatives


ExerciseWhat do you like about the proposed approach and strategies?

1. Long-term sustainable change over more neighborhoods

2. Focus on specific issues

3. Public sector request to partner validates model

4. Tiered approach is good

5. Levels of philanthropic involvement

6. Recognition of value CBI/LISC brings

7. Empowering neighborhoods

8. Capitalizes public dollars

9. Draws on best practices

10. Leverages national funding

11. Mechanism for new neighborhood selection2/22/2011 27Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S.

ExerciseWhat are your chief concerns or issues?

1. Don’t want to be used by City to do their work

2. Work stays true to place matters principles

3. Make sure we are serving residents in way that residents want

4. place matters funders will be asked to fund broader vision

5. Needs more Corporate support

6. Protect place matters brand

7. Existing 2011/12 place matters funding stays as planned

8. Capacity of CBI/LISC to take on more work

9. Defining City’s role

10. Project and neighborhood selection criteria

11. Impact of inadvertently supporting unpopular decision

12. Developing a pipeline before sustainability is determined in current neighborhoods2/22/2011 28Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S.

Exercise

What is the investor’s role moving forward?

1. Place matters investors should not be involved in or pay for Tier One work

2. Tier One work should not negatively impact current place matters work

3. Have a “seat’ at the City table to help shape and prioritize public investments and funding requests from investors

4. Help shape public policy

5. Resource mapping (with some concerns)

6. Alignment with City investments

7. Help Avondale new Board

8. Define sustainability

9. Define place matters – what it is and what it’s not


Next Steps


Meeting Evaluation

What did you like?1. Good meeting space2. Preparation materials3. Structure of retreat and

time management4. Outside group input5. CBI/LISC presentation6. Helped focus7. Adequate time to devote

to strategic issues8. More transparency

What would you change?1. Better parking2. Feedback from

neighborhood on process; need to hear from them more

3. Trust level needs to improve with neighborhoods

4. Talk to place matters groups before retreat


Documents

Retreat Summary February 22, 2011 2/22/20111Prepared by Corporate F.A.C.T.S