Laserfiche WebLink
432 Simons, Magner and Baku <br />The role of CDCs in revitalizing urban areas is considerable. According to the <br />Fourth National Community Development Census, conducted by the Urban <br />Institute in 1998, there were 3,600 CDCs nationwide involved in affordable <br />housing and/or community economic and commercial development. During the <br />last four years, CDCs produced 245,000 affordable housing units. By the end of <br />1997, they had cumulatively developed 71 million feet of commercial and <br />industrial space, and their total outstanding business loans amounted to $1.9 <br />billion involving 59,000 businesses (Urban Institute, 1999:5-7). <br />CDCs' affordable housing programs include a broad spectrum of activities that <br />include one or a combination of the following services: housing finance, <br />rehabilitation, new construction, purchase -rehabilitation -sale, emergency home <br />repair, acquisition, homeownership promotion, development of rental units and <br />management. Sixty-nine percent of CDCs are involved in housing rehabilitation. <br />In addition to their affordable housing and community economic development <br />programs, most CDCs are involved in providing a selected number of community <br />services such as youth programs, community organizing, community safety, job <br />training, child care and emergency food assistance. The main sources of support <br />for CDCs' operating expenses and programmatic investment include federal, state <br />and local governments, national intermediaries, foundations, private lending <br />institutions, corporations and religious institutions (Urban Institute, 1999:15). <br />Despite their significant and increasing role in providing affordable housing and <br />community revitalization services, very few published studies quantify the impact <br />of CDCs in the local arena. One important question is to what extent the positive <br />effects of housing on the local economy offset any subsidy costs. In other words, <br />does rehab housing pay its own way? In this study, data from a national sample <br />of ten NeighborWorlcs° Organizations (NWOs), chartered members of the <br />Washington, DC -based Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, were used to <br />examine the fiscal and economic benefits -costs associated with their single-family <br />rehabilitation programs. Collectively, these ten CDCs rehabilitated 334 single- <br />family housing units in conjunction with homeownership promotion programs <br />during 1996-97. <br />The focus of the fiscal (on -budget costs and benefits) and economic impact <br />analysis is the rehabilitation (rehabs) of single-family detached units, specifically <br />excluding multi -family (more than two units) and mutual housing organizations. <br />Fiscal, as used here, means on -budget costs and revenues at the local government <br />level, including all federal pass-through fiends. Thus, any private financing (e.g., <br />first mortgages and their repayment stream) that may play an important role in <br />housing rehabilitation is not considered. All organizations studied were NWOs. <br />This study addresses only moderate and substantial rehabs (over 10% of the post - <br />rehab value of the house), to the exclusion of minor housing rehabilitations. The <br />organizations studied have two primary activities, to assist homeowners in <br />rehabbing their existing units, and to acquire, rehab and transfer units to new <br />occupants, usually new homeowners. <br />12 <br />