Organizations and Neighborhood Networks that Strengthen Families in the District of Columbia Final Report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation
by Carol J. De Vita Carlos Manjarrez Eric C. Twombly
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 261-5790
THE URBAN INSTITUTE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was made possible with the support and guidance of many people. At the Urban Institute, Elizabeth T. Boris served as project director; Carol J. De Vita was the principal investigator; and Tobi Printz Platnick managed the project from January 1997 to December 1998, after which time Carlos Manjarrez became project manager. Eric C. Twombly was responsible for database management and the spatial analysis. Research assistance was provided by Malikah Ash, Roseanna Bess, Robyn Mercurio, Anna Stattmiller, Stephanie Scott-Melnyk, Patrick Sweetman, Karin Willner and Robert Grimm.
The authors also would like to thank Irene Lee, project officer, at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and members of the national and local advisory committees whose expertise helped guide the study design.
The study was funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Additional support for dissemination was provided by The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation.
For additional information, please contact the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 261-5790.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final Report Annie E. Casey Foundation Grant No. 98/1578
Submitted by Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy The Urban Institute 2100 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037
The problems affecting children in the nation’s capital are well known. Year after year, the KIDS COUNT Data Book documents the severity of problems facing children and youth in the District of Columbia. Poverty runs high. The majority of school children score below basic reading levels. Birth rates to teenagers and juvenile violent crime arrest rates far exceed the national average. Such data raise serious concerns about the quality of life and opportunities for children in the District, particularly for those living in the poorest, inner-city neighborhoods.
Purpose and Objectives Because research shows that neighborhood characteristics and local institutions affect the overall well-being of children and youth, the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute undertook a study of the institutional factors that make a positive difference in the lives of children and families in local communities. More specifically, the purpose of the study was to construct a methodology to identify and describe community organizations and networks that strengthen families and children in three low-income neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. It included the following tasks:
· Develop tools to analyze the size, scope, and structure of community organizations that foster local leadership and leverage resources on behalf of families and children;
· Conduct a spatial analysis to understand the relationship between the nonprofit infrastructure and socioeconomic characteristics of three low-income neighborhoods in the District of Columbia; and
· Describe the community-based groups and networks that enhance the well-being of families and children.
Selection of Neighborhoods The selection of neighborhoods began with three criteria that affect community infrastructures at the local level. The communities had to be: 1) similar in population size; 2) dispersed geographically throughout the city; and 3) similar in income levels, as measured by percentage of households in poverty. After identifying several neighborhoods that fit the three selection criteria and consulting with Annie E. Casey Executive Summary
Foundation staff, the final selection of sites also captured several differences among the communities. The three sites selected for study were:
· Columbia Heights, a racially/ethnically diverse neighborhood in Northwest D.C.;
· Marshall Heights, a predominantly African-American community in Northeast D.C. that has relatively high homeownership rates; and
· Washington Highlands, a troubled and neglected African-American neighborhood in Southeast D.C. that is in the midst of new housing construction.
Research Methods A three-step strategy, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, was used to measure and understand the dynamics of the study neighborhoods. First, data were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, National Neighborhood Indicators Project, D.C. Office of Planning and Evaluation, D.C. Department of Children and Family Services, and other governmental agencies to construct a socioeconomic and demographic profile of each community. These data provided measures of the number of children in each neighborhood, school performance, crime rates, and a host of other community indicators.
Second, an electronic database was created using data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on nonprofit organizations that have filed for tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) status. These data were supplemented with information from local directories and key informants who identified small neighborhood groups not required by the IRS to seek tax-exempt status. The database was further expanded to include religious congregations located in the city. The database provides a comprehensive list of the local organizational infrastructure that is addressing the needs of children and families in the study sites. These data were geographically mapped to assess their spatial distribution in relation to local socioeconomic needs.
The final step was to conduct ethnographic field work in the neighborhoods. A series of activities was undertaken to gather both qualitative and quantitative data about the neighborhoods and local efforts to help children and families. First, interviews were conducted with 62 individuals (key informants) to learn about the strengths of each community, local needs, local organizations, and community networks focused on helping children and families. Key informants included leaders of nonprofit organizations, religious clergy, school principals, police officers, and local political leaders. Later, a survey of 51 nonprofit organizations that work with children and families was conducted to measure the size, scope, capacity, funding sources, and residents’ participation in these organizations. Finally, field staff provided ethnographic observations about the neighborhoods, community groups, and local networks that are actively addressing the needs of children and families in the study sites.
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute ii Executive Summary
Key Findings Our research revealed a unique story in each neighborhood, and details of these analyses are provided in the full report. Seven key findings, however, provide a general summary of the common themes and comparative differences that emerged from the research. The findings are viewed as essential elements in developing strategies to address the needs of children and families in local neighborhoods.
1. Local, neighborhood conditions matter. Although the three study sites were selected because of similarities along a number of socioeconomic dimensions, it soon became apparent that each neighborhood had its own unique organizational and environmental context. These conditions were instrumental in shaping local institutions and their linkages to broader community-based and citywide networks. —Columbia Heights, for example, with its ethnic diversity has seven times more nonprofit organizations and a more complex web of networks than either Marshall Heights or Washington Highlands. Communication across ethnic groups is not well developed, however. —In Marshall Heights, the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization anchors and dominates the civic infrastructure. It is regarded by our key informants as “the place to go” if you have a problem. A handful of smaller groups also offer programs for children and families, but the out-migration of residents from Marshall Heights, in part, undercuts the development of local leadership as families move out of the area in search of better opportunities. —Washington Highlands is undergoing dramatic environmental change. Public housing is being torn down and replaced by mixed income housing. Crime is regarded as the number one problem in this community. A civic infrastructure is beginning to appear as community groups and local churches work together to create programs that address the needs of children and families in the area.
2. Civic infrastructure in poor neighborhoods tends to be fragile and transient. Our field work revealed considerable turnover in the number of community-based groups working in the three study sites with some groups moving in or out of the neighborhood and others being newly formed or recently disband. About half of the groups identified through IRS data were confirmed by our field work to be in the area; another one-quarter were no longer in the study sites. This finding suggests the need for local-level field work to develop a current and complete picture of the civic infrastructure in a specific neighborhood, and the need for periodic monitoring to keep on top of changes. It also suggests the need for intervention strategies that will invest in capacity building for these community-based organizations.
3. Nonprofit organizations matter. Over 80 percent of respondents cited the work of nonprofits as making a difference in promoting the well-being of children and families in local neighborhoods. This response was consistent across study sites and regardless of the respondent’s affiliation. Yet there are relatively few services for kids. On average, there is one nonprofit for every 46 children in Columbia Heights; one for every 490 children in Marshall Heights; and one for every 703 children in Washington Highlands.
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute iii Executive Summary
4. Money matters. Our survey data show that many of the neighborhood groups in the three study sites are tackling important community issues with very limited resources. The average budget ranges from $674,000 in Columbia Heights to $275,000 in Washington Highlands. But dollars, alone, do not tell the whole story. In Columbia Heights, nonprofit groups have a broad funding base, drawing on more than five different funding sources to support their activities, whereas in Marshall Heights and Washington Highlands, the base of financial support is much more limited. Two-thirds of the groups in Washington Highlands reported that more than 80 percent of their funds came from a single source. Resource dependence can be an indirect measure of organizational strength and capacity, and our data show that nonprofit organizations in these low-income areas, and especially those in Washington Highlands, will need a larger and more diverse financial base to build their organizational capacity to make change possible.
5. Leadership matters. Strong leaders make things happen, and the three study sites all have strong leaders who are working hard to improve the lives of children and families in their neighborhoods. In Columbia Heights, heads of community organizations were seen as the principal leaders of the neighborhood, along with the local community development corporation. In Marshall Heights, respondents noted two primary sources of leadership: the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, and the Advisory Neighborhood Commission. In Washington Highlands, the resident councils were cited more than any other group as providing effective leadership. The local City Council member also received high marks, although government, itself, was not generally regarded as an effective force in the community.
6. Religious congregations could be potential resources. Perhaps one of the untapped resources of these communities is religious congregations. In Columbia Heights and Washington Highlands, for example, several congregations provide physical space and volunteers for nonprofit organizations to run their programs. This type of arrangement was much less evident in Marshall Heights, although houses of worship outnumber nonprofit groups by a factor of more than three to one in Marshall Heights. The majority of our key informants in Marshall Heights identified churches as important influences in the community, but gave mixed reviews on their effectiveness in addressing local needs. Part of this reluctance was based on the perception that local congregations provide services only to their members and that most of the members no longer live in the neighborhood, but have moved to Maryland or other parts of the District. Because the neighborhood environment can serve as an incubator for local leadership, it is important to explore the many avenues that can nurture local leaders.
7. Programs should be “family focused.” There was a strong consensus across all three communities that programs should be holistic in their approach to problem solving or service delivery. This approach was generally characterized as “family focused” as opposed to “individually focused,” and implied that a constellation of family needs and characteristics must be addressed to make change possible. Many of the respondents believed that programs should focus on the needs of the children, particularly on improving the local schools and supporting school-based programs for older youth.
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute iv Executive Summary
Conclusion The methodology developed and tested in this study provides an important framework for understanding the needs and institutional infrastructures of local neighborhoods. It provides a set of both quantitative and qualitative research tools that can be used to investigate factors affecting community life and the well-being of children and families in other D.C. neighborhoods, as well as in other communities across the country.
The study’s findings emphasize the importance of looking carefully at the strengths and assets of local neighborhoods before developing initiatives to address local needs. Both organizational and environmental factors can vary widely from place to place and must to be taken into account when designing initiatives to produce positive change for children and families. Based on our research findings, CNP offers four recommendations for investing in low-income communities.
1. An initial step in designing programs for low-income communities must begin with a careful assessment of the neighborhood’s organizational and environmental context. Although the three D.C. study sites were selected because they shared several common features, the research found substantial differences in the resources and networks of the three communities. Intervention strategies will need to take account of these community conditions to be effective.
2. Programmatic interventions must be tailored to fit local conditions. While a specific strategy may be effective in one neighborhood, it may fail to produce the desired results in another community because organizational and environmental factors vary greatly from place to place. Indeed, the efficacy of strategies are constrained by organizational and sociopolitical environments, which provide their own challenges. Instead, programmatic approaches should be tailored to support and strengthen existing organizational assets and community resources or to fill gaps in the local infrastructure.
3. For an initiative to succeed in low-income areas, it must be long-term and flexible. The problems facing many low-income neighborhoods are likely to be deeply rooted and difficult to change in a short funding cycle. A long-term commitment is required to effect real change. But environments and needs also change over time, and effective place- based strategies must be flexible to respond to change. The implementation of long-term and flexible programs has a two-fold advantage. First, it will help meet existing needs, while also contributing to the future viability of the community. Second, the demonstration of a foundation’s continued commitment to a low-income neighborhood may encourage additional public and private investment to the area.
4. Making a difference in the lives of children and families in poor neighborhoods requires periodic monitoring of organizational and environmental conditions. While effective place-based strategies must begin with a solid understanding of the organizational and environmental characteristics of the neighborhood, they also require on-going monitoring of organizational and environmental change. This process provides an invaluable and essential feedback loop to make programmatic adjustments that fit current needs and conditions.
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute v Final Report Annie E. Casey Foundation Grant No. 98.1578
Submitted by Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy The Urban Institute 2100 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037
The problems affecting children in the nation’s capital are well known. Census data place the District of Columbia behind most states on various social and economic indicators
(KIDS COUNT Data Books, 1999 and 1998). Poverty runs high. About one in five children in the District, compared with one in ten nationwide, lives in extreme poverty (that is, in families with income below 50 percent of poverty). Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of
D.C.’s fourth graders and more than half (56 percent) of the eighth graders scored below basic reading levels in 1998—almost double the national average. Birth rates to teenagers are more than twice the national average, and juvenile violent crime arrest rates are three times the national average.
Such data raise serious concerns about the quality of life and opportunities for children in the District of Columbia, particularly for those living in the poorest neighborhoods. Empirical studies show that family characteristics, alone, do not account for many of these negative outcomes. Neighborhood characteristics also affect the overall well-being of children and youth (Turner and Ellen, 1997). Such findings provide both theoretical and pragmatic reasons for investigating the community-based assets that contribute to strong communities. These factors can serve as a starting point for creating and leveraging social and economic capital in local neighborhoods. Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
The Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy (CNP) at the Urban Institute, with a grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, undertook a study to measure and understand the institutional factors that make a positive difference in the lives of children and families in local communities. Using Washington, D.C. as a case study, the work analyzes how nonprofit organizations and informal community groups help build social capital in the nation’s capital. The study had two major components: 1) a spatial analysis of nonprofit organizations located within the city’s boundaries; and 2) field work in three low-income neighborhoods to identify the community organizations and neighborhood networks that support children and families in these local communities.
Study Objectives and Tasks
The purpose of the study was to develop tools and methodologies to identify and describe community organizations and neighborhood networks that strengthen families in low- income neighborhoods in the District of Columbia. It included the following tasks:
1. Develop tools and methodologies to analyze the scope and structure of community organizations that develop resident leadership and leverage resources on behalf of children and families;
2. Develop maps that reflect the nonprofit infrastructure and sociodemographic characteristics of three low-income neighborhoods in the District of Columbia; and
3. Describe the community institutions and infrastructures that enhance the well-being of families and community life.
Advisory Committees
An important component of the study was the creation of two advisory committees. A national advisory committee was formed to help guide the overall research design, and a
2 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute local advisory committee provided a contextual framework for the neighborhood field work. Members of the advisory committees are listed in Appendix A.
National Committee. The national committee was designed to provide expertise in community-based research and neighborhood issues. It served as a critical sounding board to help CNP staff grapple with conceptual and measurement issues from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The committee included government officials, nonprofit practitioners, policy researchers, and academic scholars. The committee met on
June 3, 1998, for an all-day meeting at the Urban Institute. The agenda focused on definitional concepts and constructs, as well as specific survey tools and methodologies that have been effective in local area studies.
The committee was very supportive of the study, particularly its focus on identifying and strengthening institutional capacities in local neighborhoods. They cautioned, however, that the study design was very ambitious and believed that it could serve as a valuable exploratory model for understanding the institutional structures that support children and families in local settings. More specifically, the committee made the following recommendations:
1. The study should emphasize an asset-based approach. It should highlight positive strengths of each neighborhood, rather than simply listing the problems or deficits of the neighborhoods.
2. Because defining community boundaries can sometimes be a contentious issue, the study should take time to obtain the perspective of local leaders and residents on what defines their neighborhoods. The use of maps was seen as an effective tool in determining boundaries and building a consensus on this issue.
3. Interviews with community leaders should be more qualitative than quantitative in order to get the textured nuances of the local area. The questions should solicit the local leaders’ opinions about the strengths and current needs of their neighborhoods, and obtain information about the local leaders’ involvement in the community beyond their official capacities.
3 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
4. The organizational survey should be fairly quantitative in design to determine program activities and service capacity (such as size of budgets and sources of funding). It also should explore the organization’s outreach to the community, such as the networks that have been established with other local or citywide groups, and how the organization involves community residents.
5. Interviews with local residents should obtain their views on neighborhood needs and current use of local services. The questions could be asked in a problem-solving framework (such as, where do you go to get child care; why?) in order to make the queries more relevant to the respondent.
Local Committee. On August 28, 1998, the local advisory committee met at the
Urban Institute for a half-day session. The committee consisted of community leaders and local advocates from the three study sites. The purpose of the meeting was to brief committee members on the objectives of the study and obtain their support and guidance for the local neighborhood work. Three key outcomes resulted from the meeting:
1. Committee members helped define the geographic boundaries of their neighborhoods. Using street maps of each neighborhood, committee members were asked if they agreed with the neighborhood boundaries as defined by CNP staff. Based on the discussion, adjustments were made to correspond more closely with programmatic definitions and residents’ perceptions.
2. Committee members briefed CNP staff on issues that were of particular concern in the three study neighborhoods. This discussion provided an important contextual framework for understanding the past history and current dynamics of these local communities. The information also was incorporated into the training sessions held for interviewers, and into the final data analyses.
3. Committee members agreed to serve as resources for identifying small and easily missed groups that operate within their neighborhoods and to help secure neighborhood participation in the study.
4 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Research Questions
Based on discussions with the national and local advisory committees, as well as with staff of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, four broad research questions were developed to guide the study.
1. What types of organizations, groups, and coalitions promote neighborhood social and economic well-being and participation within the community?
2. How many and which organizations or groups actively strengthen families, connect them to resources, and involve them in community building?
3. Which programs and activities are seen as “making a difference” for children and families within their neighborhoods, and why?
4. What are the characteristics of these positively viewed efforts and the organizations that provide them?
Tools and Methodologies
An initial starting point for the project was the collection of secondary data to provide both quantitative and qualitative context to the study neighborhoods. Materials included:
1. administrative data obtained from the D.C. government, such as the number of licensed child care providers in the District and neighborhood crime statistics;
2. sociodemographic and economic data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the D.C. Office of Planning and Evaluation, and the National Neighborhood Indicators Project; and
3. various reports and newspaper articles obtained from D.C. Agenda; Healthy Families/ Thriving Communities Collaboratives; and a computer search of newspaper files.
A complete listing and descriptions of these materials are provided in Appendix B.
The materials were used to help select study neighborhoods and to provide citywide comparisons to the three neighborhood sites. They also were used to provide a richer context for understanding the dynamics of community life.
5 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
In conducting these data collection efforts, the Urban Institute staff discovered that our project work overlapped with a neighborhood study being conducted by D.C.
Agenda. In their study, D.C. Agenda conducted focus groups with the District’s eight
Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives to obtain residents’ views on out- of-school activities for youth. Because of the overlap between the two projects in terms of study sites and substantive interests, there was an opportunity to share and exchange information and findings, rather than duplicate efforts. The D.C. Agenda report, Out of
School Needs of the District’s Children and Youth, February 1999, was used by CNP staff as a primary source of information on resident’s views of neighborhood programs for school-age youth.
The decision to draw upon the information gathered from the D.C. Agenda focus groups was based on time and cost considerations, as well as a need to reduce respondent burden. Several local leaders expressed the opinion that the community was becoming
“survey-weary” and skeptical of the practical benefits of research studies.
Selection of Neighborhoods. The selection of neighborhoods for the study began with three basic criteria: 1) the communities should be similar in population size; 2) they should be dispersed geographically throughout the city; and 3) they should have similar income levels (as measured by percentage of households in poverty). These selection criteria were designed to control for some of the factors that might affect community infrastructures at the local level. Census data were used to determine these neighborhood characteristics.1 After identifying several neighborhoods that fit the three selection
1 The decennial Census is the most complete and comparable source of data for small, geographic areas. Although some change has occurred in each of the three study communities since the 1990 Census was taken, the areas are sufficiently similar in their baseline characteristics and distinguishing features to warrant inclusion in this study.
6 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute criteria and consulting with Annie E. Casey Foundation staff, the final selection of sites was designed to maximize contrasts among the communities.
As table 1 shows, the three communities in the study—Columbia Heights,
Marshall Heights, and Washington Highlands—fit the selection criteria well. All three communities have populations of approximately 14,000 to 15,000 residents. They are dispersed in three different quadrants of the city (Northwest, Northeast, and Southeast, respectively), and are in three different political wards (Wards 1, 7, and 8). Poverty rates in 1990 for the three areas fall within a narrow range, from 34.6 percent to 36.2 percent.
In addition, the three communities provide some distinct contrasts. Marshall
Heights appears to be the most stable of the neighborhoods (see table 1). Compared with the other study sites, it has the greatest percentage of homeowners (29 percent) and the highest average income ($28,200). It is a homogeneous community with 98 percent of the residents identified as African-American. In contrast, Columbia Heights is a multicultural community. More than one in five residents is Hispanic, according to the 1990 Census, and the influx of new immigrants to the area since that time has unquestionably increased this share. Columbia Heights is a working but poor neighborhood. It has the lowest unemployment rate (9.0 percent) of the three study sites, but the highest poverty rate
(36.2 percent). Washington Highlands seems to be the most troubled, or neglected, neighborhood in the study. Residents have the lowest average family income ($23,200), the highest unemployment rate (15.1 percent), and the highest share of vacant housing units (16.4 percent). Like Marshall Heights, the vast majority of residents in Washington
Highlands (99 percent) are African-American.
7 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Table 1. Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Political Characteristics of Study Sites Columbia Marshall Washington Characteristic Heights Heights Highlands Demographics Population, 1990 13,751 14,821 15,198 Percent Black 72.9 98.2 99.2 Percent Hispanic 22.2 0.4 0.1 Number of children under age 18 3,478 4,418 5,628 Percent children under age 18 25.3 29.8 37.0 Percent female-headed families 57.5 72.5 75.6
Income Average family income $26,500 $28,200 $23,200 Poverty rate 36.2 34.6 34.8 Unemployment rate 9.0 10.8 15.1 Percent households on public assistance 20.2 19.7 23.1
Housing Owner occupancy rate 14.7 29.4 15.0 Percent vacant units 10.9 7.9 16.4
Geographic and Political Boundaries Quadrant of city Northwest Northeast Southeast Political ward 1 7 8 Source: Tabulations from the 1990 Census.
Building of Databases. The first task in mapping community-based assets was to create a database of the nonprofit organizations and grassroots groups that are located in the District of Columbia. These data were used to compare and contrast the study sites with the remainder of the District’s resources. Because there is no citywide information and referral system and no comprehensive listing of service providers and resident associations, the Urban Institute needed to construct one.
8 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Database on Nonprofit Organizations. The starting point for creating a D.C. database on nonprofit organizations was the 1997 Business Master File (BMF) and the
Form 990 Return Transaction Files (RTF) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
These are the primary sources of data on nonprofit organizations in the United States.
The BMF contains information on all nonprofits that have received tax-exempt status from the IRS, and the RTF provides annual data on organizations that file information returns (Forms 990) with the IRS. These sources, however, do not provide a complete listing of nonprofits. Some nonprofit groups, such as religious congregations, are exempt from obtaining IRS recognition of their tax-exempt status, and small organizations with annual revenues of less than $25,000 are not required to file Forms 990.
To supplement the IRS data, the Urban Institute compiled and verified lists of
D.C. nonprofit organizations obtained from a variety of community groups and local governmental agencies. About 30 lists were collected, including lists of resident associations, Hispanic and Asian organizations, grantees of local foundations and the
United Way, Head Start grantees, and organizations exempt from D.C. property tax (see
Appendix C). After the local lists and IRS data were merged and checked for duplication and consistency, the resulting data base contained 6,992 nonprofit organizations. Nearly eight percent of the data set, or 536 groups, were added from the lists acquired by the
Urban Institute staff.
Using the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE), all nonprofits were classified by the organization’s primary activity.2 As table 2 shows, the three most prevalent types of nonprofit organizations in Washington, D.C. focus on public and
2 For a complete description of the NTEE, see Stevenson, Pollak, and Lampkin, 1997. State Nonprofit Almanac. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
9 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute societal benefits, such as advocacy groups, civil rights, and policy-oriented think tanks
(24 percent); human services, including groups addressing issues of crime, employment, food, housing, youth development, and similar issues (nearly 20 percent); and education
(roughly 14 percent). Because Washington, D.C. is the nation’s capital, the multitude of public and societal benefit groups that relate to political issues and policy concerns is not surprising. Compared with other parts of the country, D.C. has roughly three times the share of public-societal benefit groups, and proportionately one-third fewer human service nonprofits (Stevenson, Pollak, and Lampkin, 1997). Human service organizations typically are the dominant type of nonprofit nationally, but their relative share in the
District is reduced by the abundance of issue- and policy-oriented groups in the city.
Table 2. Primary Service Activity of Nonprofit Organizations in Washington, D.C. Organizational Activity Number Percentage Public, Societal Benefit 1,681 24.0 Human Services 1,374 19.7 Education 996 14.2 Arts, Culture and Humanities 818 11.7 Religion-related 614 8.8 Health 565 8.1 International, Foreign Affairs 415 5.9 Environment and Animals 244 3.5 Mutual/Membership Benefit 25 0.4 Primary Activity Unknown 260 3.7 Total 6,992 100.0 Source: IRS data, supplemented with community directories and government lists of nonprofit organizations.
10 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Database on Religious Organizations. Missing from this profile of D.C. nonprofits, however, is the role that religious congregations play in community life. They generally provide care, counseling, spirituality, and social networks not only to their members but also to people in the community. Indeed, religious congregations often are regarded as institutional anchors to a neighborhood and integral components of the social fabric of local communities.
Because religious congregations are not required to seek tax-exempt status from the IRS, the BMF underrepresents these faith-based groups. Using membership lists from the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, and information from the
American Church List and the Bell Atlantic Telephone Directory, 1,302 congregations were identified in the District of Columbia. Nearly 75 percent of these congregations were not found in the IRS files.
After adding religious congregations to the database, the total number of nonprofit groups in the District increased by roughly 18 percent to 7,949 organizations. The combined database is the most comprehensive data set on D.C. nonprofit organizations ever compiled, although as our neighborhood work (discussed below) revealed, there was still more to learn about nonprofit groups in local communities.
Mapping Nonprofits. In order to study where nonprofit and community-based groups are located in the city, the database, representing both secular and faith-based organizations, was prepared for geographic mapping. Working from a group’s street address, each organization was “geocoded” (that is, it was assigned a longitude and latitude code) through a computer software mapping program. The resulting maps
11 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute indicate the geographic location and concentration of nonprofit and community-based organizations within the city, and were used in the spatial analysis, described below.
Interview Protocols. As suggested by the national advisory committee, interviews with local community leaders (called key informants) were designed to learn about the strengths of the neighborhoods and the organizational structures helping children and families. Because we wanted to hear the opinions of these leaders in their own words, face-to-face, open-ended interviews were used, rather than a close-ended, check-off survey form.
Development of the interview protocols was modeled after the work of Professors
John McKnight and John Kretzmann, Northwestern University, who are nationally recognized in community assets and capacity-building research. The interview protocols used in the study sites were structured into five sections, covering:
1. The neighborhood boundaries and an assessment of the community’s cohesion;
2. Stability and change in the neighborhood over time;
3. Formal and informal organizations that are located in the community, especially those that “make a difference” for children and families;
4. Leadership capacity of the neighborhood; and
5. Neighborhood strengths.
A copy of the interview protocol is provided in Appendix D.
Urban Institute interns conducted the interviews. They received training from
CNP staff in interview techniques and participated in role-playing exercises to practice these skills. Because we wanted to obtain as much information as possible from each interviewee, interviewers were instructed to use additional prompts (such as, can you elaborate on that? is there anything else that comes to mind?) to probe for additional
12 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute information or insights. To encourage candor in the interviews, respondents were told that no one would be quoted by name.
A list of neighborhood key informants was compiled with the assistance of local advisory committee members. Most of interviewees were associated with neighborhood nonprofit groups, but they also included religious clergy, school principals, police officers, and local political leaders.
Interviews were conducted from November 1998 through January 1999. A total of
62 individuals from the three communities participated in this portion of the study.
Appendix E provides a list of key informants who participated in the study.
Survey Forms. The organizational survey was designed to provide systematic and quantifiable information on community-based programs and services (see Appendix
F). It included questions on:
1. The organization’s origins and purpose;
2. Leadership, including the executive director and board of directors;
3. Budget information, including amounts, sources, and changes over time;
4. Staffing patterns, covering both paid staff and use of volunteers;
5. Services and clients, including types of services offered and number of clients served;
6. Community outreach and communication strategies;
7. Networks and collaborations with other nonprofit groups or with government.
Measuring the size, scope, capacity, and extent of community involvement of nonprofit organizations in local neighborhoods proved to be a challenging assignment.
The survey instrument was field tested and revised four times before the final format yielded satisfactory results. Earlier versions were too long and complex, and the wording
13 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute of questions had to be simplified and stated more clearly. The final version incorporated more information on the ways in which neighborhood organizations reach out to local residents and work with one another to strengthen community resources.
Initially, the organizational surveys were to be conducted in person by the interns assigned to each neighborhood. However, because of the difficulties encountered in scheduling interviews with organization leaders and intern attrition over the course of the study, an alternate strategy was followed.
Using information from the key informant interviews and our own community field work, 51 nonprofit human service providers were identified as working directly with children and families in the study neighborhoods. CNP staff and interns visited these organizations and left a copy of the survey form for the executive director or knowledgeable staff member to complete and return. Respondents were instructed to return the completed form by mail, fax, or by calling the Urban Institute to request that a staff member retrieve the completed questionnaire. Follow-up phone calls were made to the organizations to encourage their participation and to answer any questions.
This strategy worked well because it provided an opportunity for CNP staff to visit the providers’ service sites and observe their operations directly. It also reduced the amount of time spent scheduling (and rescheduling) interviews, freeing up staff time for other tasks. Although some level of detail was lost by not having face-to-face interviews, the administrative advantages of this strategy proved to be an acceptable alternative.
14 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Spatial Analysis of Nonprofit Organizations in the District of Columbia
Looking at neighborhoods in isolation can give a distorted picture of the needs and resources of an area. The spatial analysis began with a profile of nonprofit organizations and religious congregations in the District of Columbia. It then focused on groups in low- income areas, and finally on the three study sites. This procedure provides a broad socioeconomic context in which to view the community-based assets of the study sites.
More specifically, the analysis provides a starting point for exploring the community institutions and infrastructures that enhance the well-being of children and families in local neighborhoods. For example, what is the density of nonprofit and religious organizations in the District of Columbia and in low-income neighborhoods of the District? Is there a spatial mismatch between the location of service organizations and the needs of residents? Are there significant differences between the groups that are sited in low-income areas and those in more economically advantaged neighborhoods? And of particular importance to this study, are preschool and youth providers located in neighborhoods where the most vulnerable children and youth reside?
To explore these questions and assess neighborhood variation in community- based resources, the analysis used two databases: 1) the Urban Institute database on D.C. nonprofit organizations and religious congregations, and 2) the 1990 U.S. Decennial
Census reported by census tracts. These data sets are described above.
Density of Nonprofit Organizations. An initial look at nonprofit organizations in the District of Columbia suggests a large and vibrant nonprofit sector. Not only are there a large number of nonprofit organizations, they also offer a wide range of services and activities. In fact, when compared to other states, D.C. has the highest density of
15 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute nonprofit organizations in the United States—more than six times higher than the national average (see Stevenson, Pollak, and Lampkin, 1997). In 1998, the density of nonprofit organizations in the nation’s capital was roughly one nonprofit for every 77 residents.3 This is not surprising, given that many trade associations and lobbying firms are sited in the District of Columbia to maximize access to national policymakers.
The number and density of organizations suggests that the nonprofit sector may have the capacity to meet the needs of District residents, but the spatial distribution of the organizations raises questions of whether groups are sited in locations that effectively and equitably reach the city’s disadvantaged population. As map 1 illustrates, nonprofit organizations cluster prominently in three locations: the downtown business area, Capitol
Hill, and the Northwest quadrant of the city, which contains many middle- and upper- income neighborhoods. Nonprofit organizations are far less likely to be in the lower- income neighborhoods of Washington, D.C. Only 16 percent of the nonprofit organizations are physically located in areas of high-poverty (that is, where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater).4 The origins of these spatial patterns are unclear, but may reflect a combination of zoning regulations, access to available and affordable office space, issues of safety, and perhaps the desire of organizations to be close to their potential clients, funding sources, or seats of power and influence. The uneven distribution of nonprofit organizations in low-income neighborhoods is not unique to the
District of Columbia, however. A spatial analysis of the 85 largest metropolitan areas in
3 If one includes religious congregations in the District of Columbia, the density is one organization for every 66 residents.
4 Of the 192 census tracts in the District, 37 (or roughly 19 percent) meet the criterion of a high—poverty area, that is, where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater. Some tracts, however, such as those that comprise the National Mall, have very few residents.
16 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute the United States found a much higher density of nonprofit organizations in more affluent neighborhoods than in lower income areas (Wolpert, 1996).
Religious Congregations. Like nonprofit organizations, religious congregations also are not evenly spread across the District. In contrast to nonprofits, they tend to cluster in the predominantly African-American neighborhoods (see map 2). Roughly 60 percent of D.C. congregations (that is, 793 congregations) are located in areas where at least 80 percent of the population is African-American. Of these, 156 congregations are located in high-poverty, predominantly black areas.5 The strong historical linkages between the church and the African-American population are well documented (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990), and the current prominence of congregations in predominantly black neighborhoods suggests a continuation of this pattern. When one examines predominantly black areas, the ratio of religious congregations to secular nonprofit organizations is quite high—namely, seven congregations for every ten nonprofits. This ratio holds fairly constant in poor black areas, as well as in other black areas. In contrast, the ratio of congregations to nonprofits in the remainder of the city is one to ten.
Although many religious congregations provide programs and activities to local residents, the presence of churches in high-poverty areas does not significantly change the density of potential service providers in local communities. On average, the density of secular nonprofit organizations in high-poverty areas is about 10 groups for every 1,000 residents, compared with 11 groups per 1,000 residents in other sections of the city (see table 3). If religious congregations are added to the ratio, the density becomes 11.5 groups per 1,000 residents in high-poverty areas compared with 13 per 1,000 in other
5 A census tract is defined as “predominantly black” if 80 percent or more of the population is African American—a definition used by other research scholars (see Ellen, 1996).
17 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
parts of the city. Counting both religious congregations and nonprofit groups increases
the density of community-based resources but does not close the gap between high-
poverty areas and the remainder of the District. What is more difficult to measure,
however, is the trust that community residents have in these different types of institutions
and how that trust affects the building of social capital and neighborhood ties.
Table 3. Number and Density of Community-based Organizations Areas with Remainder Characteristic High-Poverty of D.C. Population 109,107 497,793
Number of Nonprofit Organizations 1,055 5,489 Congregations 205 987
Density Per 1,000 Residents Nonprofit Organizations 9.7 11.0 Congregations 1.9 2.0 All Groups 11.5 13.0 Source: Authors’ tabulations of IRS and other data sources. Note: Areas with high-poverty are defined as census tracts in which the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.
Nonprofits in High-Poverty Areas. The types of nonprofit organizations found in high-poverty areas differ from other parts of the District, as shown in table 4. For example, they have a greater share of human service providers (24 percent) than other neighborhoods (19 percent). They also have a higher proportion of education groups (18 percent versus 13 percent, respectively). Conversely, high-poverty areas have a smaller share (21 percent) of nonprofit public and societal benefit organizations (such as political parties, veterans’ organizations, or consumer protection groups) than are found elsewhere in the District (25 percent). While the distribution of nonprofit service providers differs
18 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Table 4. Characteristics of Nonprofit Organizations Areas with Remainder Characteristic High-Poverty of D.C. Type Percent (%) Percent (%) Arts, Culture and Humanities 10.9 12.0 Education 18.0 13.4 Environment and Animals 2.5 3.7 Health 8.0 8.2 Human Services 24.1 19.0 International, Foreign Affairs 3.2 6.5 Public, Societal Benefit 20.9 24.8 Religion-related 9.5 8.7 Mutual/Membership Benefit 0.3 0.4 Primary Activity Unknown 2.6 3.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Organizations 1052 5761
Age of Organizations Percent (%) Percent (%) 1 to 4 years 16.3 17.5 5 to 9 years 19.5 20.5 10 to 19 years 23.3 23.1 20 or more years 40.9 38.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Organizations 911 5226
1996 Financial Measures Dollars ($) Dollars ($) Average (Mean) Value Revenues 6,546,000 4,186,000 Expenditures 6,163,000 3,815,000 Assets 7,263,000 6,642,000
Median Value Revenues 511,000 408,000 Expenditures 405,000 371,000 Assets 377,000 247,000 Source: Authors’ tabulations of IRS and other data sources. Note: Areas with high-poverty are defined as census tracts in which the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.
along some dimensions, the low absolute number of providers in high-poverty areas suggests that there are relatively few groups to address the needs of a harder-to-serve and
19 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute more vulnerable clientele. Looking at human service organizations, for example, there is one nonprofit human service provider for every 104 people in high-poverty areas of the
District, compared with one for every 86 people in the remainder of the city.
As table 4 also shows, most nonprofit organizations are well established in the community. About 40 percent of these groups have been in operation for 20 years or more. Fewer than 20 percent have been in existence for less than five years. This pattern is found in both high-poverty and more affluent areas, indicating no significant difference by the organizational age of service providers.
Nonprofits in high-poverty areas tend to be somewhat larger, however, than those in other sections of the city. Revenues and expenditures for nonprofit organizations in high-poverty areas, for example, averaged around $6 million, while their counterparts elsewhere in the city reported budgets of roughly $4 million (see table 4). The differences were less for assets, however. The asset holdings for groups in high-poverty areas averaged approximately $7.3 million, while those of groups in other parts of the city were
$6.6 million. These findings suggest a large and well-endowed group of organizations, but the data are skewed by several large hospitals, universities, and professional associations that are located in high-poverty census tracts. The typical organization throughout the District of Columbia operates on a much smaller budget. The median level of revenues and expenditures for nonprofit organizations in the District of Columbia ranged from $370,000 to $510,000. Median assets were approximately $300,000.
In short, these findings suggest that while high-poverty neighborhoods have a lower density of nonprofit organizations than the remainder of D.C., the groups that locate in disadvantaged communities are not fundamentally different by age or financial
20 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
resources. Our field work in three communities found, however, that these averages hide
tremendous variation in the resources that can be identified in specific neighborhoods.
Children and Youth. Turning to programs for children and youth in the District,
the pool of community-based resources quickly begins to dwindle. About 14 percent of
the nonprofit human service providers in D.C. focus primarily on children. Our study
found 112 nonprofit organizations that offer programs for preschool children, such as
child care and early childhood development programs, and another 72 providers that
target their services to school-age (ages 6-17) children. These groups include Boys and
Girls Clubs; adult/child matching programs, such as mentoring and tutoring programs;
and family services providers with programs targeted specifically toward teenagers. In
addition to secular nonprofits, some religious congregations also provide programs for
children and youth. Systematic data on faith-based programs is very limited, however.6
What is most striking is the apparent mismatch between the location of nonprofit providers for children and youth and the areas in the District where the most vulnerable children live (see map 3). Ward 8, for example, is home to more than one of every five children in the District and has the highest percentage of children in poverty (almost 40 percent). Yet Ward 8 has only 13 organizations (7 percent of the providers) that focus on children and youth. Ward 7 presents a similar picture. Despite a child poverty rate in excess of 30 percent, and 16 percent of the District’s children, Ward 7 has only six nonprofit providers (4 percent) of preschool and youth-focused programs.
6 Data on the program activities of religious congregations are difficult to obtain. In 1997-1998, the Urban Institute conducted a survey of about 1,100 religious congregations in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Of the 266 congregations that responded (a 25 percent response rate), approximately one in four D.C. congregations offered child care, 28 percent provided tutoring, and 21 percent had mentoring programs.
21 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Based on our field work, there is also a significant disparity in the spatial distribution of nonprofit youth and preschool providers among the specific neighborhoods (see Appendix G for a comparison of IRS data and field observations).
Roughly 80 percent of the nonprofit organizations identified through our ethnographic analysis are located in Columbia Heights (see map 4). Yet Columbia Heights has about
6,500 fewer children than the other two study sites, combined. The spatial concentration of service providers highlights the difficulties in reaching needy children in the most vulnerable neighborhoods. In Columbia Heights, for example, there is approximately one nonprofit provider for every 46 children. In sharp contrast, Marshall Heights has one nonprofit organization for every 490 children, while Washington Highlands has one nonprofit for every 703 children.
The imbalance raised by such statistics might be lessened if local religious congregations are also providing services targeted to children. Our data suggest, however, that churches fill only a small portion of the service gap. The ratio of religious congregations to secular nonprofit organizations is relatively high in both Washington
Highlands and Marshall Heights. There are more than six congregations for every ten nonprofit organizations in Washington Highlands, and the ratio is three to one in
Marshall Heights. Unpublished data from an earlier study of religious congregations conducted by the Urban Institute found that of the eight survey respondents that operated in the three study sites, only two engaged in activities relating to youth. The other six congregations provided different types of services, some of them clearly assisting poor families, but not specifically focusing on children.
22 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
In summary, our spatial analysis suggests that at-risk children in the District are underserved by the nonprofit community. Areas with the highest number and share of children in poverty have relatively few resources in their local neighborhoods. This spatial mismatch not only is evident between areas with high-poverty rates and the remainder of the District, but the uneven allocation of resources is also found among the three study sites. Our neighborhood field work provides a more detailed analysis of the different resources and asset bases that exist at the local community level.
Neighborhood Findings
The study’s field work illustrates both the common threads and unique assets of each neighborhood. Together, these factors shape the needs, resources, and opportunities for helping children and families in low-income communities and underpin the conceptual models developed later in the study to understand the strengths of each neighborhood.
Changing Demographics. Demographic factors provide an important backdrop for understanding the socioeconomic dynamics of the District of Columbia and, specifically, of the three study neighborhoods.7 They not only show the number and types of people living in each community, but also suggest that services and activities in a local area must be tailored to address a variety of needs.
A striking feature of demographic change in the District between 1990 and1998 is the overall decline in population. Data from the D.C. Office of Planning and Evaluation show that the population of the District of Columbia dropped by nearly 14 percent during
7Although the 1990 Census provides the most detailed and comparable information on small neighborhoods, a few measures (namely, age and race/ethnicity of residents) could be updated using data from the D.C. Office of Planning and Evaluation.
23 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute this period (see table 5). The largest drop (18 percent) occurred among adults (ages 18 to
64), with a small increase (5 percent) in the number of school-age children (ages 5-17).
Population losses were also recorded in each of the three study neighborhoods.
Columbia Heights had the smallest drop (10 percent), while Marshall Heights and
Washington Highlands declined by 14 and 19 percent, respectively. The patterns of change, however, reflect some of the distinct features of each community. In Columbia
Heights, for example, the decline affected all age groups, but the in-migration of young professionals and young immigrant families to the neighborhood slowed the decline in the working-age and child populations. In Marshall Heights and Washington Highlands, young adults and children have primarily left the neighborhood, leaving behind an older group of residents. While the share of older residents in these neighborhoods increased between 1990 and 1998, children (under age 18) continued to account for a large proportion of the neighborhood population—about 25 percent in Marshall Heights and almost 40 percent in Washington Highlands. The high rate of population loss in
Washington Highlands is attributable, in part, to the demolition of approximately 400 public housing units and the displacement of its residents.
Estimates of the changing racial/ethnic composition of the neighborhoods are somewhat problematic, however, because the D.C. government uses slightly different definitions of racial/ethnic categories than the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Nevertheless, table 5 suggests the broad trends that are occurring in each of the three communities.
Marshall Heights and Washington Highlands continue to be predominantly black neighborhoods with nearly 99 percent of the residents in 1998 estimated to be African-
American. Columbia Heights, on the other hand, grew even more racially and
24 Center on Nonprofits and Philantropy - The Urban Institute
Table 5. Population Change in the District of Columbia, 1990-1998 Columbia Heights Marshall Heights Washington Highlands District of Columbia
% % % % Characteristic 1990 1998 Change 1990 1998 Change 1990 1998 Change 1990 1998 Change
Total Population 13,751 12,349 -10.2 14,821 12,817 -13.5 15,198 12,250 -19.4 606,900 523,124 -13.8
Age Distribution Under 5 1,086 1,073 -1.2 1,435 1,202 -16.2 1,907 1,541 -19.2 37,351 32,865 -12.0 5 - 17 2,392 2,283 -4.6 3,218 1,967 -38.9 3,616 3,145 -13.0 69,741 73,155 4.9 18 - 64 8,573 7,597 -11.4 8,296 7,844 -5.4 9,136 6,878 -24.7 421,961 344,539 -18.3 65 or older 1,700 1,396 -17.9 1,872 1,804 -3.6 539 686 27.3 77,847 72,565 -6.8
Racial/Ethnicity Asian 264 423 60.2 0 24 * 17 12 -29.4 11,214 1,630 -85.5 Black 10,059 8,788 -12.6 14,661 12,672 -13.6 15,078 12,122 -19.6 399,604 329,222 -17.6 White 1,439 3,097 115.2 119 87 -26.9 54 80 48.1 179,667 176,862 -1.6 Other 1,989 41 -97.9 41 34 -17.1 49 36 -26.5 16,415 15,410 -6.1 Hispanic 3,042 3,549 16.7 62 41 -33.9 11 118 972.7 32,710 38,710 18.3 Source: 1990 data are from the U.S. Bureau of the Census; 1998 data are from D.C. Office of Planning and Evaluation. Note: Racial/ethnic categories are defined somewhat differently in 1990 and 1998.
25 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute ethnically diverse. The share of the Hispanic population grew from roughly 22 percent to
29 percent between 1990 and 1998, and the Asian population increased from 2 percent to
3 percent. The number of white residents also increased, but the magnitude of change is difficult to disentangle because of the overlapping and inconsistent racial and ethnic definitions used during the two points in time. The 2000 Census will provide a better measure of racial and ethnic change, but current data provide a strong indication of a growing mix of population groups in Columbia Heights.
Neighborhood Profiles. While the changing demographics of the neighborhoods provide a statistical framework for understanding the differences of each community, the field work sheds new light on their distinct features. Although the sites were selected because they shared a common poverty level, the distinct organizational infrastructure observed during the field work soon overshadowed this common denominator.
Columbia Heights. One word can be used to capture the essence of Columbia
Heights: diverse. Located in the Northwest quadrant of the District and bounded by a main transportation artery (Sixteenth Street), Columbia Heights is one of the most racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse parts of the District of Columbia. It combines residential and commercial areas, and currently is in the midst of a large scale public transportation and economic development project. A new Metro station is scheduled to open in the middle of the neighborhood in the Fall of 1999. The development process has sparked intense debate among residents and planners as it threatens to change the social and economic contours of this vibrant community.
Columbia Heights’ cultural diversity is attributable, in large part, to the influx of immigrants to the area. Among the largest groups are Latinos (primarily from El
26 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Salvador), East Africans, and Asians (especially Vietnamese). According to our key informants, the neighborhood is also diverse in terms of family and economic circumstances. The principal groups identified include older African-American homeowners who have lived in the area for many years, a growing contingent of moderate- to high-income white homeowners who more recently moved to the area, and large clusters of immigrant families with children, many of whom are living in poverty.
Marshall Heights. The Marshall Heights neighborhood is located on the far eastern tip of the District, straddling the Northeast and Southeast quadrants and bordering
Prince George’s County, Maryland. Like Ward 7 generally, Marshall Heights has experienced a rapid population drop over the last two decades. Evidence of these declines can be seen in school closures. Two of the seven elementary schools in the community have closed their doors, and one of the two junior high schools has closed. None of the schools in the area operates at capacity.
The population decline served to accentuate some of the key differences among residents in this predominantly black community. Several respondents mentioned that very few families with children move into the neighborhood and that there is a growing friction between older homeowners and the more fluid population of younger low-income families, many of whom rent or live in public housing.
Key informants also described Marshall Heights as having a small town atmosphere and as the type of place people come home to. In probing this idea, the issue of out-migration was salient. When asked about residents coming home, it became clear that several of our respondents used the term quite literally to define people who had moved out of the community, but return to be with family. In the words of one resident:
27 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
“They still consider Marshall Heights their home and they come back for [church] services. . . . On Sunday, 90 percent of the license plates you see are from Maryland.”
Prince George’s County was the number one destination of people moving out of
Marshall Heights. Several of the respondents characterized P.G. County as a place where services are more comprehensive, the schools are better, and the crime rate is lower.
Washington Highlands. Finally, Washington Highlands is a community undergoing dramatic environmental change. Located on the southernmost tip of Ward 8,
Washington Highlands is physically separated from much of the District by the Anacostia
River and from much of Ward 8 by a grassy, drainage knoll. Unlike the other study sites,
Washington Highlands is not served by the Metro system, and there is no main road or transportation artery running through the community to connect it with other parts of the city. Despite the rolling hills and open space, the natural beauty of Washington Highlands is overshadowed by the noise and commotion of construction work on the one hand and the silence of empty buildings on the other. A new large-scale housing development is being built, and abandoned public housing complexes pepper the landscape.
Although Washington Highlands is a homogeneous community in terms of race and class, being overwhelmingly African-American and poor, key informants in the study were reluctant to call it a close-knit community. The respondents identified a tension between public housing residents and homeowners. The crime rate and drug problems in the neighborhood are viewed as principal reasons behind the lack of communication.
Homeowners tend to blame public housing residents for much of the illegal activity in the community. This is seen most clearly in the repeated sentiment that the new housing developments will bring about a dramatic change in the community. As one respondent
28 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute put it: “It was one of the busiest PSA’s [police service areas] in the District. As more housing is closed down we are losing the [crime] problem.”
Community Concerns. In order to understand the current concerns of local residents, key informants were asked “What are the biggest issues facing families with children within the community?” Responses to this broad, open-ended question were coded by Urban Institute staff and are presented in table 6.8
Table 6. The Biggest Issues Facing Children and Families in the Three Study Sites Columbia Marshall Washington Major Issue Heights Heights Highlands Crime and safety 1 1 7 Education 7 3 2 Lack of family services 11 1 4 Lack of community services 1 0 0 Unemployment 3 3 1 General poverty 3 3 2 Single parenting 1 3 0 Number of respondents 27 14 16 Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Key Informant Interviews 1998-1999. Note: Five respondents did not answer this question—three from Marshall Heights and two from Washington Highlands.
The principal concern expressed by Washington Highland residents was clearly crime and safety. Nearly half of the respondents from this neighborhood cited crime as the biggest issue facing residents. Crime statistics for the District show that Washington
Highlands is one of the more troubled spots in the city. Violent crime, in particular,
8 Almost half (45 percent) of the respondents named only one issue area, but in cases where the respondent provided more than one answer, only the first response is presented in table 6.
29 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute seems to have plagued the community. Data from the District government show that the
Seventh Police District, which includes Washington Highlands, ranked first in homicides for four of the last six years, first in sexual assaults for five of the last six years, and first in aggravated sexual assaults for each of the last six years. Indeed, signs of the community’s violent legacy are physically evident. The police precinct, for example, operates behind a bullet-proof reception window. Seven impromptu shrines to memorialize community members slain in public were seen by field staff. It is not surprising, therefore, that crime ranks well above any other concern for Washington
Highlands’ residents.
In the two other neighborhoods, responses to the question “what is the biggest issue facing children and families” drew more varied replies. In Columbia Heights, for example, the dominant response was the lack of family services. About 40 percent of key informants in this neighborhood cited the need for additional services. Inadequate educational opportunities for the community’s children was the second most frequently mentioned concern. In Marshall Heights, respondents’ replies were distributed broadly, with no one area dominating the list. Equal weight was given to issues of education, unemployment, general poverty, and single parenting.
The responses given by our key informants, in large part, were echoed by the focus groups conducted by D.C. Agenda (1999). Participants in the focus groups repeatedly cited safety issues among their concerns for out-of-school programs for youth.
Parents wanted their children to be in a physically safe environment and expressed concern that children often had to walk to and from programs alone. Both parents and
30 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute students wanted the activities to be educational and enriching, and all expressed a desire to get parents more actively involved in out-of-school programs.
Nonprofit Community Resources. Street-level field observations provided an opportunity to identify a broad range of organizations serving community needs. Walking through the neighborhoods and speaking with key informants increased the odds that smaller organizations, not otherwise found in formal data bases, would be identified. (See
Appendix H for a list of nonprofit organizations in the three study sites.)
Number and Types of Nonprofit Organizations. The three study neighborhoods vary both by quantity and type of nonprofit resources, as shown in table 7. Columbia
Heights is distinct from the other two study sites in that it has the greatest number of nonprofit organizations and covers the broadest range of activities. Our study found 75 nonprofit organizations in Columbia Heights—more than seven times the number found in the other two communities. This numerical strength, in large part, reflects Columbia
Heights’ diversity. There are nonprofit organizations for at least five different ethnic groups. Sixteen of the 41 human service agencies in the area offer their services in a language other than English. Although some of the providers in Columbia Heights focus their services on specific groups in the neighborhood, others take a citywide approach, serving anyone regardless of where the individual lives in the city.
In all of the study neighborhoods nonprofit human service providers dominate the landscape. They represent approximately half of all nonprofit groups in each site.
Generally, the second most prevalent group was public and societal benefit organizations
(such as advocacy, civil rights, and community development organizations). Community development organizations, in particular, play an important role in promoting economic
31 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute development and neighborhood change in these communities. Indeed, the Marshall
Heights Community Development Organization is the largest and dominant group in its neighborhood, eclipsing all the other organizations in both its size and scope of activities.
Table 7. Number and Types of Community Organizations in the Three Study Sites Columbia Marshall Washington All Three Nonprofit Groups by NTEE Heights Heights Highlands Communities Arts, Culture, and Humanities 2 - - 2 Education 6 3 1 10 Environment & Animals 1 - - 1 Health 6 - 1 7 Human Services 41 5 5 51 Public, Societal Benefit 11 2 3 16 Religion-related 7 1 1 9 Mutual/Membership Benefit 1 - - 1 Total 75 11 11 97
Churches 11 29 5 45 All Nonprofits & Churches 86 40 16 142 Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Field Work 1998-1999.
The distribution of nonprofit providers in table 7 shows a dearth of organizations specializing in arts, the environment, and even health. Indeed, each of the three communities is a federally designated Health Professionals Shortage Area (HPSA). The data seem to suggest that Columbia Heights’ residents may have comparatively better access to health services than residents of either Marshall Heights or Washington
Highlands, but a closer look at the nonprofit health providers in the neighborhood shows that this may not necessarily be true. Five of the six health facilities in Columbia Heights serve special populations, such as the homeless, Spanish-speakers, and individuals with
32 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute mental disabilities. The sixth facility is a federally-run neighborhood health center. Easy access to general health care in the local area appears to be fairly limited.
If religious congregations are added to the list of community-based resources, the comparative profile of the three sites changes slightly but not dramatically (see table 7).
Columbia Heights continues to have the largest number of community-based assets, followed by Marshall Heights and Washington Highlands. A total of 45 churches were identified in the three neighborhoods, with the vast majority of these houses of worship
(29) in Marshall Heights. Indeed, congregations outnumber nonprofit organizations in
Marshall Heights by a factor of three to one. Marshall Heights is also the home of the
Progressive National Baptist Convention. As discussed below, religious congregations play an important, but varied, role in each of these communities.
Capacity Measures. Putting roots into the community and building organizational capacity often takes time. Our field work surveyed 51 nonprofit groups identified as providing services to children and families in the three neighborhoods.9 The results of this study found considerable variation in the age, tenure, size, and funding patterns of the community-based nonprofit groups that work in the three study sites (see table 8).
Nonprofit organizations in Washington Highlands are quite young. Half of the organizations that responded to our survey indicated that they had been formed within the past five years, and the average age of an organization in Washington Highlands was 2.5 years. In contrast, community-based nonprofit groups in Columbia Heights and Marshall
9 Obtaining information on neighborhood-based groups proved challenging. Of the 51 nonprofit groups surveyed, 28 completed and returned the survey forms (a 55 percent response rate). Groups that refused to participate cited lack of time and resource constraints as inhibiting factors. A few organizations indicated that they were dubious that a research study would have much direct impact on their organization or the people that they serve.
33 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Table 8. Age, Tenure, Staffing, and Funding of Nonprofit Groups in the Three Study Sites Columbia Marshall Washington Characteristic Heights Heights Highlands Age of Organization Average number of years as a 501(c)3 19.0 14.8 2.5 Number of organizations less than 5 years old 2 of 16 0 of 6 3 of 6
Tenure Average number of years at current site 10.8 7.4 10.5* Number that own their facility 8 of 16 3 of 6 1 of 6
Staffing Number with more than 5 full-time staff 14 of 16 4 of 6 1 of 6 Number with more than 5 part-time staff 8 of 16 1 of 6 1 of 6 Average number volunteers per week, per organization 16 11 8 Average tenure of Chief Executive Officer 9.2 4.5 1.5
Funding 1998 revenues (average) $674,000 $284,000** $276,000 Average number of funding sources 5.4 3.8 2.0 Number with 80 percent or more of funding from a single source 3 of 16 0 of 6 4 of 6 Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Community Organization Survey 1998-1999. *Includes the Johenning Baptist Community Center, which has been at its current site for nearly 50 years. **This average excludes the budget of the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization. If MHCDO’s budget is included, the average is $1.2 million.
Heights are much older. The average age of a nonprofit in Columbia Heights is 19 years, while in Marshall Heights, it is nearly 15 years.
Similarly, measures of property holdings and tenure reflect the longevity of organizations in Columbia Heights and Marshall Heights. Half of the survey respondents in both communities reported that they owned their facilities. The average tenure of
34 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute groups at their current location was approximately 11 years in Columbia Heights and 7 years in Marshall Heights.
Staffing patterns capture another measure of capacity. Of the organizations in our sample, Columbia Heights groups had the greatest number of paid, full- and part-time staff. All but two respondents indicated that they had more than five full-time employees, and half reported more than five part-time staff. In Marshall Heights, respondents were more likely to report more than five paid, full-time employees, but not paid, part-time employees. On the other hand, Washington Highland groups generally had very few paid staff. The only organization in Washington Highlands with more than five full-time staff was Far Southeast Family Strengthening Collaborative.
Volunteers often supplement full- and part-time staff. The pattern, again, shows that Columbia Heights has a far greater resource base than the other two study sites. On average, the typical organization in Columbia Heights has 16 volunteers per week, compared with 11 volunteers in Marshall Heights and eight in Washington Highlands.
Like staffing and tenure measures, data on funding sources point to some real differences in organizational capacity across the three communities. On average, the revenues of organizations in Columbia Heights were more than twice as large as those of groups in either Marshall Heights or Washington Highlands. The average budget in
Columbia Heights was approximately $674,000, compared with less than $300,000 in the other two study sites.
Resource dependence is often used as an indirect measure of organizational strength and capacity. Researchers often argue that a broad funding base can help an organization develop its program areas without compromising its mission (Gronbjerg,
35 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
1993). Although new and fledgling organizations sometimes have a high degree of dependence on a single funder, this arrangement has implications for the organization’s future growth and development.
Of the three study sites, Columbia Heights’ nonprofits reported the broadest funding base. On average, they reported receiving support from 5.4 different sources.
Organizations in Marshall Heights and Washington Highlands, on the other hand, reported support from only 3.8 and 2.0 sources, respectively.
Washington Highlands nonprofit organizations are highly dependent on a limited number of funders. Four of the six responding organizations said that more than 80 percent of their funding came from just one source. In contrast, none of the Marshall
Heights organizations and only three of the 16 organizations in Columbia Heights reported this level of dependency. The high degree of resource dependence in
Washington Highlands is another indicator of the fragile and start-up nature of community-based groups in this community.
Community Involvement. Building a strong community base requires the support and involvement of local residents and ties to other organizations in the neighborhood. In our survey work, we asked several questions to measure the extent to which local residents participate in local nonprofit groups. These data are shown in table 9. What we learned was that many groups, particularly those in Columbia Heights, defined their service areas beyond their immediate neighborhood boundaries, so that community involvement can encompass either a geographically narrow or very broad definition of community inputs.
36 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Table 9. Residents’ Participation in Community-based Nonprofit Organizations Columbia Marshall Washington Type of participation by residents Heights Heights Highlands Percent Percent Percent Sit on board of directors 88 66 66 Employed on staff 81 83 50 Serve as volunteers 94 83 50 Number of responding organizations 16 6 6 Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Community Organization Survey 1999.
Almost all survey respondents in Columbia Heights reported that they have local residents on their boards of directors (88 percent of responding organizations), on their staffs (81 percent), and among their volunteers (94 percent). But less than half of the organizations in the community defined their service areas as being contained within the geographic boundaries of Columbia Heights. Clients and participants may come from anywhere in the city. Only six of 16 survey respondents in Columbia Heights indicated that neighborhood residents account for 75 percent or more of their client base.
Several respondents noted, however, that communication across the various ethnic groups and their respective leaders in Columbia Heights is sometimes poor or non- existent. This may reflect language barriers, but it also may reflect different sets of interests and needs. Communication is high, however, among organizations that serve the same ethnic group. The Council of Latino Agencies, for example, is an umbrella group of
35 Hispanic-serving agencies. Formed in response to riots in an adjacent Hispanic neighborhood in the summer of 1991, the Council serves as the single convening body for the heads of the various Latino agencies. It also works to promote resident participation on a range of civic issues, such as traditional voter registration and political
37 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute participation drives. One of its current projects is a campaign to encourage Hispanic residents to participate in the 2000 Census.
Organizations in Marshall Heights, like those in the other two communities, rely on residents as resources for their day-to-day program work. Indeed, survey respondents reported high levels of local resident involvement on their boards of directors, staff, and among their volunteers. Neighborhood residents form a particularly important resource base for the smaller organizations. In smaller agencies, neighborhood volunteers outnumbered paid full-time staff. For example, Teen Life Choices, an organization with two full-time staff, reported six volunteers on a weekly basis. The Boys and Girls Club, an organization with six full-time staff, reported using 30 volunteers each week, and the
Children’s Neighborhood Trust Initiative, with a staff of eight employees, reported using up to 10 volunteers per week.
Despite the large number of volunteers reported by community-based groups, many of our respondents spoke of the difficulty of keeping and maintaining a core group of neighborhood residents engaged in organizational activities. PTAs were mentioned by respondents as being particularly weak in the Marshall Heights schools. In the words of one respondent: “The people you want to have come most often have the least amount of time available. Many work two jobs to make ends meet.”
Resident involvement in Washington Highlands nonprofit and grassroots groups is also strong, but limited to a handful of individuals. Many of the organizations suffer from a lack of organizational capacity. Five of the six organizations had fewer than five full-time staff members. In some cases, groups share the same physical space for program operations in order to stretch program funds.
38 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
The richness of the community ties can be seen in an organization’s staffing
patterns and administrative structures. About half of the groups in Washington Highlands
had staff members who lived in the community, and half of the organizations drew their
volunteers from the community. Even at the board of director level, community
involvement is high. Four of the six organizations reported having formal boards, and all
reported that community residents were represented on these boards.
In short, an organizational infrastructure is developing in Washington Highlands,
but will need time to coalesce into a potent community force. Its roots are clearly based
in the community, but currently are in their infancy. The leadership of these organizations
expressed a strong desire to expand their operations in order to serve the neighborhood.
Collaborations and Working Relationships. The desire to generate community involvement also extends to building strong ties with other organizations within the community and around the District. Partnerships among nonprofit organizations and with the D.C. government were reported in all three communities (see Appendix I).
Because Columbia Heights has an extensive array of nonprofit organizations, the number of working relationships and formal collaborations was great (see table 10).
Thirteen of the 16 survey respondents in Columbia Heights indicated a working arrangement with another community group. In addition, ten of the 16 organizations identified working relationships with government agencies, suggesting a complex web of public and private arrangements.
Although there are numerous partnerships or working relationships in Columbia
Heights, the community has a complex and sometimes uneasy relationship with government. Community groups, particularly those representing the fast-growing
39 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Hispanic population, feel their voices are not heard sufficiently in citywide politics. For example, funds for Latino services have stagnated for several years while the size of the
Hispanic population has grown. To address this perceived imbalance, several Hispanic- serving nonprofit groups invited members of the City Council to a one-day meeting in
May, 1999, with community residents to educate Council members about the Latino community’s concerns.
Table 10. Working Relationships with Government and Other Community-based Groups Columbia Marshall Washington Type of Relationship Heights Heights Highlands Working with other groups With other nonprofit organizations 13 of 16 3 of 6 6 of 6 With government 10 of 16 5 of 6 5 of 6
Collaborations Average number with other nonprofit organizations 2.2 1.5 3.2 Average number with government 1.2 1.5 2.1 Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Community Organization Survey 1999.
Community residents also have been active in expressing their opinions on development and land use issues related to construction of the new Metro station in the neighborhood. During 1998-1999, there were three formal events to discuss these concerns. The first event was held to gather resident opinions on the how developers should treat various parcels of land. This information was submitted to the D.C. government and incorporated into the request for proposals sent to developers. Follow-up meetings were then held at a local strategic planning conference, where residents discussed the results of the proposed development plan and raised additional concerns
40 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute about the development process. The list of concerns was extensive and included parking, crime, affordable housing, vacant buildings, the restoration of historic landmarks, the need for a supermarket, the lack of a post office, over-development, economic opportunities for local residents, bus routes, and the appropriate mix of commercial and residential activities.
In contrast to Columbia Heights, nonprofit organizations in Marshall Heights that responded to our survey indicated that they were more likely to have ties to government than to other nonprofit groups. Nearly all of the respondents reported a working relationship with government, but only half identified links to other community-based organizations. Community ties appear to be fostered by the Marshall Heights Community
Development Organization, which acts both as a partner and facilitator to many of the other local and citywide groups in the area.
Although smaller organizations in Marshall Heights identified a number of formal and informal collaborations with other community groups, most partnerships were with organizations far outside of the neighborhood. The local senior high school, for example, partners with the Fannie Mae Foundation and the Coast Guard to offer educational and enrichment programs to its students.
The work of nonprofit organizations in Washington Highlands is primarily based on collaborative efforts. According to survey respondents in this community, the small number of organizations clearly facilitates working relationships and collaborations. At least six distinct partnerships among nonprofit groups within the neighborhood could be identified from our field work. Others were with groups that are headquartered in other
41 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
parts of the city. Much of the nonprofit activity in Washington Highlands is done in
concert with various D.C. government agencies.
Other Resources. In addition to nonprofit organizations, two other community-
based assets emerged from our neighborhood field work: religious congregations and
schools. Each of these community institutions contributes to the resource base of the local
area, but like other factors, the roles they play differ.
Religious Congregations. One of the most important roles that local area churches
play in these study sites is that of an incubator for nonprofit human service providers.
Particularly in Columbia Heights and Washington Highlands, local congregations provide
physical space for nonprofit organizations to run their programs. Sometimes these
relationships are temporary while groups get established; in other cases, there has been a
longer-term relationship.
In Columbia Heights, for example, ten human service organizations presently
work from church property. Several other nonprofit groups began operations at church
facilities, but have since moved into their own facilities. One of the most successful
examples of this relationship is the Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center.
Calvary began by serving 15 children in a church basement in 1986. It has now grown to
a nationally recognized 70,000 square foot Center serving over 220 children. Programs
range from prenatal services for expectant mothers to activities for children up to age 15.
Other organizations with ties to local religious congregations include Barney Center,
D.C. Refugee Center, Community of Hope, Charles Brooks Youth Organization,
McKenna House, and Growing Together.
42 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Field work in Washington Highlands identified five churches in the community, and, similar to Columbia Heights, these congregations are serving as fertile ground for newly developed nonprofit organizations. In particular, the Johenning Baptist Church has been an active promoter of community-based groups. In addition to its own activities, including child care for preschoolers, after-school programs for older children, and GED programs and employment training for teens and young adults, the Johenning Baptist
Community Center also provides space for newly formed community organizations such as the Washington Highlands Community Organization.
Houses of worship in Marshall Heights are plentiful and outnumber nonprofit organizations in the area by a factor of three to one. These institutions vary considerably in size, ranging from a cluster of smaller storefront churches to congregations exceeding
500 members. While the majority of our key informants identified churches as important influences in the community, respondents gave mixed reviews of their effectiveness in addressing the needs of local residents. Key informants were more likely to identify nonprofit organizations than congregations as the institutions that would unite residents to work together on local problems. There was a sense, particularly among key informants who live in the neighborhood, that the faith community served local residents who were affiliated as members. In the words of one respondent, “They mostly serve their own and don’t go beyond their members in their outreach . . . and most of them are from Maryland.”
Our field work and organizational survey echo some of these concerns regarding the integration of the faith community in Marshall Heights into local affairs. For example, there is no local interfaith group in Marshall Heights, which might be expected
43 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute given the multitude of congregations in the neighborhood and in Ward 7 generally. Only two of the 29 congregations in Marshall Heights have human service outreach programs that are structured as nonprofit organizations to serve local residents. These are Teen Life
Choices of the St. Luke Catholic Church, and a United Planning Organization Early
Childhood Development Center operating out of Hughes Memorial United Methodist
Church. The abundance of churches in Marshall Heights may be an untapped resource that can be better utilized for addressing the needs of children and families in the area.
Schools. Another important community resource is the local school system. In all three study sites, respondents named education as one of the biggest issues facing children and families in the neighborhoods. This corresponds with the information provided by the D.C. Agenda focus groups. Many of our respondents noted that the schools specifically need greater financial support to improve their educational programs and reach out to community residents. (See Appendix J for a statistical profile of the school systems.)
Elementary schools are fairly prominent in all three study sites, but only
Columbia Heights has senior high schools within its neighborhood borders (see table 11).
High school students in Marshall Heights and Washington Highlands go to neighboring communities for grades 8-12. In Washington Highlands, one of the elementary schools
(the Patricia Robert Harris Educational Center) defies a strict comparison to other elementary schools identified in the three communities. It serves 1,000 children and is comprised of students from Pre-K to the 8th grade.
The public charter school system is a recent experiment in the District of
Columbia, most having been in operation only one academic year. Charter schools are
44 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute independently managed, nonprofit, nonreligious public schools that receive public funding and are free-of-charge and open to all D.C. residents. Charter schools originate in a number of different ways—some by individuals with a vision, others by nonprofit organizations wanting to establish a charter school to supplement their other services.
The latter is the case for two of the schools in the Columbia Heights community. The formation of public charter schools in the District provides another glimpse into the organizational capacity of each community. The establishment of five new charter schools in Columbia Heights, for example, points to the very active participation of local residents in educational affairs.
Table 11. Number and Types of Schools in the Three Study Sites Columbia Marshall Washington Type of School Heights Heights Highlands Elementary schools 3 3 6 Middle schools 1 1 1 Senior high schools 2 0 0 Charter schools 5 1 0 Private/ Special schools 1 1 1 Total 12 6 8 Source: D.C. Board of Education, 1999.
Key informants often mentioned specific schools (or principals) that were active in the community and making a difference for children. In Columbia Heights, for example, the principal of the Harriet Tubman School was cited for her outreach into the community and for the programs housed in the school facilities. In Marshall Heights, the
J.C. Nalle Community School was frequently mentioned as a community resource. It provides space to the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization to operate
45 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute an arts program and GED program at the school. There was some speculation that in the future a health program might also be run from the J.C. Nalle School.
In Washington Highlands, two schools provide a home for community-based services. The Ferebee Hope Elementary School provides space to the Ferebee Hope
Community Services Center that serves as an information and referral service for local residents. This program is sponsored by the Far Southeast Family Strengthening
Collaborative and is focused on building strong, healthy families in the neighborhood.
The other school in Washington Highlands that houses some community-based services is the Patricia Robert Harris School. Several key informants, as well as staff of the Harris
School, mentioned that the school currently offers fewer community services than in prior years, but that it is still an important resource for community residents. We were unable to determine the reasons for these cutbacks, but the past financial difficulties of the District government and a general back-to-basics education movement appear to be contributing factors for the reductions.
The physical space that schools occupy in a community is clearly an underused resource. Our field work noted a number of public schools, particularly in Marshall
Heights, that have been closed and stand vacant. These properties could be converted into homes for nonprofit service providers that are specifically addressing the needs of children and families in the neighborhood. Participants in the D.C. Agenda focus groups also cited better access to the school buildings as possible venues for organizing out-of- school activities for children. Because physical space for nonprofit organizations is often at a premium in these neighborhoods, this is an opportunity that could have lasting value for community residents.
46 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Making a Difference
The qualities and characteristics of “what makes a difference” for improving the lives of children and families in low-income neighborhoods are fairly amorphous and difficult to define. Three components, however, appear to be essential: clearly defined programs, leadership, and trust. Our interviews with key informants and field observations suggest that these elements are present in all three study sites, but are manifest in numerous ways.
Community Assets. When key informants were asked to identify the community assets that tend to unite residents in the neighborhood, most were reluctant to identify a single individual or organization. Instead, the answers tended to be fairly categorical and reflected the differences in the three study sites.
In Columbia Heights, for example, the community asset most frequently mentioned was the diversity of the community. Respondents listed the social and economic mix, the various languages heard on the street, and the different ethnic-serving organizations as symbols of this dynamic community. One resident expressed it in the following terms: “We have a lot of people. Tolerance, this has always been a very tolerant community and very accepting. If you go to community meetings you’ll hear a lot of celebrating of differences.”
In Washington Highlands, respondents were quick to identify the children of the community as their principal asset and the one issue most likely to unite residents to work together on local problems. Four of the respondents identified the relatively small size of the human service sector in the community as an important factor that allows easy access to individuals and information. It is somewhat paradoxical that the small size of the
47 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute human service sector in Washington Highlands is viewed as both a strength and a weakness by community leaders. On the one hand, it enables individuals and groups to have a fairly thorough understanding of the services and activities that are available in the community; on the other hand, the lack of services is cited as a major concern.
Marshall Heights respondents had a broader range of answers than did key informants in the other two communities. Attributes such as the willingness of people to care for one another, the spirit of the community, love for each other, and the youth of the neighborhood, were highlighted. One respondent summarized this general sense of community spirit by saying, “There are some really good people who care about the community and youth and the future. They really are eager to support the youth. This kind of attitude is what we need more of.”
Organizations. There was a general consensus among the study’s key informants that nonprofit organizations were the most likely entity to make a difference in promoting the well-being of children and families in local neighborhoods (see table 12). Over 80 percent of the respondents named nonprofit organizations as the type of organization promoting community change and well-being for local residents. This pattern was consistent across study sites and regardless of the respondent’s affiliation.
Table 12. Organizations That Make a Difference Columbia Marshall Washington Type of Organization Heights Heights Highlands Nonprofit 22 11 15 Religious Congregation 1 1 3 School 1 1 0 Public Services 2 2 0 Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Key Informant Interviews 1998-1999.
48 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Further probes to determine the type of program regarded as most effective yielded a somewhat different pattern, however. After coding the responses to the open- ended interviews into a broad array of categories, the results showed a wide range of opinion regarding the most effective means of providing support to families with children. Although there was strong consensus across all communities that the programs should be family-focused (that is, holistic in their approach to problem solving or service delivery), there were considerable differences regarding the other characteristics that mattered (see table 13).
Table 13. Types of Programs That Make a Difference Columbia Marshall Washington Type of program Heights Heights Highlands Individually focused 7 1 8 Family focused (i.e., holistic) 14 9 12 School-based 7 4 6 Faith-based 3 6 5 Community development 7 3 5 Culturally sensitive 10 1 0 Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Key Informant Interviews 1998-1999.
In Columbia Heights, for example, key informants most commonly named programs offering broad family-centered services as the most effective programs, but many respondents quickly added that the programs needed to account for the cultural background of the community and clients. In Washington Highlands, respondents regarded family-centered programs as the most effective, but a strong second choice was for programs addressing individual needs. Among the eight respondents who spoke of
49 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
“individual needs,” five of the eight indicated that these programs should focus on the needs of children in the community. In Marshall Heights, respondents thought that the programs making the most difference in their community were offering comprehensive family assistance and were faith based.
Leadership. The research literature on civil society and social capital suggests that the starting point for effective neighborhood change begins with individuals (see, for example, Lappe and DuBoise, 1997; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). Nonprofit organizations and community-based groups often provide a venue for teaching and cultivating civic skills and effective leadership.
In probing the idea of how nonprofit organizations might build local leadership potential, we asked key informants, “what prompts an individual to assume a leadership role within the community?” The question produced a range of responses. The most common reason cited was the presence of a crisis or tragedy. Respondents were quick to identify moments when a shooting or other tragic event served as a catalyst, bringing members of the community together. In the words of one respondent: “When they’re tired of seeing all the wrongs, the violence and abuses … they do what they have to do to help the community.” The second most common response was love for the community or for its members. One respondent spoke to this issue by saying that “Effective leaders are those who really care about people and the cause. You need to believe in what you are doing, need to be dedicated to what residents are doing.” In short, for many respondents, the reason for leadership is a desire to serve, or simply, “trying to do good.”
After discussing how leadership emerges in a local community, respondents were asked to identify the individuals or organizations that they regarded as outstanding
50 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute leaders. Not surprisingly, the answers reflect the historical and emerging circumstances of each community. In Columbia Heights, for example, heads of community organizations were seen as the principal leaders of the neighborhood. The local community development corporation leader received the greatest number of mentions, followed closely by the leaders of two predominantly Hispanic-serving organizations.
In Washington Highlands, area residents and resident councils were cited more than any other group as providing effective leadership in the community, particularly as public housing units were closed and housing renewal programs developed. Respondents cited the work of individual resident council members and directors of housing as being the voice, advocates, and leadership for the community. The local City Council member also received high marks. Washington Highlands respondents were more likely than those in other study sites to name their Council member as an important influence in the community, however government, itself, was not generally regarded as an effective force in the community.
In Marshall Heights, respondents noted two primary sources of community leadership. The source most frequently mentioned was the Marshall Heights Community
Development Organization (MHCDO), and the second was the elected members of the
Advisory Neighborhood Commission. Pastors of local congregations received a blanket acknowledgment of their leadership role without having any one individual singled out.
MHCDO was mentioned by all key informants as the principal nonprofit in the area. In the words of one respondent, “People are much more likely to go to MHCDO when they have a problem than they are to District government.” MHCDO has gained praise nationally and internationally for its work in Ward 7. In fact, among our
51 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute respondents, the individual named most often as a leader in the community was the founder of MHCDO, Lloyd Smith, and several mentioned his nick-name, “The Mayor of
Ward 7.”
MHCDO started out in the Marshall Heights neighborhood 19 years ago, but has moved several times and currently resides in Benning Heights, a neighborhood closer to the center of Ward 7. MHCDO has grown to a staff of 65 persons, a service area covering all of Ward 7, and an asset base of $8.7 million. The organization works in collaboration with many local and citywide groups in developing its human service and development programs. Its budget is split between human services (43 percent), housing and economic development (42 percent), and a six-year initiative called Rebuilding Community (14 percent). MHCDO is dedicated to economic development in the community and counts a seven-store, mini-mall development as one of its recent achievements. The mall also includes one of the only large chain grocery stores in the area.
The size and vitality of MHCDO stand in stark contrast to the other organizations that serve the local Marshall Heights community. MHCDO’s annual program expenditure for FY98 ($4,500,000) is eight times more than the second largest nonprofit budget in the area. Most Marshall Heights organizations that responded to the survey focus their work and service delivery much less broadly than does MHCDO, and concentrate their activities largely on the residents of the Marshall Heights neighborhood. These organizations provide youth and family support services. For example, the Children’s
Trust Neighborhood Initiative, established in 1992, focuses on youth development and provides family support through counseling, referral, and parenting and health education.
Teen Life Choices focuses on neighborhood teens by providing preventive counseling on
52 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute pregnancy, violence, and drugs. The local Police Boys and Girls Club #14 supplies a broad range of recreational and youth counseling and tutoring services throughout the year. The local Weed and Seed program, active in technology issues in the local library and schools, provides GED training, summer arts and crafts, and family support. It also is a vehicle for Grandparents on the Move, a program for grandparents who are raising their children’s children.
Conclusions
This exploratory study of three low-income neighborhoods in the District of Columbia provides an important framework for understanding the needs and institutional infrastructures that serve children and families in local communities. It provides a set of both quantitative and qualitative research tools that can be used to investigate factors affecting community life and the well-being of children and families in future studies of other D.C. neighborhoods or other communities across the country.
The study’s findings emphasize the importance of looking carefully at the strengths and assets of local neighborhoods before developing initiatives to address local needs. Both organizational and environmental factors can vary widely from place to place, as was evident in the three study sites. These factors need to be taken into account when designing initiatives that can bring positive change to the lives of children and families residing in distressed communities.
The work also highlights three factors that help characterize community infrastructures and should be part of a full typology of neighborhood conditions. These factors are:
53 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
1. the number and types of community-based organizations;
2. the extent to which activities are centralized or dispersed; and
3. the extent of communication among neighborhood groups.
Although the study sites were selected because they were similar in population size and rates of poverty, they are remarkably different along these three important dimensions. These differences suggest somewhat different intervention strategies to address particular needs and build organizational capacity. For example:
Columbia Heights has a large number of nonprofit organizations, and activities are largely decentralized. Communication is high among nonprofit organizations that serve the same ethnic group, but low between groups serving different ethnic populations.
Not only are the numbers of nonprofit groups in Columbia Heights significantly higher than in the other two study sites, but they also exhibit a strong capacity for innovation, creative service delivery, and advocacy.10 Several groups have undertaken extensive capital campaigns to purchase and renovate their facilities. New multiorganizational complexes are forming to provide a broad range of programs under a single roof. Newly established charter schools are offering alternative educational opportunities for the area’s children. Yet, in part, because of cultural and language barriers, many nonprofit groups in Columbia Heights do not communicate, collaborate, or network extensively with one another. Moreover, many of the groups that offer programs for children are small-scale initiatives with limited budgets. Thus, one potential intervention in Columbia
10 One of the more innovative groups located in Columbia Heights is Washington Parks and People—a group dedicated to “reclaiming Washington, D.C.’s public spaces.” It recently purchased and is now renovating a large Victorian mansion that will serve as a local community center. The building will house nine separate nonprofit agencies.
54 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Heights is direct program support to help small nonprofits expand their programs and reach more children and families in the neighborhood.
In Marshall Heights, the composition and dynamics of nonprofit organizations are very different from what was found in Columbia Heights. For example, instead of a wide array of nonprofit organizations that operate in a decentralized structure, Marshall
Heights has a more limited number of community-based organizations and a more centralized structure. Specifically, the Marshall Heights Community Development
Organization (MHCDO) anchors and dominates the civic infrastructure throughout Ward
7. This dynamic, multiservice, central agency not only serves Marshall Heights, but all of
Ward 7. Within Marshall Heights, however, is a cluster of small, programmatically focused nonprofit organizations that generally target their efforts specifically to Marshall
Heights residents. While the communication network is dense between area providers and
MHCDO, it is low among the remainder of the nonprofit organizations. The civic infrastructure in Marshall Heights could be strengthened in several ways: by promoting better interorganizational communication directly, by fostering stronger collaborations among small nonprofit groups in the area, or by identifying service gaps that could be filled through the formation of new organizations in the neighborhood.
One untapped resource in Marshall Heights is the religious community. Because of the extensive number of congregations in this neighborhood vis-à-vis the other study sites, supporting interfaith collaborations may produce new opportunities and resources for local organizations and community residents.
Finally, Washington Highlands represents an area with a small number of community-based organizations, a somewhat diffuse and evolving structure, but high
55 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute inter-organizational communication among the few nonprofit groups in the neighborhood. Addressing the needs of the large number of poor children who live in
Washington Highlands is a formidable task for the handful of organizations that operate in this community. One of the more ambitious undertakings in Washington Highlands is
The Arc Project. Although still in the planning stage, this new program will bring the first multiservice youth center to the residents of the area.
Because the civic infrastructure in Washington Highlands is small and fledgling, the most immediate need is for capital and administrative support to build the organizational capacity of these emerging community-based groups. Several of them operate from church buildings, such as the Johenning Baptist Church, which generously provides space and resources to new community groups. Providing financial support either directly to the new groups or indirectly through established organizations that provide space or other resources to these emerging entities will significantly assist the development of a viable community infrastructure in Washington Highlands.
Recommendations. The findings of this exploratory work demonstrate the complexities and subtleties of local areas. Although communities may initially look quite similar, the dynamics and interactions of local infrastructures and community networks may function quite differently. Because of these differences, a one-size-fits-all strategy for investing in local neighborhoods is not likely to succeed. CNP, therefore, offers four recommendations for investing in low-income communities.
· An initial step in designing programs for low-income communities must begin
with a careful assessment of the neighborhood’s organizational and
environmental context. The research suggests that effective place-based strategies
56 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
will greatly benefit from a thorough understanding of the organizational and
environmental characteristics of specific neighborhoods. The initial neighborhood
scan should include socioeconomic, demographic, political, and organizational
factors that help define and distinguish the local area. The coupling of empirical
analysis and ethnographic research can enhance programmatic decisions.
· Programmatic interventions must be tailored to fit local conditions. Because
organizational and environmental factors vary greatly from place to place, these
differences need to be incorporated into the investment plan. Initiatives can be
tailored to support and strengthen existing organizational assets and community
resources or to fill gaps in the local infrastructure.
· For an initiative to succeed in a low-income area, it must be long-term and
flexible. The problems facing many low-income neighborhoods are likely to be
deeply rooted and difficult to change in a short funding cycle of two or three years. A
long-term commitment is required to effect real change. But environments and needs
also change over time, and effective place-based strategies must be flexible to
respond to change. The implementation of long-term and flexible programs has a
two-fold advantage: First, it will help meet existing needs, while also contributing to
the future viability of the community by building organizational capacity. Second, the
demonstration of a foundation’s continued commitment to a low-income
neighborhood may encourage additional public and private investment to the area.
· Making a difference in the lives of children and families in poor neighborhoods
requires periodic monitoring of organizational and environmental conditions.
While effective place-based strategies must begin with a solid understanding of the
57 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
organizational and environmental characteristics of the neighborhood, it also requires
on-going monitoring of organizational and environmental change. This process
provides an invaluable and essential feedback loop to make programmatic
adjustments that fit current needs and conditions.
The findings of this research highlight diverse community needs and identify the organizations that are actively working toward improving the lives of children and families in three low-income neighborhoods of the District of Columbia. Much work remains, however. As indicated above, an ongoing monitoring of environmental change will supply an essential feedback loop to make programmatic decisions and adjustments.
Results of the 2000 Census will also provide an opportunity to update many of the socioeconomic and demographic variables and examine change over time. In addition, replication of the study in additional neighborhoods will provide a wider baseline for developing models and typologies of community infrastructures and local needs.
A plethora of research questions that also deserve attention fell outside the scope of the current study. In particular, much more could be learned about the role of coalitions and advocacy organizations in connecting residents to the policy process. Are community-based organizations in low-income neighborhoods exercising their political
“voice”? How can the promotion of political participation among neighborhood organizations produce positive social and economic change for families and children?
How can foundations stimulate community activism? Answers to these questions will provide further measures of effective ways to support and strengthen local community groups and the children and families that they serve.
58 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
References
Boris, Elizabeth T. 1999. “The Nonprofit Sector in the 1990’s,” in The Future of Philanthropy in a Changing America. Charles Clotfelter and Thomas Ehrlich, eds. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
D.C. Agenda. 1999. Out of School Needs in the District. Issued February 1999.
Ellen, Ingrid G. 1996. Sharing America’s Neighborhoods: The Changing Prospects for Stable, Racial Integration. Unpublished Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Gronbjerg, Kirsten A. 1993. Understanding Nonprofit Funding: Managing Revenues in Social Services and Community Development Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
KIDS COUNT Data Book. 1999. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
KIDS COUNT Data Book. 1998. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Lappe, Francis Moore and Paul Martin DuBois. 1997. “Building Social Capital without Looking Backwards.” National Civic Review 86 (2, Summer): 119-128.
Lincoln, C. Eric and Lawrence H. Mamiya. 1990. The Black Church and the African American Experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Printz, Tobi Jennifer. 1998. Faith-Based Service Providers in the Nation’s Capital: Can They Do More? Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy Policy Brief. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, April.
Stevenson, David R., Thomas H. Pollak, and Linda M. Lampkin. 1997. State Nonprofit Almanac 1997: Profiles of Charitable Organizations. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Turner, Margery A. and Ingrid G. Ellen. 1997. “Location, Location, Location: How Does Neighborhood Environment Affect the Well-Being of Families and Children?” Working Paper (July). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Twombly, Eric C. and Carol J. De Vita. 1998. D.C.-Area Ties to Religious Congregations. Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy Policy Brief. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, May.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wolpert, Julian. 1996. What Charity Can and Cannot Do. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press.
59 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix A Advisory Committees
National Advisory Committee
Xavier de Souza Briggs, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Stephen Fuller, Professor of Public Policy, Institute for Public Policy, George Mason University
Cheryl Hayes, Executive Director, The Finance Project
Jeffrey Henig, Director, Center for Washington Area Studies, George Washington University
Damon Lynch, Director, Asset-Based Community Development Institute of Ohio
Margaret Simms, Vice President for Research, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Annie E. Casey Foundation Paula Dressel Irene Lee
The Urban Institute, Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy Elizabeth T. Boris Carol J. De Vita Carlos Manjarrez (joined staff, December 1998) Tobi Printz (left staff, December 1998) Eric C. Twombly
60 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Local Advisory Committee
Jacquelyn Henry, East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Meredith Johnson, United Way of the National Capital Area Phyllis Jones, Local Initiative Support Coalition Barbara Kamara, DC Office of Early Childhood Development Lori Kaplan, Latin American Youth Center
Beverly Langford-Thomas, DC Public Schools’ Head Start Program Gladys Mack, United Planning Organization Jacqueline Massey, Valley Green Resident Council Robert Moore, Development Corporation of Columbia Heights Gail Oliver, Columbia Heights Youth Club
Beatriz Otero, Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center Father Mark Poletunow, Spanish Catholic Center Patricia Press, Marshall Heights Community Development Organization Brenda Richardson, Metropolitan Dialogue Carmen Robles-Gordon, DC Agenda
Joy Smith, Far Southeast Family Strengthening Collaborative Bessie Swann, Willow Creek Community Development Corporation Reverend Wallace Charles Smith, Shiloh Baptist Church Tony Whitehead, University of Maryland Marion Urquilla, Columbia Heights/Shaw Collaborative
Annie E. Casey Foundation Paula Dressel Irene Lee
The Urban Institute, Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy Elizabeth T. Boris Carol J. De Vita Carlos Manjarrez (joined staff, December 1998) Tobi Printz (left staff, December 1998) Eric C. Twombly
61 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix B Secondary Data Sources
Administrative Data D.C. Department of Children and Family Services A list of all licensed child care providers was obtained from this office. In order to identify the providers that were located in the three study sites, the data were sorted by zip code, then geo-coded, and mapped. The District provides information on licensed capacity (that is, the number of licensed child care slots) for child care centers, but not for individual providers. The licensed capacity within each neighborhood can only be calculated for center-based care.
Socioeconomic Data U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census data The decennial census is the most complete source of data for examining the sociodemographic and economic features of small geographic areas. These data were used to construct neighborhood maps that reflect a variety of social indicators at the neighborhood level.
D.C. Office of Planning and Evaluation This office provided 1998 population estimates by census tract for four variables: age, race/ethnicity, median household income, and per capita income. The data were used to construct neighborhood maps and to provide estimates of population change between 1990 and 1998.
Various Reports and Newspaper Articles D.C. Agenda A report on “Out of School Needs in the District” was obtained from D.C. Agenda in February 1999. The report summarizes the results of focus groups conducted by D.C. Agenda with the eight Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives. Four focus groups, covering different perspectives, were held in each neighborhood. The perspectives included: young students (4th, 5th, and 6th graders); older students (7th-12th graders); parents and caregivers; and area service providers.
Newspaper articles Using the Nexus/Lexus computer search engine, project interns found 29 newspaper articles that focused on general community concerns in the three study sites. The computer search was conducted by community name, and only articles that focused on individual neighborhood issues were selected.
62 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix C Supplemental Databases, Directories, and Lists
· Asian/Pacific Islander organizations from the Executive Office of the Mayor · Hispanic organizations from the Council of Latino Agencies · People’s House database from the “Little White House” · Civic associations from the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics · Head Start grantees · Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation grantees · Religious congregations and emergency service providers from the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington · Registered charitable organizations from the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs · Contacts of the D.C. Family Policy Seminar from the National Center for Education on Maternal and Child Health of Georgetown University · Organizations exempt from D.C. property tax from the D.C. Department of Finance and Revenue
· Contact list from the Development Corporation of Columbia Heights · D.C. nonprofit organizations from Philanthropic Research, Inc. · Membership data base from the Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington · Descriptions of D.C. Community Development Corporations from the Local Initiative Support Coalition · Electronic list of United Way grantees · Coalitions compiled by the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers · Organizations identified by Greater DC Cares in the “Community Service Source” · Grantees of the Meyer Foundation for the past five years · Contacts for all Parent Teacher Associations of elementary, junior, and high schools in D.C. · Contact list from the United Planning Organization
· Local employment resources from Wurzbacher and Associates, human service consultants · Data base of religious congregations in the Washington, DC metropolitan area from the American Church Lists, Inc. · Membership list from the Washington Council of Agencies · Service Directory of the D.C. Office on Aging · 1996 Referral Directory from the D.C. Hotline · 1997 Directory of Resources from the Criminal Practice Institute of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia · Organizational members of the Combined Federal Campaign · Contact list from the D.C. Office of Grants Management and Development · Data from the Internal Revenue Service that has been classified by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS)
63 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix D Interview Protocol
A Study of Community Organizations and Neighborhood Networks that Strengthen Families in the District of Columbia
[Note: This interview protocol was used for Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners, elementary and high school principals, pastors, police officers, nonprofit service providers, and D.C. Council members.]
Thank you for meeting with me today. Let’s start our discussion by looking at the geographic boundaries of (insert community name).
I. How do you define this community? 1. When you think of (insert community name), are these the street boundaries that you feel best define the neighborhood?
a. Show a map of the community as we have defined it, and ask if it is correct. Discuss the map and the street boundaries to determine the respondent’s perceptions.
2. How would you describe this community to a new resident and neighbor?
a. Is it a close-knit neighborhood? What is the racial, economic, and employment status of most residents?
II. We are interested in learning about change or stability in the neighborhood. 3. Do families stay in the neighborhood for more than one generation?
4. If a family’s economic situation improves, do they stay in the community or move out? If they move, do you know where they typically go?
5. Do new businesses open in the community, or have companies and stores relocated elsewhere?
6. What do residents like about this neighborhood?
7. What are the biggest issues facing residents within the community?
8. What are the biggest issues facing families with children within the community?
64 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
III. We are also interested in the formal and informal groups or organizations that can be found in the neighborhood. These can include organizations physically located here, or projects in or for the community offered by groups located elsewhere.
9. What types of organizations, groups or coalitions promote neighborhood well-being in (insert community name)?
10. Which programs and activities “make a difference” in actively strengthening families, connecting them to resources and involving them in community building?
11. Why, or how, do these positively viewed efforts and organizations effect change?
12. Do any of these groups promote resident involvement? Which ones?
a. If yes, how? Do they solicit volunteers from the community? Advertise employment opportunities? Hold community forums?
13. What groups in the community are residents likely to trust?
IV. Can you tell me something about the leadership capacity of neighborhood residents?
14. Who, do you think, are the effective leaders within the community?
15. What prompts an individual to assume a leadership role within a group or the community?
V. Finally, I want to ask you about the strengths of the neighborhood. 16. What are the greatest community assets that can unite residents to work together on a local problem?
VI. Is there anything else you want to tell us about (insert community name)?
Thank you for your taking the time to answer our questions. We will send you a copy of our final report upon its completion early next year.
65 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix E Key Informants
Columbia Heights
Commander Acosta Perry King, Social Worker 3rd District Police Department Upper Cardozo Health Clinic
Marion Brown, Executive Director David McIntire, Historian Sojourners Columbia Heights Webmaster
Sandy Dang, Executive Director Elizabeth McIntire Asian American LEAD Ward 1-A03 Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner
Helene Fisher, Formerly Lead Organizer Father Moises Columbia Heights/Shaw Collaborative Sacred Heart Catholic Church
Maria Gomez, Executive Director Bob Moore, Executive Director Mary=s Center Development Corporation of Columbia Heights
Edwin Gonzalez, Executive Director Gail Oliver, Community Coordinator Casa del Pueblo Circle of Hope/Columbia Heights Youth Club
Honorable Jim Graham Beatriz Otero, Executive Director Ward 1 Council Member (Current) Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Center
Phyllis Jones, Program Officer Veronica Park, President Local Initiative Support Corporation Martha=s Table
Carletha Jones, Director Gracey Rolling, Executive Director Arizona House Boys and Girls Club Group Home Change Inc.
Lori Kaplan, Executive Director Commander Scott Latin American Youth Center 4th District Police Precinct
Frank Smith Peggy Wines, Principal Ward 1 Council Member (Former) Harriet Tubman Elementary School
Pastor Wallace Charles Smith Bob Wittig, Executive Director Shiloh Baptist Church Academy of Hope
Ms. Towns, Building President James Woody, Executive Director 1451 Park Rd Cooperative Community of Hope
66 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Marshall Heights
Greg Bargeman, Librarian Ms. Connie Nugent Capitol View Public View Library Weed and Seed Program
Lillian Barnes, Neighborhood Advocate Shirley Profit, Resource Development Director Children’s Trust Neighborhood Initiative Marshall Heights C71ommunity Development Organization
Ali Bird, President Loretta Tate, Vice President MHCDO and Children=s Family Trust Neighborhood President Marshall Heights Civic Association
Michael Cresenzo, Vice President of Housing and Ms. Helena Valentine, Director Economic Development Teen Life Choices St. Luke=s Catholic Church
Jackie Henry, Vice-President (former) Captain Velareal Marshall Heights Community Development Police Precinct, 6D Organization
Honorable Mary Jackson Michael Watts, Service Director ANC Commissioner 7E04 JC Nalle Community School
Anna Jefferson, Assistant Principal Honorable Cathy Woods Woodson High School ANC Commissioner
Father James McLinden Neil Owens, Director of Services St. Luke=s Catholic Church Police Boys and Girls Club
67 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Washington Highlands
Honorable Sandy Allen Alan Parish, Youth Leader Ward 8 Council Member Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership
Nigel Collie, Business Development Director Brenda Richardson East of the River Community Development Corporation Metropolitan Dialogue
Habibah Haqq, Family Advocate Patrice Sheppard, Executive Director Far Southeast Family Strengthening Collaborative Lydia=s House
Michelle LeShane, Director of Community Relations Joy Smith, Executive Director Greater Southeast Community Hospital Far Southeast Family Strengthening Collaborative
David Mason, Principle Bessie Swan Green Elementary Wheeler Creek Estates Community Development Inc.
Linda Moody, Founder & President Toni Thomas, Member Ward 8 Forum on Education Washington Highlands Community Organization
Evans Moore, Project Director Gloria Thurman, Managing Director Ward 8 Mentoring Project Highland Addition Community Center
R. Bruce O=Neill, Executive Director Vivian Townsell, Business Manager Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership Paramount Baptist Church Paramount Child Development Center
68 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix F Organizational Survey
INFORMATION SHEET
Date: ______
Interviewer: ______
Type of Interview: _____ In-person _____ Telephone
Neighborhood: CH MH WH
Note: If this is an in-person interview, please observe the following items:
A. Which of the following items are posted or otherwise available to potential clients:
____ Organizational advertising (signs or banners outside building or at entrance)
____ Informational leaflets detailing programs or services provided
____ Message board/kiosk with neighborhood events
____ Materials from other community organizations
____ Web site Address: ______
B. Is the information posted in more than one language? _____ Yes _____ No (Go to D)
C. In which language is the information posted? Materials Language ______
D. Is the main entrance to the site locked when the organization is open for business?____ Yes ____ No
E. Is the building generally in good physical condition? _____ Yes _____ No
F. Are there any signs of disrepair? _____Yes _____No
G. Is the site handicapped accessible? _____Yes ____No
H. Is the site close (within 3 blocks) to a public transportation stop? ____Yes ____No
69 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits & Philanthropy
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION SURVEY
Organization Information
Please confirm the following information:
1. Organization name ______
2. Street address ______
3. Zip code ______
4. Phone number ______
5. Respondent’s Name ______
6. Respondent’s Title ______
Begin the Interview:
Origin and Purpose
7. What year was your organization started? ______
8. Is your organization a: ____ single site operation? (Go to 10) ____ part of larger organization?
9. Is your organization: ___ a headquarters? ___ a satellite?
10. Are your services from this site directed primarily at the residents of ______? ______Yes ______No (neighborhood)
11. In a few words, please describe the primary purpose of your organization.
70 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Leadership
This next series of questions deal with the characteristics of the leaders and leadership structures in this community.
12. Who is the leader of your organization?______
13. What is the leader’s approximate age? ___ 20s ___50s ___ 30s ___60+ ___ 40s
14. What is the leader’s racial/ethnic background? ___African-Amer. ___Asian ____Hispanic ___White Specify Other______
15. What is the leader’s gender? ___ Male ___ Female
16. Does the leader live in ? ___ Yes ___ No (neighborhood)
17. How many years has the leader headed the organization? _____ years
If less than one year, how many months? _____ months
18. Is there a formal board of directors or set of advisors for your organization? ___ Yes ___ No (Go to 23)
19. To what degree is your board or advisors involved in making budget decisions? ___ Not involved ___ Somewhat involved ___ Very involved
20. To what degree is your board or advisors involved in making operating decisions? ___ Not involved ___ Somewhat involved ___ Very involved
21. What are the sources of your board members? (choose all that apply) ___ Neighborhood residents ___ Business community ___ Other nonprofit leaders ___ Government officials ___ Clients and others who benefits from your services
22. Could we have the list of your current board members?
71 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Budget
I’d like to ask you about your budget and sources of funding.
23. Please indicate your total operating budget for the past two fiscal years. $______Fiscal Year 1997 $______Fiscal Year 1998
[Ask the respondent to explain a major change from FY97 to FY98. (< or > 50%)]
24. Approximately what percentage of your organization’s total revenues came from the following sources during the 1998 fiscal year? (Should total 100 percent) ______% District government ______% Federal government ______% Other government (MD or VA) ______% United Way or Combined Federal Campaign designations & grants ______% Direct donations from individuals ______% Corporate or foundation grants ______% Fees for services ______% Endowment and interest income ______% Fundraisers and special events ______% Other sources ______(Specify)
25. Please indicate how your funding has changed over the past two fiscal years for each of the following sources. (Please circle the number in the appropriate column, mark N/A for no funding from source) Large Moderate Small/No Moderate Large N/A decrease decrease change increase increase (over 20%) (-5 to -20%) (-5 to +5%) (+5 to +20%) (over 20%) District government 1 2 3 4 5 0 Federal government 1 2 3 4 5 0 Other government (MD, VA) 1 2 3 4 5 0 United Way or CFC 1 2 3 4 5 0 Corporations or Foundations 1 2 3 4 5 0 Earned income 1 2 3 4 5 0 Other individual giving 1 2 3 4 5 0 Total Funding 1 2 3 4 5 0
72 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
26. How much do you expect your total operating budget to change from fiscal years 1998 to 1999. (please choose one category) ___ Large increase (over 20%) ___ Moderate increase (5 to 20%) ___ Small/No change (-5 to +5%) ___ Moderate decrease (-5 to -20%) ___ Large decrease (over 20%)
Staff Now I’d like to turn to some questions about your staff.
27. What is the number of full-time paid employees (more than 35 hours per week)? ____ (Include workers from Americorp and other externally funded employees.)
28. What is the number of part-time paid employees (less than 35 hours per week) ?_____
29. How many of your employees live in ? ______/Don’t know (neighborhood) (number)
30. Does your organization use volunteers? Yes No (Go to 35)
31. What is the total number of volunteers used by your organization during an average week? _____
32. What is the average number of hours a volunteer works during a typical week? ___
33. What are the sources of your volunteers? (check all that apply) ___ Residents of ______(neighborhood) ___ Business community ___ Other nonprofit organizations ___ Government agencies ___ Clients and others who benefits from your services ___ Compulsory community service ___ Other (please list______)
34. How many of your volunteers are under the age of 18? ____
73 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Clients and Services
I am going to ask you a couple of questions about your clients and the services your organization provides.
35. Please estimate the percentage of your clients who live in the District. _____%
36. Please estimate the percentage of your clients who live in ______. _____% / Don’t know (neighborhood)
37. Approximately how many adults receive your services? _____
38. Approximately how many children or youth (under 18) receive your services? _____
39. Do you provide grants or loans to other organizations? ____ Yes ____No (Go to 41)
40. What organizations have you provided monies for in the last year? (Write all that are mentioned by respondent.)
41. What geographic area do you serve? (Note: This question should be delivered open ended. Categories listed below were inserted for coding purposes. If the respondent mentioned specific neighborhoods, please list.) ___ NW ___NE __SE __SW __ Other______
74 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
42. I’m going to read a list of services that nonprofit organizations sometimes provide. Please tell me which of these services your organization offers directly. For those that are offered, we would like to know if you charge a fee, and what times of the week or year the service is provided. (Note: Mark either “y” for yes or “n” for no for each service. If the service is provided, then mark all “x” in any boxes that apply.)
Fee Type of Service Service charged Weekdays Weekends Sept. - May June- Aug. provided to client? (Mon. - Fri.) (Sat. -Sun.) (school yr.) (summer ) Child day care Y N Y N After school care/ Tutoring Y N Y N Youth development; Y N Y N recreation Food services; nutrition Y N Y N Mentoring Y N Y N Pregnancy prevention Y N Y N Drop-out prevention Y N Y N Adoption assistance; foster Y N Y N care Basic life skills Y N Y N Job training Y N Y N Job placement/referral Y N Y N Indiv. or family counseling Y N Y N Substance abuse treatment Y N Y N Parenting education Y N Y N Health education Y N Y N Medical services Y N Y N Information and referral Y N Y N Housing Y N Y N Emergency shelter Y N Y N Violence prevention Y N Y N Rights Protection/ Y N Y N Advocacy Other Y N Y N
75 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
43. If you offer more than one service, which services receive the greatest share of your budget expenditures? Select only three services and rank order them. (Note: Place a “1” after the service that receives the greatest percentage of the organization’s budget; a “2” after the service that receives the second greatest percentage of the organization’s budget; and “3” after the third service.)
Child day care ______After school care/ tutoring ______Youth development; recreation ______Food services; nutrition ______Mentoring ______Pregnancy prevention ______Drop-out prevention ______Adoption assistance; foster care ______Basic life skills ______Job training ______Job placement/ referral ______Individual or family counseling ______Substance abuse treatment ______Parenting education ______Health education ______Medical services ______Information and referral ______Housing ______Emergency Shelter ______Violence Prevention ______Rights Protection/Advocacy ______Other (from above) ______
76 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Community Involvement, Networks, and Government
Considering the ways in which your organization works with other groups and people to address issues that relate to children and families, please answer the following few questions.
44. Does your organization work with government officials or government agencies to address community issues relating to children and families in ______? ___ Yes ___ No (Go to 47) (neighborhood)
45. Who are the government officials or what government agencies does your organization work with on issues relating to children and families in ______? (neighborhood)
Name of agency Name of official
1)______
2)______
3)______
4)______
46. For each agency/official listed above, please list the issues involved, the goals and objective of the collaboration, and your assessment of the project’s success. (Note: The numbers in each row correspond to agency list from Question 45.)
Success Rating Too Issues Goals & Objectives (1 low to 10 high) early to tell 1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
77 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
47. Does your organization work with nongovernmental groups or people to address issues relating to children and families in ______? ___ Yes ___ No (Go to 50) (neighborhood)
48. If so, what groups/individuals does your organization work with and are they nonprofit groups, local businesses, or something else?
Name of group/individual Type (nonprofit, business, other) 1)______
2)______
3)______
4)______
49. For each group listed above, please list the issues involved, the goals and objective of the collaboration, and your assessment of the project’s success. (Note: The numbers in each row correspond to agency list from Question 48.)
Success Rating Too Issues Goals & Objectives (1 low to 10 high) early to tell 1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
78 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Communication & Community Opinions and Perspectives
50. How does your organization get the word out to the community about the various programs and services you provide? Newspaper ___Newsletter Flyers/posters ___Mailings Church announcements ___E-mail distribution/Website Radio Spots Word of mouth Other (Specify)
51. What do you feel are the two most effective means of getting the word out about your programs and services? 1)______2)______
52. How does your organization gather information about community needs/concerns? Townhall/community forum Resident/block/group associations Survey Key resident contacts Web site ___Other ______(Specify)
53. What do you feel are the two most effective means of gathering information about community needs/concerns? 1)______2)______
54. What issues do you believe are the most important ones to your organization?
55. Which groups or organizations do you feel are important to the children and families of ? (neighborhood)
56. What problems and issues are most important to the children and families who live in ? (neighborhood)
79 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Office and Facility Information
Now, please consider the following questions about your office or facility.
57. How many years has your organization been at this site? _____
58. Does your organization own or rent the property at this site? ___ Own ___ Rent
59. Does your organization have a large room that can be used for meetings at this site? ___ Yes ___ No
60. Is there a kitchen at this site? ___ Yes ___ No
61. Does your organization allow other groups to use space at this site for meetings or other activities? ___ Yes ___ No (Go to Q. 63)
62. Does your organization charge fees to other groups for the use of this site? ___ Yes ___ No
63. Does your organization use computers in its operations for tasks such as budgeting and client information? ___ Yes ___ No
64. Does your staff have access to E-mail or the Internet through the organization’s computer(s)? ___ Yes ___ No
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND TIME!
80 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix G Comparison of the IRS Database and Field Observations
Using IRS data for small neighborhood analyses presented some analytic challenges and shows the need for ethnographic field work to capture the changing dynamics of a local area. The IRS data provide a good starting point to give a general overview of the size, scope, and density of nonprofit organizations in a community, but they begin to lose some of their analytic power in very small and well-defined neighborhoods. These limitations became readily apparent during our field work. We, therefore, used the study’s field observations, supplemented with IRS data, to perform the neighborhood analyzes. Some of the difficulties encountered between the IRS data and the field observations are discussed below.
Because the IRS data are collected primarily for administrative purposes, they suffer from a time lag. Some organizations in the database have moved from the area or ceased operations; newly formed organizations or those too small to report to the IRS may be missing. A total of 119 nonprofit organizations and 90 congregations were
Table A. Distribution of Organizations in the Three Study Neighborhoods by Data Columbia Marshall Washington Data Source Heights Heights Highlands Total IRS/Community Data Files Secular Nonprofits 84 13 22 119 Congregations 35 38 17 90 All groups 119 51 39 209
Field work Secular Nonprofits 75 11 11 97 Congregations 11 29 5 45 All groups 86 40 16 142 Source: Authors’ tabulations of IRS and other data sources.
81 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute identified in the three study neighborhoods through IRS data files and other sources compiled by the Urban Institute. The field work, on the other hand, found 97 nonprofit organizations and 45 congregations (see table A).
The differences between the two sources suggests that the IRS data and other formal lists have important limitations, such as lags in updating administrative records, but these differences may also reflect the considerable movement into and out of the local area (see table B). A total of 52 organizations appeared in both data sources, while 45 groups were identified through our field work as being new to the neighborhood. Another
25 groups were confirmed as out of business or moved from the neighborhood, but the status of 42 groups remains unexplained. These organizations could not be located within the neighborhoods, nor could we confirm that they had moved away or were ever active in the neighborhood.
Table B. Reasons for Differences Between the IRS and Field Data Sources Columbia Marshall Washington Category Heights Heights Highlands Total Organizations in IRS files verified during fieldwork 49 1 2 52
New groups discovered in fieldwork 26 10 9 45
Organizations no longer in neighborhood 15 5 5 25
Unconfirmed groups from IRS files 20 7 15 42 Source: Authors’ tabulations of IRS and other data sources. Note: Only secular nonprofit organizations are included in this analysis.
As table B also shows, the differences also reflect the considerable movement into and out of the local area. The Columbia Heights neighborhood displays the most movement. The field work, for example, revealed more than twice as many previously
82 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute unidentified groups in Columbia Heights than in Marshall Heights, and almost three times as many in Washington Highlands. While these differences are partly because of the greater organizational density in Columbia Heights vis-à-vis the other two neighborhoods, it also suggests that the organizational environment in Columbia Heights is particularly dynamic.
83 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix H Organizations Identified in the Community
Columbia Heights Organization Name Street Address City Zip Phone Academy of Hope 1501 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009-4213 328-2029 Alpha Omega Social Action and Scholarship Foundation 1231 Harvard St NW DC 20009-5311 462-9345 Asian American LEAD* 3045 15th St NW DC 20009 Barbara Chambers Children’s Center* 1470 Irving St NW DC 20010-2804 382-2029 Barney Senior Center – Columbia Heights 2900 14th St NW DC 20009-6863 234-6900 Barney Senior Center – Saint Stephen's Church 1525 Newton St NW DC 20010-3103 232-0900 Bedford Plaza Community Room* 1401 A Columbia Rd NW DC 20009-4711 Beginning Tomorrows Challenges Today* 2437 15th St NW DC 20009 Belmont Independent Living Inc 1301 Belmont St NW DC 20009-4899 265-0405 Bethany Inc. 2523 14th St NW DC 20009-6952 Boys and Girls Club – Family Life Center Home* 1201 Harvard St NW DC 20009 234-1531 Boys and Girls Club – Jelleff Home (Girls)* 1315 Irving St NW DC 20010 Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center* 1420 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 332-4200 Cardoza Heights Association for Neighborhood Growth and Enrichment* 1331 Park Rd NW DC 20010 Carecen 1467 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 328-9799 Casa del Pueblo* 1467 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 332-1094 Catholic Charities – McKenna House 1501 Park Rd NW DC 20010 322-7333 Centre Haitien Dinformation de Documentation et Daction Sociale 2728 13th St NW DC 20009 Centro del Arte 1470 Irving St NW DC 20010 588-5143 Change Inc.* 1413 Park Rd NW DC 20009 387-3725 Charles E. Brown Jr. Memorial Fund 3145 Hiatt Pl. NW DC 20010-3351 Charles W. Brooks Youth Organization* 1501 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009-4213 Coalition for the Homeless 1433 Spring St NW DC 20010 726-2203 Columbia Heights Youth Club* 2835 16th St NW DC 20009-4204 234-1531 Community of Hope* 1417 Belmont St NW DC 20009-4006 232-9022 Community of Hope Health Clinic* 1417 Belmont St NW DC 20009-4006 265-5841 Conquer Community Action Foundation 1302 Monroe St NW DC 20010 Council of Latino Agencies 2437 15th St NW DC 20009 328-9451 Cyberyouth* 2437 15th St NW DC 20009 DC Refugee Service Center 1501 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 667-9000 Development Corporation of Columbia Heights Inc.* 3419 14th St NW DC 20010 483-4986 District of Columbia Baptist Convention 1501 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 265-1410 Easter Seal Society – Children’s Center* 2800 13th St NW DC 20009-5318 387-4434 Ecumenical Program on Central America & the Caribbean 1470 Irving St NW DC 20010-2804 332-0292 Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) 2437 15th St NW DC 20009 483-0780 Fairmont Apartments Tenant Association 1400 Fairmont St NW DC 20009-6966 232-6440 Family Friends* 2800 13th St NW DC 20009-5318 Family Place* 3309 16th St NW DC 20010 265-0149 Greater Washington Urban League* 3501 14th St NW DC 20009 265-8200 Growing Together* 1525 Newton St NW DC 20010 232-8016 Health Care for the Homeless Project* 3020 14th St NW DC 20009 328-1084 Hope Housing 1417 Belmont St NW DC 20009-4006 387-9013 Independent Living for the Handicapped Inc 1301 Belmont St NW DC 20009 797-9805 Islamic Theological Institute 4312 Park Rd NW DC 20009 955-7174
84 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
La Casa Men's Shelter 1436 Irving St NW DC 20009 673-3592 La Clinica del Pueblo Inc.* 1470 Irving St NW DC 20009 462-4788 Latin American Youth Center Inc.* 1419 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 319-2225 Lazarus House 2523 14th St NW DC 20009 677-0405 Life Pathways 2437 15th St NW DC 20009-4101 332-0494 Mexican Cultural Institute 2829 16th St NW DC 20009-4204 728-1628 National Assn. of Former Foster Care Children of America 1201 Clifton St NW DC 20009 National Center on Black Aged Housing Development Corporation of D.C. 2801 14th St NW DC 20009-4968 387-4022 National Dental Association 3517 16th St NW DC 20010 588-1697 National Newspaper Publishers Association Fund 3200 13th St NW DC 20010-2410 588-8764 North Community Mental Health Center 1125 Spring Rd NW DC 20010-1421 576-7253 Park Road Transitional Shelter 1473 Park Rd NW DC 20010 Police Boys and Girls Club, #10* 2500 14th St NW DC 20009 673-6941 Project Northstar* 2437 15th St NW DC 20009 483-0780 Saints Missionary Foundation 1305 Irving St NW DC 20010-2313 462-9012 Salomon Zelaya Rehabilitation Center 1345 Newton St NW DC 20010 745-7719 Samaritan Inns Inc 2523 14th St NW DC 20009 677-0405 Samuel Kelsey Community Outreach Center* 1430 Park Rd NW DC 20010 667-0126? Second Genesis* 1320 Harvard St DC 20009-4904 234-6800 Shalom Children's Academy (Academia Infantil)* 1467 Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 Sojourners 2401 15th St NW DC 20009-4101 382-8842 Sojourners Neighborhood Center* 1323 Girard St NW DC 20009-4915 387-7000 Southern Columbia Heights Tenants Union 1323 Girard St NW DC 20009-4915 St. Stephens Community Center Inc.* 1525 Newton St NW DC 20010 232-0900 Temporary Living Community Corporation 1473 Park Rd NW DC 20009 332-1505 Upper Cardozo Neighborhood Health Center 3020 14th St NW DC 20009 745-4300 Victory Outreach 3552 14th St NW DC 20010-1357 832-2429 Waltajjii Oromo Center Inc 3511 14th St NW DC 20010 387-0736 Washington Free Clinic 1525 Newton St NW DC 20010 667-1106 Washington Parks and People* 2437 15th St NW DC 20009 462-7275 Youth Build* 1474 B Columbia Rd NW DC 20009 518-0601 *Indicates an organization with at least one direct service program targeted at children and/or families.
Continued on next page
85 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Marshall Heights Organization Name Street Address City Zip Phone Boys and Girls Club – Shadd Branch* 5601 E Capital St DC 20019 581-3801 Children's Trust Neighborhood Initiative* 603 50th St NE DC 20019 396-4102 East Capital Resident Council / Center for Change* 5800 Blaine St NE DC 20019 399-6224 UPO Early Childhood Development Center #6* 53rd and Ames Street NE DC 20019 398-1344 UPO Early Childhood Development Center #7* 400 50th St NE DC 20019 397-2840 Marshall Heights Community Development Org.* 3917 Minnesota Ave NE DC 20019 396-1200 Progressive National Baptist Convention 601 50th St NE DC 20019 396-0558 So Others Might Eat - Southeast* 4609 Benning Rd SE DC 20019 581-8000 CARA House* 603 50th St NE DC 20019 396-4102 Teen Life Choices* 4901 Ayers Pl. SE DC 20019 581-9040 Nannie Helen Buroughs School, Inc. 601 50th St SE DC 20019 398-5266 *Indicates an organization with at least one direct service program targeted at children and/or families.
Washington Highlands Organization Name Street Address City Zip Phone Anna Johenning Baptist Community Center* 4025 9th St SE DC 20032 561-5200 Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership* 2041 MLK Jr. Ave Suite 302 DC 20032 889-2102 ARC Project Building Bridges Across the River 2000 Mississippi Ave SE DC 20032 889-8952 Bread for the City* 4269 4th SE DC 20032 561-8587 Covenant House* 1920 MLK Jr. Ave SE DC 20032 610-9612 Far Southeast Family Strengthening Collaborative* 2041 MLK Jr. Ave Suite 304 DC 20032 889-1425 Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp.* 1310 Southern Ave SE DC 20032 574-6000 Highland Addition Community Center* 3849 9th St SE DC 20032 645-0872 Washington Highlands Community Organization* 4025 9th St SE DC 20032 561-5200 Wheeler Creek Estates Community Development Corp.* 1010 Wanler Pl. SE DC 20032 574-1508 St Thomas Moore Catholic Elementary School 4269 4th SE DC 20032 561-1189 *Indicates an organization with at least one direct service program targeted at children and/or families.
86 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix I Working Relationships with Government and Other Nonprofit Organizations
Columbia Heights Organization With Government With Nonprofit Groups Boys and Girls Club – Jelleff Home (Girls) None mentioned Boys & Girls Club – Family Life Center
Change Inc. DC Child and Family Services Council of Latino Agencies Maternal & Child Health Latin American Youth Center Development Corp. of Columbia Heights
Community of Hope None mentioned Coalition for the Homeless Change, Inc. Academy of Hope Hope Housing
Development Corporation of Columbia Heights DC Public Schools Latin American Youth Center DC Department of Housing Calvary Multicultural Learning Center DC Recreation and Parks Coalition of Latino Agencies
Easter Seal Society – Children’s Center None mentioned None mentioned
Family Place DC Child and Family Service Coalition of Latino Agencies Spanish Catholic Center Mary’s Center
Greater Washington Urban League DC Department of Housing and Calvary Multicultural Learning Center Community Development Shaw/ Columbia Heights Collaborative DC Public Schools DC Recreation and Parks DC Employment Services
Growing Together None mentioned None mentioned
Health Care for the Homeless Project DC Department of Health Change Inc. Upper Cardozo Health Clinic Spanish Catholic Center
Latin American Youth Center Inc DC Child and Family Service Council of Latino Agencies DC Public Schools Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Center La Casa Men’s Shelter Development Corp. of Columbia Heights La Clinica del Pueblo
Police Boys and Girls Club, #10 Police Department Latin American Youth Development Corp. of Columbia Heights
Project Northstar DC Public Schools Washington Parks and People DC Homeless Coalition
87 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Second Genesis None mentioned None mentioned
Sojourners Neighborhood Center None mentioned Sojourners
Washington Parks and People National Park Service Council of Latino Agencies DC Recreation & Parks Ethiopian Community Development Project Northstar Friends of Meridian Hill Life Pathways Cyberyouth Urban Rangers DC Single Volunteers
Youth Build DC Child and Family Services Latin American Youth Center
continued on next page
88 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Marshall Heights Organization With Government With Nonprofit Groups Boys and Girls Club – Shadd Branch Police Department None mentioned
Children's Trust Neighborhood Initiative DC Healthy Start Living Stage Theater Fishing School MHCDO
Marshall Heights Community Development DC Child and Family Services Children’s Trust Neighborhood Initiative Organization (MHCDO) Department of Housing and Community CARA House Development Teen Life Choices Resident Councils (Housing Projects) Providence Hospital East of the River Collaborative
Peaches & Cream Child Development Center DC Child and Family Services None mentioned
CARA House None mentioned MHCDO Progressive Baptist Convention
Teen Life Choices Maternal and Child Health None mentioned DC Healthy Start Empowerment Zone Community Grant
Washington Highlands Organization With Government With Nonprofit Groups Anna Johenning Baptist Community Center DC Police Department Washington Highland Community Org. DC Schools Ferebee – Hope Elementary School Metropolitan Outreach Ministries
Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership None mentioned Far SE Strengthening Collaborative Washington Highlands Community Org. Johenning Community Church
Far South East Family Strengthening DC Child and Family Services Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership Collaborative ANC Washington Highlands Community Org. DC Employment Services Covenant House Child Protective Services Ferebee-Hope Elementary School Sarah’s House
Highland Addition Community Center DC Housing Authority Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership DC Employment Services Covenant House DC School Board DC Central Kitchen Kid’s Connection Sarah’s House Fourth World Movement
Washington Highlands Community Child Protective Services Far SE Strengthening Collaborative Organization
Wheeler Creek Estates Community DC Housing Authority Enterprise Foundation Development Corp. ANC WH Advisory Committee DC Employment Services Washington Highlands Community Org.
Source: The Urban Institute, CNP Community Organization Survey, 1999.
89 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix J Profile of Public Schools in the Three Study Sites
School profiles for the community public schools were obtained from the District of Columbia Board of Education. Each profile contains baseline student population data and summaries of Stanford Achievement Test Scores. These data are presented in the table below.
Profile of Public Schools in the District of Columbia Columbia Marshall Washington Characteristics Heights Heights Highlands Size of schools Average number of students in elementary school 605 428 431* Average number of elementary teachers 44 30 35 Average number of teacher aides 8 7 8 Student-teacher ratio 13.8 14.3 12.3
Poverty measure Number of schools reporting over 90% of students getting free school lunch, 1997-1998 4 of 6 4 of 4 4 of 6
Student performance Schools reporting majority of students below basic performance on Stanford for either reading or math 3 of 6 1 of 4 2 of 6 for all grades Source: Individual School Profiles, D.C. Board of Education.
* Elementary school averages do not include the student population from Patricia. R. Harris School (PreK-8) with 1,000 children.
Both Washington Highlands and Marshall Heights schools have substantially lower concentrations of elementary school students per school than does Columbia
90 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Heights. However, the collective student to teacher ratios are quite close, falling between
12 and 14 students per teacher in each community.
Using free lunches as a proxy for poverty, all three communities serve a fairly poor student body. All schools in Marshall Heights, for example, reported that over 90 percent of their student population received federally funded school lunches in 1997-
1998, compared with two-thirds of the schools in Columbia Heights and Washington
Highlands. All of the elementary schools in Columbia Heights, however, reported more than 90 percent of their student body receiving free school lunches.
Scores on the Stanford Achievement Tests indicate the need for educational improvements. In Columbia Heights, half of the schools reported that the majority of their students fell below basic performance measures in either reading or math for all grades. Likewise, one-third of the schools in Washington Highlands and one-quarter of the schools in Marshall Heights had similarly low ratings.
91 Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy · The Urban Institute
Appendix K Maps
92 Map 1. Geographic Distribution of Nonprofits in the District of Columbia
NW
NE
SW SE
Source: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute Map 2. Congregations in the District of Columbia, by Percentage Black Population
NW
NE
SW SE
% Black Population 80 to 100 30 to 80 0 to 30
Source: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute Map 3. Youth and Preschool Nonprofit Providers, by Percentage of Children in Poverty by Wards
Ward 4 NW
Ward 3
Ward 5 NE Ward 1
Ward 2 Ward 7 Ward 6
SW SE
Ward 8
Percentage of Children in Poverty 30 to 40 20 to 30 0 to 20
Source: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute Map 4. Nonprofit Organizations in the Three Study Neighborhoods
NW
Columbia Heights
NE
Marshall Heights
SW SE
Washington Highlands
Source: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute