More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community development corporation capacity
- 1 January 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Housing Policy Debate
- Vol. 9 (3), 497-539
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1998.9521306
Abstract
Community development researchers, practitioners, and funders have recently begun to emphasize the need for community development corporations (CDCs) to build capacity. However, the practice of using the term capacity without carefully defining it allows for a wide range of meanings to be assigned to the term and hinders efforts to study and measure it. Capacity is often defined narrowly in terms of housing production, oversimplifying a complex concept and process. To remedy this shortcoming, we create a framework that views capacity more broadly by dividing it into five components: resource, organizational, programmatic, network, and political. We believe that this more concrete way of thinking about capacity will be particularly useful to practitioners, funders, and policy makers. We apply our definitions to CDCs, particularly those that work with local intermediaries called community development partnerships (CDPs), in order to better understand the role of CDPs in the process of building capacity.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Credit and social capital: The community development potential of U.S. microenterprise programsHousing Policy Debate, 1998
- Microenterprise Programs in U.S. Inner Cities: Economic Development or Social Welfare?Economic Development Quarterly, 1997
- The Cdc Model of Urban Redevelopment: A Critique and an AlternativeJournal of Urban Affairs, 1997
- Networks and nonprofits: Opportunities and challenges in an era of federal devolutionHousing Policy Debate, 1996
- There Aren't Going to Be Any Bakeries Here If There Is No Money to Afford Jellyrolls: The Organic Theory of Community Based DevelopmentSocial Problems, 1994
- The excessive costs of creative finance: Growing inefficiencies in the production of low‐income housingHousing Policy Debate, 1991