Avis C. Vidal
Professor
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Wayne State University

Living Cities stands out in my mind as a distinctive product of creative philanthropic programming, and an exemplar of organizational adaptation over a relatively short period of time. Its origins and evolution mirror many of the factors that have contributed to the community development movement’s remarkable accomplishments. I spotlight two of these factors: social capital and the development and adaptation of systems of support.

When Peter Goldmark became President of the Rockefeller Foundation, he articulated two priorities for community development programming: to “ratchet up” the housing production of community development corporations (CDCs) and to strengthen the field’s human resources. This would clearly require a substantial infusion of new resources—more than Rockefeller could provide—so attracting significant new funding partners was essential.

The genesis of Living Cities lies in the informal workings of Goldmark’s network of personal and professional connections. In this respect, it is a perfect example of the importance of social capital in the community development field. Among Goldmark’s trusted connections was Mitchell “Mike” Sviridoff, former Vice President for National Affairs at the Ford Foundation and founding President of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), on whose board Goldmark had served. Sviridoff added to the mix James Pickman, a lawyer with a deep understanding of community development, and of housing production in particular. Among them, the kernel of an idea emerged.

That idea was ingenious yet simple. It was to create the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI) as what we might now call a “virtual” entity, overseen by Pickman (acting under the very unassuming title of Secretary), managed day-to-day by the two major national intermediaries, LISC and the (then) Enterprise Foundation, and—in a significant departure from standard philanthropic practice—directed by a board comprised of the national funders. They had a framework that could effectively channel significant resources to a highly dispersed network of community groups and enable the funders to make sure the initiative stayed on target without creating a new administrative entity that would itself have growing pains and require extended support. Initial financial commitments were for three years, but the major funders shared an understanding that if the program model lived up to its promise they would stay with it for a decade to assure substantial progress toward the goal.

The demonstrated achievements of the NCDI led the board to formalize its efforts with the establishment of Living Cities as we know it now. At first glance, it appears today very different from the original NCDI. Indeed, today’s organization with a growing staff, two offices, and a broad mission was exactly what the founders wanted to avoid! But to focus on this change in organizational form is to miss the important story. The novel funder-driven board saw the power of the approach they had created—nimble, responsive, intelligent, and results-driven.

More broadly, they took to heart important evidence from a decade of work that community developers are best strengthened not only by building their individual technical skills and community base, but also by embedding them in resilient systems of support: established relationships among influential people and institutions, and the goals, incentives and policies that guide their behavior. Thus, Living Cities has internalized the demonstrated power of changing systems—not just housing production systems but the many-faceted political and economic systems that shape community life and residents’ opportunities. Its explicit return to the broad, holistic mission that sparked the CDC movement, but with a new—and positive—emphasis on the importance of systems and of economic and political context, makes it another stunning example of the “creativity plus competence” formula that has enabled the growth and accomplishments of the community development field over the past 30 years.