Women as Catalysts for Social Change: A Study of Women-led Community Development Organizations Margaret Grieve and Rose Bingham
	Session:Do Women Change the Context of Planning? (March 13, 2:30pm)

Abstract: Women as Catalysts for Social Change documents a collaborative research effort by McAuley and the Howard Samuels Center at The City University of New York. Based on 140 interviews with women leaders of community-based development organizations in nine regions, the study highlights the critical roles women leaders play in creating social capital in their communities, the holistic and comprehensive nature of the programs they create and the centrality of spirituality to their social change work. The study also documents how race, class, ethnicity and gender remain significant barriers to the work of many women in the communities studied. This publication is a summary version of "Women Creating Social Capital and Social Change", a study jointly conducted by McAuley Institute, Silver Spring, Maryland and the Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, The Graduate School and University Center at The City University of New York. The complete report is available by contacting either institution. Funding for the study was provided by The Ford Foundation. Executive Summary Author: McAuley Institute, a national non-profit affordable housing organization with a special focus on the housing needs of women and their families. Dedication To the women heroes who create social change in their communities every day.   Contents Preface Introduction Catalysts for Change An overview and historical perspective. Social Capital and Community Building Women build social capital through leadership, community participation, and networking. Investing in Women Leaders Women practice participatory leadership based on their personal life experience and their concept of community development as human development. They are motivated by a commitment to social change that for many is sustained by spiritual beliefs. Bridge Building and Breaking Down Barriers for Organizations Women-led organizations experience many of the same barriers that confront almost all community development organizations, but they also face additional barriers due to gender, race, ethnicity, and local culture and politics. A Call to Action Recommendations to sustain the growth and development of women-led community development organizations. Acknowledgements Study Participants Preface Since the early days of this nation, women have been engaged in community building as they tried to improve their own lives, those of their families and of the people living around them. This study is one of the first, however, to document the woman’s approach to modern community development. Today, women are leading hundreds of community development organizations in all sections of the country. They are building housing and creating jobs while also attending to the myriad other difficulties and situations that their neighbors are facing. Inherent in their style is their dedication in getting residents of their communities to have a voice in the institutions and policies that affect them. From the very small to the very large, the organizations interviewed for this study are directed and staffed by women, the majority of whom are women of color. Because of their gender, race and ethnicity, their capabilities and accomplishments are often dismissed by those in positions of power, including some who work in the broader community development field. The insights of women community development leaders are reflected in the recommendations they make to sustain the growth of women-led organizations and the community development field as a whole. These recommendations, highlighted below, are offered for all who have the power to create and sustain community change including funders, intermediaries, governments, educational institutions, women’s organizations and community development organizations themselves. We invite you to join us in working within your own sphere of influence to take action on these recommendations. Social Capital and Community Building Invest in women’s organizing and community building strategies that create social capital. Support continued collaboration between practitioners and researchers to document and analyze women’s models of community development. Create opportunities for women to document their own development as leaders and community activists. Expand and continue this study to investigate the role that race, ethnicity, and class play in women’s experience in community development. Investing in Women Leaders Invest in women’s development as leaders, activists and professionals. Support the development of local, regional, and national peer networks for women in community development. Cultivate new leaders from within communities. Support access to post-secondary education and credentials for women in community development. Incorporate lessons from this study into existing community development training programs. Bridge Building and Breaking Down Barriers for Organizations Change funding policies that discriminate against women-led organizations. Increase and diversify the funding base for women-led organizations. Eliminate salary and benefit inequities for women in the community development field. Encourage political education, civic engagement, and the building of political networks. Introduction Across the country, women have created innovative, comprehensive programs to meet the needs of their communities. Women have established themselves as leaders in the community development field and acquired the skills that have brought positive change to their communities. As effective builders of social capital, women leaders play key roles in establishing and maintaining important relationships and networks in their communities. They are facing the challenges of racial, cultural, economic, and political barriers that exist in the community development field and, in many cases, overcoming those barriers becomes their motivation. While their comprehensive approach has influenced the evolution of the community development field, women’s contributions have been neither widely acknowledged nor explicitly credited. The results of the Women in Community Development Study provide deeper insights into women’s thinking about community development, the barriers they perceive to women’s leadership, and the kinds of efforts that should be undertaken to facilitate and promote their status and roles in the field. They also demonstrate the variety of effective ways women create social capital that is central to the existence of healthy communities. "It is not about being the best CDC [community development corporation] …. What we want is the community to change. We want better homes, a lot of self-esteem; we believe it takes a village." The study was an intensive field-based examination of women-led community development organizations in nine sites in different regions of the country in both urban and rural communities. It had three goals. To document the behavior of women in community organizations, the circumstances under which they were able to gain status and leadership within those organizations, and how they contribute to community revitalization. To explore how and under what circumstances community organizations led by women uniquely contribute to the development of civic capacity and community change. To produce recommendations for a variety of audiences to support and strengthen women’s leadership roles in the community development field. A unique collaboration. The Women in Community Development Study was a collaboration between McAuley Institute, a national nonprofit intermediary that specializes in capacity building and technical and financial assistance for affordable housing organizations led by and benefiting women, and the Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, a research center at the City University of New York with broad public policy expertise and a significant body of work on community development organizations and related racial, gender, and class issues. The study was funded by the Ford Foundation, which sought to combine the perspectives of practitioners and researchers in this effort. A diversity of perspectives. The link between local women community development leaders, practitioners with experience working with women-led community development organizations, and public policy researchers with experience investigating the community development field was a defining characteristic of the study. At the outset, the research team created a National Advisory Panel that combined grassroots leaders, policy experts, researchers, and funders to provide advice and feedback on the study as it progressed. During the course of the study, the research team also convened focus groups and other gatherings of women in the community development field to test hypotheses and gain additional insight into the study findings. In all, 142 interviews were conducted in nine sites: Boston; Chicago; the Delta Region (Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana); El Paso and colonias in the surrounding area; Houston; Raleigh/Durham and the surrounding area; Oakland; Portland, Oregon; and Washington, DC. The quotes cited in the following text were taken from these interviews and focus groups and are not attributed here because of the research process used. A listing of all interviewees is included at the conclusion of the report. A plan for growth and development. Study participants expressed many ideas that would allow them to have a greater impact on the communities in which they work. The wealth of information and insight participants shared in interviews and focus groups confirm the tremendous part women have played since the inception of the community development movement. This translates directly into a plan to sustain the growth and development of women-led organizations and to thus strengthen the community development field as a whole. The following report has been developed for the wide audience that has the power to create and sustain community change including funders, intermediaries, governments, educational institutions and women’s organizations but also community development organizations themselves. "A woman is more willing to persist. If I listened to ‘what will work’, I wouldn’t be here." Findings. Three primary findings grew out of the study. They are detailed in sections to follow and supported by the study’s recommendations. Women build social capital through leadership, community participation, and networking. Women practice participatory leadership based on their personal life experience and their concept of community development as human development. They are motivated by a commitment to social change that for many is sustained by spiritual beliefs. Women-led organizations experience many of the same barriers that confront almost all community development organizations, but they also face additional barriers due to gender, local culture and politics. Characteristics of study participants. The study focused on women leaders in the community development field. Of the 142 interviews conducted (some of which were with more than one person from an organization), 121 were with women practitioners and leaders from an equal number of community development organizations. Most were executive directors of their organizations. The remaining interviews were with funders, intermediaries, and academics. In addition to the interviews, the research team collected the following summary data about the nature of the organizations in which the women worked. Boards and staffs. The study focused on women working in women-led organizations. These were defined as organizations having a majority of women on the board or on the staff or both. In the sample, women composed 58.9% of the average board and 79.2% of the average staff. Eighteen organizations had boards made up entirely of women. Community development broadly defined. The organizations the women led represented a broad definition of community development, with activities ranging from the traditional, such as housing development, to health and homeless programs. While the organizations shared a common holistic approach to community development and a commitment to social change, they varied greatly in terms of age, size, programs, and organizational structure. Age and size. The average organization was 15 years old, with roughly a third in each of the following categories: more than 20 years old, between 10 and 19 years old, under 10 years old. The average staff size was 25, which included 9 part time employees, but there was a tremendous variety in size ranging from one to the hundreds. Some organizations relied heavily on volunteers, especially faith-based organizations for whom volunteers were central to their organizational goals. Budget. The median operating budget was $722,500. Budgets ranged from zero dollars to $26 million, more than a third of the organizations had budgets over $1 million. Programs. The typical organization sustained an average of more than 11 different services or activities from across six different program categories: housing, human services, employment and economic development, organizing, advocacy, and financial services. The three most commonly reported program areas were, in order, housing, organizing, and advocacy. Well over half the organizations were engaged in one or more of these activities. Racial and ethnic composition of boards. Geographical location was a factor in the racial and ethnic composition of boards. Organizations in the West were more likely to have Asian and Native American board members, while in the South a larger share were African American. Thirteen boards were entirely African American, five entirely Latino, one entirely Asian, and one entirely European American. Many boards reflected the demographic compositions of their communities in terms of race and ethnicity but did not always include low-income community residents. Taken as a whole, however, the organizations’ boards were quite diverse racially and ethnically. Racial and ethnic composition of staffs. Geographical location was also a factor in the racial and ethnic composition of staffs. Twenty-four staffs were entirely African American, six entirely Latino, and one entirely European American. Again, taken as a whole, the organizations’ staffs were quite diverse racially and ethnically. Catalysts for Change A comprehensive vision of community development. This study of women’s leadership in the community development field comes at a time of a significant shift in the theory and definition of community development. Community development literature has generally excluded gender and race. It has tended to downplay politics by focusing on either the technical aspects of development or on local case studies. This study is part of a continued effort to bring gender and race perspectives to bear in community development literature, and to place women’s community development work into a broader political context. The current emphasis on comprehensive community development and community participation is in fact grounded in women’s long history of community activism. Based on the study findings, women’s persistence in their comprehensive view of community development has played a major role in leading the field to embrace that view. Early history of community activism. The early history of the concept of community development has its roots in the tradition of democratic localism in the American experience. Citizenship was largely defined through local organizations, local government, and concern for community needs. Although women were denied voting rights and equal status in the political system, they were community activists engaged in building community cohesion. They played critical roles in the temperance and settlement house movements at the turn of the century and brought about fundamental change in the approach to the problems of poverty. Contact with the poor in deteriorated city neighborhoods led activist women to recognize that the poor were not the cause of their own poverty but rather that the causes of poverty were social and economic. The revitalization and stabilization of neighborhoods and communities became a priority for women’s organizations. At the same time, working class and poor women themselves provided the connection in communities between family, church, schools, and other institutional anchors. In the 1920s and 30s, activist women led tenant and food strikes, affirming their commitment to neighborhoods and the needs of the poor. The neighborhood movement and faith-based community development. For the past three decades, women have been major participants in community organizations. In the 1960s and 70s, community women advocated for control of local services and neighborhood preservation. In the 1980s they were among the few forces pursuing neighborhood preservation in the face of uncontrolled downtown growth. Religious congregations, particularly those formed by women, have been an integral part of community development during the same period and this connection has clearly been a factor in attracting talented women to the field. Hundreds of community development organizations began life in church basements while national councils and local congregations have supplied millions of dollars, staff services and ongoing support. This spiritual dimension is unusual among current social reform initiatives. The faith-based legacy, stressing a holistic view of community revitalization, is compatible with the approach many women embrace. The willingness of faith-based grassroots groups to accept women as leaders offers a valuable proving ground, and many women have gone on to apply those lessons --- and the resources of their organizations --- to strengthen their communities. Broadening the definition of community development. For the past 20 years, organizations with strong women’s leadership have resisted the narrow definition of community development as construction of affordable housing and economic development. These organizations have always defined community development issues as those responding directly to the needs of women, children, and families, even in the absence of funding for such broader concerns. Foundations and governments have only recently begun to recognize the wisdom of this approach. The current emphasis in public policy initiatives and foundation funding on comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs) affirms the long-term commitment of many women-led organizations and the role women play as catalysts for social change. Previous research on gender in the field. Earlier research by the Howard Samuels Center on the issue of gender in community development found that when women were in leadership positions and comprised a board majority, development efforts were more comprehensive than in male-led groups. The Women in Community Development Study confirms women’s broad, inclusive definition of community development. Women-led organizations in particular have taken on multiple roles in the community, including housing and economic development, organizing, activism and advocacy, as well as human service delivery. The roles the organizations play and the programs that have been established reflect women’s self-described "holistic" approach to community development. Expanding on previous research on women’s leadership in other fields. These findings were similar to other research describing women’s roles in corporations, business, and government. In addition, emerging feminist theory was recognizing a female consciousness that placed human needs and social rights above property, profit, and individual rights. Recent research on women’s homeownership has shown that women are more likely to informally interact with their neighbors and take a lead in building a sense of community at the neighborhood level. This growing evidence of the distinctive behavior and socialization of women provided increased motivation and support for deeper analysis into the activities of women in community development organizations, barriers to their recognition, and emergence as leaders and decision-makers. For more information on the theoretical background of the study, see the full report entitled "Women Creating Social Capital and Social Change" by Marilyn Gittell, Isolda Ortega-Bustamante and Tracy Steffy, Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, City University of New York (1999). Also see Crazy for Democracy by Temma Kaplan, Routledge (New York, 1997),"The Difference Gender Makes: Women in Neighborhood Development Organizations" by Marilyn Gittell, Sally Covington, and Jill Gross, Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, City University of New York (1994) and "Race and Gender in Neighborhood Development Organizations" by Marilyn Gittell, Jill Gross, and Kathe Newman, Howard Samuels Center State Management and Policy Center, City University of New York (1994). Social Capital and Community Building Women build social capital through leadership, community participation, and networking. Social capital and women’s leadership. By its definition, social capital is the establishment of social association through common norms, trust, and networks that make social action possible. While theorists have recognized the strong link between citizen participation and local democracy, it is a further step toward identification with a group, sharing values, and developing trust that builds social capital and the ability to take civic action. By the very nature of their leadership style and the structure of their organizations, women leaders in community development are among the foremost developers of social capital by building civic capacity to create change in their communities. "As neighbors, by communicating you have tremendous power to fight the powers that be. Neighborhood consensus is very important and powerful, as if knowing, talking, and dreaming together --- it is a process of building a community. The key is finding out what strengths people have, coming to the table as equals, and being sincere." The growth of social capital through community participation. Community participation is the key factor in the success of women-led community development organizations in creating social capital. Many of the organizations that participated in the study demonstrate strong internal democracy, or are horizontally structured, better equipping them to establish egalitarian relationships with community members. Women-led organizations frequently pursue participation through community organizing, the focus of which can range from mobilizing public protests to constituency building through leadership development. Even organizations with more traditional housing and economic development approaches have found ways to incorporate organizing strategies into their development efforts despite a lack of funding. Collaborative styles of leadership lead to a greater degree of community presence on boards and staffs, thus enabling the creation of programs that truly meet the needs of communities. "Men want to ensure that their organizations are represented and women want to ensure that their communities are represented." "The organizational model here is quite different, with emphasis on community and decisions made communally. To work here is a privilege. We have the opportunity to educate our children regarding commitment to family and to community…. We have been teaching and learning from one another. There is friendship here." Identifying with the community. Women leaders’ identification with the communities in which they work is an important factor in their commitment to community participation. Women have compelling accounts of becoming leaders; while the empowerment process is varied, the common thread women describe is an increased sense of self-worth and skills through a combination of personal development and community work. They see their personal development as connected to their communities. As a result, women tend to remain focused on the local community rather than viewing community development work as a rung on the career ladder or a path into other sectors. Most women who view their work as a life choice and are committed to community participation also maintain close relationships and open communication with community members. Even women-led organizations working with extremely vulnerable people in social work settings espoused the point of view that clients are not subjects to be acted upon, but rather actors of their own empowerment. Programs are designed with community needs in mind precisely because staff members communicate with community residents or are residents themselves. "This is the most difficult way of doing social work, but this is the best way --- to allow her to develop herself, to come to fulfillment." Community work as a personal commitment. Women’s respectful relationship with community members provides the foundation for community participation in the organization. This close identification with the community and sense of personal commitment on the part of women leaders means that there are generally few barriers between their personal lives and their community work. This perspective, which is held by many women leaders, means that there is more opportunity for participation by non-professionals whose personal life experiences are valued. "Women see their work as a lifestyle, not just a job; it is a different kind of commitment. Women have the fear that if they step back, the true empowerment we know can occur will not. This is a process and you give to it in whatever ways you can." A human-centered, holistic view of life defines community development. The study revealed that women leaders both describe and practice a holistic approach to community development. They see their communities as women- and child-centered. They define their goals and programs in response to the expressed needs of their clients and their own perceptions of community needs. Women’s broad view of community development integrates economic and social needs on both the community level and the individual level. In describing community problems, many women quickly and seamlessly move from the social to the economic level of analysis, from the individual to the community level, and from the personal to the political. Their commitment to a holistic view of their communities and their own roles within those communities is focused on changing people’s lives in significant ways. "Women have a more holistic approach. To women, community is people. My interest is more in people than in buildings. Women are more likely to involve stakeholders …. We’re more willing to collaborate and coordinate." Community development is human development. Women-led organizations invite more participation because they focus on the "daily life" issues that affect most community residents. Women do not see addressing these issues as an end in itself but as human development that is above and beyond providing services or programs. This reflects the theory that women’s activism is based on the desire for connection and relationship and is not simply an instrument for attaining individual ends. "I had never worked in a union. I came here for English and leadership classes …. I learned that being a woman is wonderful. A man doesn’t have the ability to give life, doesn’t know the pride of knowing how to educate, how to manage a home, to know about your commitment to the community …. I learned and now I educate my sons who are grown. ….We need to value ourselves. Help, defend, fight with politicians. Lately, I really need the community; we are together learning and teaching." Listening and the collaborative process. Women leaders described a variety of tactics for community participation beyond traditional items such as attendance at meetings, work on committees, and rotation of meeting responsibilities. Women leaders who were most successful at developing grassroots leadership created an atmosphere in their organizations that made community women feel comfortable and welcome. Some women describe listening and establishing a dialogue as the first step in creating a collaborative environment. When asked about community participation, most women in the study said that they ask people what they want. "Stakeholders" are frequently included in program development and management to seek their ideas rather than to help carry out tasks. "Everyone comes with their own experience. If you talk to them long enough, everyone has an idea about what they want for the community." Volunteering as a route to ownership. Community participation often involves attracting volunteers and developing their capacities and leadership abilities. When community members are consulted about projects, they often want to participate, and it is precisely this participation that deepens their commitment to an organization and a community. In highly participatory organizations, women often start out as participants in a meeting or event, then move on to volunteer, and sometimes end up on the staff or board. "There are no job training programs. We train them [women] here…We mentor the mothers. We want to take the volunteers to another level — find a job and leave us." Networking and social capital. The creation of a variety of networks helps women build effective and representative organizations. In addition to networks of friends who support them personally, many women leaders also mentor younger women in their communities or encourage the formation of personal networks by other women staff members. Most of the organizations in the study have relationships with other groups, such as other community development organizations, cultural institutions, and churches. Some organizations enjoy relationships outside their community as well, with citywide organizations, foundations, banks, local elected officials, and government agencies. A few have networks at the state level or with state legislators. Building networks at many levels creates social capital by setting the stage for creating social change. "This is the women’s century --- the information age. It’s perfect for our way of thinking. The web, the intricate web of connections is formulated when we form connections with each other. The spider web is our symbol." Personal networks. Women’s networks with each other give them the personal support they need to be leaders. For women with limited professional networks, these personal connections can provide the first step toward broader community involvement. For more established leaders, concentric circles of personal support can range from community residents, friends who are not involved in community development work, professional colleagues, and mentors (sometimes male). "There are very few women doing the scope of what we are doing here. When I first became Executive Director, I traveled to North Carolina to see a woman I had met at [a conference]. She had impressed me. She was also the first woman director in an organization that had been founded by male leadership but she is a little ahead of me. I wanted to see how she had done it." Networking enables collaboration. The vast majority of women leaders in the study were not only familiar with the other community-based organizations in their areas but often serve on their boards to solidify network relationships. Women stress the value in knowing what is going on in their communities beyond their own work. Sharing ideas and knowledge can also enable groups to collaborate more easily, which is particularly important when resources are limited. Organizations can increase their access to decision-making and resources that were previously unavailable by building networks outside their communities. "Women are better able to share power, share what we know." Profiles The Neighborhood Pride Team Portland, Oregon The Neighborhood Pride Team (NPT) is a grassroots membership organization working to decrease poverty and increase self-sufficiency in the Brentwood-Darlington and Lents neighborhoods on the outskirts of Portland. The predominantly white, working-class and poor neighborhoods it serves have a dual culture consisting both of families who own their homes and a group living in entrenched poverty and suffering from substance abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse. NPT was founded in 1994 and became a CDC in 1995. The group’s main focus is community organizing centered on building relationships between neighbors and focusing on the empowerment of women. With a motto of "Each one teach one," NPT’s Neighborhood Skills Center provides information and referral, computer classes, training in developing home businesses, a job bank, and a neighborhood skills exchange. NPT is currently seeking funds to establish an Entrepreneurial Training Program that would include two incubator programs, one for business support enterprises, and one for small manufacturers of wood crafts, a popular hobby in their community. Molly Cooley, the director of the organization, was a volunteer in an HIV peer education program for women when she and other volunteers decided to expand their focus to neighborhood activism. During the organizing phase of their efforts, a peer network emerged that was to form part of the board of NPT. Cooley argues that the federal government uses community residents as guinea pigs for research and wastes money duplicating the work of community women. "I decided they weren’t using this neighborhood . . . [we’re doing] community organizing training. We want to make a better life for ourselves," she explained. While going door-to-door, Cooley and others discovered domestic violence and women with no job skills isolated in a semi-rural culture of overt male domination. The women who came together to form NPT had either worked together or were friends. Cooley had a "whole sense that women could have jobs with meaning and economic empowerment," but she hung back and encouraged a "very organic and slow" development of the group. For instance, the group spent a year designing its logo. The time was important in building trust between the neighborhood women and allowing many of them the first opportunity to participate in a group outside the confines of their homes, to be heard and speak in a public setting. The process, as Cooley put it, "...was a deeply emotionally satisfying thing." The members then went on to do an inventory of neighborhood capacities, participate in a crafts fair, launch a voter registration drive, complete a landscaping project for another community organization, and cater events to raise money. NPT’s history as a slowly evolving group of neighborhood women who assessed and tried to meet some of the community’s needs made it a highly participatory organization. None of this would have been possible without the group’s ability to gently draw out women from restrictive home environments and nurture their leadership. This process occurred within the context of a natural development of friendships which in turn led to relationships with more and more people outside the women’s immediate families. This process illustrates women activists’ focus on connection and relationship and the building blocks of social capital -- trust, shared values, and networks. Cooley stresses the value of social capital to her organization and the need for resources to sustain it. "We want to be an organization that stays grounded in the neighborhood. We want somebody to pay us to do [the] hard labor of maintaining relationships. You want it to be functioning and effective--give us the time and space to build relationships." Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation Chicago, Illinois The Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation (BRC) in Chicago is a 30-year old membership organization that develops and manages both single-family housing and rental units in historically Puerto Rican-American neighborhoods. Bickerdike's structure builds in a high degree of community representation and participation at all levels of the organization. BRC's organizational chart puts its membership -- made up of tenants, community residents, and staff -- at the very top. The next tier is the board of directors, fifteen people, half of whom are residents of BRC housing and all of whom live or work in the neighborhood. More than 50 percent are low income women and comprised of both African-Americans and Latinos. The president of the board is an African-American woman and the director is a Latina. A mix of tenant representatives, board representatives, and community residents serve on more than 10 active committees. In addition, there are 13 tenant councils and each council elects a representative to the CDC. Tenants also help manage BRC buildings. Although these structures encouraged participation, when executive director, Joyce Arguete, replaced a male director with a 17-year tenure, she emphasized community organizing and increasing both the racial diversity of the board and the power of the women on the board. She attributes these changes both to her gender and her organizing background. The organizing office was restructured and a grant was secured for another tenant organizer, and the Youth Council was reorganized to put the youth in charge of it. "One of the special things is that the kids make lots of decisions that maybe we wouldn't make, but they've made a lot of fine choices which provide alternatives to gangs, and . . . it's not just 'we can help you' but . . . the kids are in charge" explains Aruguete. Another innovation was the Mediations Committee composed of ten residents of BRC housing. This Committee received training from the Center for Conflict Resolution and now facilitates tenant-tenant and tenant-community conflict. BRC has also focused on developing leaders to organize against gentrification. The organization has taken a very clear position in challenging mixed income development in the West Town, Humbolt Park, and Logan Square neighborhoods, highly desirable locations because of their accessibility to downtown, major highways and a train line. BRC believes in redevelopment and the creation of opportunities for a mixed income population, but favors raising the incomes of the current population through economic development. BRC points out that while new residents should not be barred, neither should old residents be forced out so that they cannot enjoy the fruits of living in a mixed income community with better schools, libraries, and increased public safety. To this end, residents organized by BRC have gotten the issue of affordable housing in the local media many times, coordinated demonstrations, testified before the City Council and met with elected officials. BRC is notable because it mobilizes community residents to advocate for themselves and creates social capital in the process. The high degree of community representation in the organization, coupled with an interest in community organizing, has created a setting for ongoing, meaningful participation. WOMAN Inc. — Women Opting for More Affordable Housing Now Houston, Texas Born out of an anger that they continually had to send battered women out of shelters without any affordable housing options to offer them, the directors of nine battered women’s shelters in the Greater Houston/Galveston area founded their own housing development organization, WOMAN Inc. Over the last four years, this collaborative organization has developed 40 units of service enriched transitional housing for women and children in Pasedena and Galveston and another 20 units will be completed in Beaumont in 1999. By providing an essential link between short-term shelter care and independent living, WOMAN, Inc. is providing battered women with a more permanent solution to domestic violence. Marion Fischer, past board president of WOMAN Inc. explains "We realized, early on, that women couldn’t afford housing and childcare on minimum wages. The problem of housing for battered women wasn’t being addressed. Men in positions of power simply ignored the problem. Women, for as long as three years, would have problems finding housing and would go back to abusive situations." Among the women-led organizations in this study, domestic violence programs were among the most closely networked. The battered women’s shelter providers who founded WOMAN Inc. had worked closely together for many years in regional networks and had developed relationships and shared history through their work on common issues. Although not without its challenges, their collaboration is an excellent example of how this kind of networking can have important impacts on community development and on the creation of social capital. The member organizations of WOMAN Inc. sponsor transitional housing developments in their communities and bring their experience in serving victims of domestic violence to the comprehensive programs to support families. Services include on-site childcare services; career, financial and nutritional counseling; a two-year case management process and a savings plan. WOMAN Inc. is exploring connections with local colleges and universities. Fischer explains, "We want to provide what women need and the goal is to access all of the resources that we can to help women gain self-sufficiency. Higher pay for women, alternative employment is one strategy. We have got to have our women making more money." The Board of WOMAN Inc. was able to garner their collective experience in nonprofit management, fundraising and the operation of emergency and transitional housing programs to launch their new organization. Housing is an extension of their advocacy on behalf of abused women and children, and represents a new challenge to this network. They faced a sometimes daunting task of learning the housing development process and operating in an unfamiliar, male dominated construction and development arena. Fischer describes her introduction to the development process and her evolution over time. "WOMAN, Inc. is becoming a developer and we are wrestling with that now.…I participated in training and other participants were financial institutions, banks. The majority of them were men but there were some women. I was the only developer. I felt a little intimidated and backed off asking questions….We are all in the process of learning. Linda Madeksho [a board member and executive director of a member organization, The Bridge] joined various organizations. She went out and found the information. They [professionals in the banking and development fields] keep it like a big mystery, like this closed group. Women are intelligent. Just because you are in social services doesn’t mean you can’t do it. We are doing it. The first time I saw the building start to go up I was proud, excited, thrilled.…I love what we do. It feels like we have started on a new career. We (women) have to have equality. In CDCs where women are strong, the needs of women and families are addressed." Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency Oakland, California Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS), a multi-service housing organization in Oakland considers itself a "teaching" organization and as part of this approach, secures training for its members to become facilitators or consultants for the group, rather than having to rely on hiring outside consultants. When we interviewed the executive director, Boona Cheema, she explained that they were in the process of choosing eight members to go through leadership facilitation and conflict resolution training. BOSS even sent a small team to the Women's Conference in Beijing, China. BOSS established a Leadership Development Institute led by its constituents as part of its community organizing efforts. The Leadership Development Institute, along with its other programs, consciously creates social capital. The goal of strengthening democracy and creating change is explicit. BOSS literature argues that "leadership development is the main vehicle for encouraging applied democracy and civic participation," and that "real systemic change can only happen when leadership is practiced at all levels: in our constituency, among our staff and board, [and] among our partners in the larger community." BOSS’s leadership development program includes skills building and peer training. The community organizing efforts include a speakers bureau, popular education, direct action, and community outreach. Their goal is to have current participants build their skills and community activism to a level where they will train future participants before moving on to permanent employment. BOSS is continuously organizing and running its own training programs as well as working with outside consultants. The director considers her group to be a "teaching organization" BOSS has a nine-month leadership development course for "clients." As the director explained, participants "organize days and take responsibility for a training. Half has to be at the organization, half has to be about a strategic place. Everybody gets the experience of being in front of people, to be critical thinkers. We do a lot of teaching in this organization--and learning." BOSS is restructuring itself over a four-year period to better reflect and put into practice its core values of participation and engagement, and to consciously decrease the hierarchy within the organization. In moving from a "regional, program-based model to one based on strategy and participatory process," BOSS is creating teams in four areas: economic development, support service, housing, and community building. Each team will include team leaders, staff, constituents, and outside experts. An important component of the team concept will be direct feedback from the constituency and community which will impact the planning process and program content. The entire "organizational structure is led by a Leadership Council representing all internal stake holders and key external partners." This reorganization represents an effort to adopt new strategies to meet funding and other challenges in keeping with BOSS’s stated values of community participation and constituent involvement. Investing in Women Leaders Women practice participatory leadership based on their personal life experience and their concept of community development as human development. They are motivated by a commitment to social change that for many is sustained by spiritual beliefs. Women as participatory leaders. There is a continuum of women’s leadership styles ranging from an inclusive, collective, "feminist" model to a more traditional/hierarchical model. As in previous gender specific research in other fields, women community development leaders describe themselves as open, consultative, and supportive of staff. Both in the community and within their organizations, they are committed to participation, process, and internal democracy. Many women reported a preference for consensus-building and this approach to seeking peaceful resolution of issues contributes to a participatory style of leadership. "Real, systemic change can only happen when leadership is practiced at all levels: in our constituency, among our staff and board, among our partners in the larger community." Social change as a goal. The desire to create social change is at the core of much of women’s community development work. Women’s vision of change is broad, aiming to change people’s lives, deepen their personal investments in their neighborhoods and increase their access to resources to improve the quality of life in the community. Many women measure organizational success in terms of the health of their communities and empowerment of residents in addition to more traditional, quantifiable measures. Most women interviewed in the study do not describe themselves as activists or as "political" but they do describe their work in the context of bringing about social change. Across the spectrum of organizations included in the study, women have created a pattern of activities designed to create an environment where change can happen in communities. Not every woman-led organization offers a range of comprehensive services, but they are all characterized by their degree of awareness of the interconnection between personal, social, and economic issues affecting community residents. " I try to organize a community to have access to things, not to build up a large organization …. My big thing is to advocate so their voices can be heard in different arenas …. I am proudest of putting people in places where they can speak for themselves." "Men see and address what is above the line, the visible part of the iceberg. Women see the whole thing, above and below the surface. Here on the surface are the things that both men and women see as problems --- economic factors, educational attainment, health care, substance abuse, and diminished employment opportunities. Men work on the structural solutions and women address more hidden dimensions of the problem. Men work on decent housing, jobs, infrastructure, the cycle of poverty, and increased dependence on public support for assistance. Women know you have to address the lack of family support, low self-esteem, sexual abuse, no incentives for change, lack of community involvement, teenage pregnancy, childcare, and transportation." Personal experience as catalyst. Many women had personal experiences with poverty, abuse, and discrimination and stressed that these experiences brought them into community development and continues to shape their work. Frequently a catalytic event brought women outside their private concerns and into community work. Events involving children and schools, abuse, divorce, or unemployment often preceded women’s involvement in public meetings or protests, which then led to further involvement. Other women described their efforts to meet a community need, organizing with other women to provide services, or involvement with a supportive mentor as their initial motivation to work in their communities. "A house two doors down from where I lived … burned down. They could not find decent and affordable housing and they were put out by the city. The building was set on fire by an arsonist. Thirteen children died, one adult, and one unborn child. That’s what started it. I couldn’t take it. I got pissed off." Community priorities and funding. A human needs-centered, comprehensive approach translates into a hesitancy to follow funding streams at the expense of taking a holistic approach to community problems. Women are well aware of the incentives for funding initiatives formulated by government and foundations but they set their priorities based on their own commitments to community residents and an open, inclusive process of community development. Some organizations have chosen to make organizing an explicit part of their programs regardless of the difficulty in obtaining funding to cover the work. While women might have to follow funding as community organizations often do, they do so in the context of their community priorities. A high degree of awareness about the community influences not only the program design of women-led organizations but also the actual process women use in community development. "The funders were telling us this was not leadership development, it was self-esteem [building], because they didn’t consider women in the home and in the PTA as leaders." Activism and professional training. Women leaders who participated in the study fall into one of three categories: activists who came up through membership in the organization, activists who were also professionally trained, and professionals. Activist, non-professional women are more concerned with community organizing as a goal and community mobilization as a strategy for change. Women who have both activist experience and professional training are more likely to lean toward the activist model. Those trained as professionals who did not come from an activist background tend to be more intent on staff structure, less concerned with member participation, more supportive of authority, and more deferential to experts and other professionals. "When I started, whatever I said wasn’t credible because I didn’t have a degree. If I tell you something, I have lived this. This is what I’ve experienced. Why do I need a degree?" Racial and cultural issues. Leadership issues are directly related to ideas about women in the larger culture and are tied to their racial identities. Women from all over the country and from differing racial, ethnic and class backgrounds spoke of how they, and many women they knew, had struggled with learning to value their own experience, values and judgements which were often undervalued or rejected by others. While women can draw on the tradition of women leaders or matriarchs, they are also forced to negotiate their roles within the communities. "I see what I do as the best way to deal with the enduring legacy of racism …. What we do in development is work to bring about economic justice. Until there is economic justice there is no justice. I have to say I [as a black woman] have a better chance of articulating issues surrounding economic justice than a black male would. I am less threatening and can say what a man could not say. I can speak about the effects of poverty and injustice on women and children." "We show the system we exist. We are looking for the best for our community and our families. Sometimes men, because of machismo, do not make good decisions. We can do "men’s work" in order to do politics." "The word leadership is difficult to define in different cultures. Asian women are in a double bind because they have to do more than men but not look like it. I am trying to develop a cross-cultural leadership style for women that is nurturing, that empowers women and men, that concentrates on the whole system, not just gender." "The first barrier [in this white working class community] was getting the women out of their houses where even the best spouses often have sexist attitudes. …In an initial door to door outreach effort, we discovered domestic violence in every third or fourth house…[there was] alcoholism and a 1950s environment for women." A spiritual perspective. Women frequently describe their work in terms of being a life choice, rather than simply a job. Many describe this sense of personal involvement and caring about the community as growing out of a spiritual (though not always religious) commitment; they explicitly said that "faith" sustained them in their work. The response spanned across the boundaries of race, income, religion, and type of organization. Other women describe their commitment to the community in terms of their political beliefs, a feminist ideology, or racial or ethnic identification. Almost uniformly, however, women say they are in community development work to bring about social change. "Inward things sustain me. If you know that you are genuinely working to create change, you can give all because you have been given all. You can be comfortable with who you are. There is an inner peace and self-esteem. I came into this organization and stayed because I believe so strongly in what it does. I have a lot of confidence in seeing things change, seeing what this organization can do to improve people’s lives." "I am called to this work and don’t have a choice in it. It is a ministry. This work is the last vestiges of the civil rights movement. If we don’t do it, no one else will … I don’t enjoy being on the front line but I feel I am a warrior." Profiles La Mujer Obrera El Paso, Texas La Mujer Obrera (The Woman Worker) is a 16-year-old woman-led organization which was started to protect the rights of Mexican-American women garment workers in El Paso. The original focus of the organization was to struggle against sub-minimum wages, non-payment of wages, and work speed-ups in the maquiladoras, or twin plants, that dominate the landscape of El Paso-Juarez. The organization was born out of a successful union drive and the resulting exclusion of women's issues by the new union. Its activities included political education, leadership development, and strike support. Today the organization has confronted the dismantling of the garment industry by NAFTA and re-focused its efforts to include more comprehensive community economic development, while holding true to its political and organizing focus. LMO operates a community center that houses the organization’s headquarters, a food cooperative, a newspaper, and cultural activities, as well as the women’s leadership development program, education programs, and community organizing that make up most of its work. Coordinator, Maria Flores, described the organization's woman-centered approach and contrasted it with the male-led union. "The difference with the organizations led by men, it’s a patrón (boss)-worker relationship. The methods are very different. They say, ‘We’re with the community, it’s collective work. We make our decisions in the committee of struggle, but now we have a project for a women’s committee. We need more women’. But the leaders are men! We don’t have women represented…We need this effort, this space." A striking aspect of LMO’s work is the development of working class Mexican and Mexican-American women’s leadership. This educational component of LMO is central to its work. It is based on the theory and methods of popular education in which participants learn through analyzing their own experiences and relating them to social issues. Participants analyze seven basic needs (work, education, health, nutrition, housing, peace, and political freedom) and develop a sense of organizing as a group while learning together. The curriculum includes material on women’s oppression from the perspective of working people’s rights. Explaining the educational focus, one woman said, "I am very happy that leadership development exists... to educate, to consciousness-raise, to know the reality. That is what we are doing here. Here one feels that one is somebody... We need to know where we are going--to blaze a trail. As women we shape society." Two leaders of LMO explained to us how the personal attention they received when they first came to the organization was crucial in helping them to develop both their confidence and their skills as leaders. Both women told us that their family life changed as a result of their experiences and that they had raised their children, particularly their sons, to respect women and to defend their rights. "My confidence grew and I . . . took the decision to leave [my marriage]. I felt liberated. I had the interest and the desire to be free. It was hard. Paying the bills required two jobs and I stopped coming here. They would go to my house . . . and give me classes. I had the need to develop myself as a leader. I wanted to teach the other women." Learning a model of organizing is an integral part of the leadership development training. Work-site protests, protests against NAFTA, as well as in lobbying efforts are all part of LMO’s activities. Recent efforts have been focused on the effects of NAFTA and on the inadequacy of the NAFTA worker re-training programs. LMO developed a "Displaced Workers Community Economic Development Initiative" aimed at creating more jobs and economic opportunities for the more than 10,000 workers displaced by NAFTA so far. One section of this plan proposes workforce development, a self-employment infrastructure, building community infrastructure as a development strategy, and light industry development. It features bilingual training programs, a loan fund, and training in the building trades and in home-based child care provision. LMO also showcases outstanding women through its annual La Mujer Obrera Awards. The women are nominated by community residents and must come from a working class or low-income background or family, have worked outside the home, and have contributed to the community without being recognized so far. During a recent year, all 78 women selected as candidates had their biographies and photos included in a publication and the 14 recipients were featured in a local newspaper article. New Horizon Community Development Corporation Fordyce, Arkansas The Rev. Margaret McGhee, director of the New Horizon CDC in Fordyce, Arkansas is an example of the strength and importance of faith-based leadership and the power and impact faith-based development can have in communities. Originally a school teacher, Rev. McGhee not only had a calling to become a minister and found a church, she also believed that work in the community was to be part of her ministry. As she told us, "I was called to an open ministry of blacks and whites...I didn’t want to be just another little church. I wanted to be able to make a difference. It was a hard walk because there were no women pastors and I started the church with six people." Rev. McGhee’s vision for Fordyce, a rural community of 4,300 located 70 miles southeast of Little Rock, is broad and compelling. Her passion and commitment to her work and her community has inspired New Horizon’s staff and its numerous volunteers and has commanded the respect of Fordyce’s elected officials and business owners. Very little was happening in Fordyce that benefited African-Americans until New Horizon CDC was founded. The lack of involvement of other ministers in the community was part of Rev. McGhee’s motivation. New Horizon identified three important needs: decent affordable housing for low-income people, access to services, and child care. As the only CDC in a community with few resources at its disposal, within its first five years New Horizon has built critically needed new low-income housing, rehabilitated existing housing, and developed child care centers, substance abuse and literacy programs. New Horizon’s comprehensive, holistic approach to community development is a reflection of both the tremendous need of community residents and an approach that views those needs as a complex set of issues which are linked and must be addressed at the individual as well as community level. Literacy training and substance abuse counseling, for instance, are considered as fundamental as day care provision and housing development in order for the community to thrive. At times New Horizon CDC has faced resistance and hostility to its work, which Rev. McGhee describes as being sometimes race-based and at other times arising out of opposition to the idea that New Horizon’s community development efforts are not the proper work of the church. As Rev. McGhee argues however, "A lot of people may not think that this is the work of the church, but I say what would the Lord be doing if he were here now? He would be building low-income housing and feeding people. The ministry is outside of the pulpit. Our biggest prayer is that people can lay aside differences and come together to meet the needs of the less fortunate that are there. I say see what one little person is doing; just think what we could do if we all worked together." New Horizon has been a vital resource to African-American in Fordyce. It has strengthened important networks and bonds within the African-American community and created new links to officials and other community residents. As Rev. McGhee points out the effects of New Horizon’s activities are far reaching. "What New Horizon is doing is having a political impact on the community. Even though the Mayor and the community people aren’t directly doing it, they can point to it. I’ve had direct contact with the Governor and the Republican Mayor. I was the only woman invited to a meeting with the Governor and 17 ministers. I was the only black woman pastor." Networks outside the immediate community are also being forged as New Horizon CDC begins to work and partner with groups in other communities starting new child care and other programs. Underlying New Horizon’s CDCs efforts is the faith-based nature of the organization as well as the personal faith commitments of Rev. McGhee, New Horizon’s staff, volunteers and community residents. The attribute their faith in helping them overcome numerous, seemingly insurmountable obstacles and sustaining them in their work. Elizabeth Stone House Boston, Massachusetts Of the organizations included in the study, Elizabeth Stone House (ESH), a comprehensive women’s transitional housing, supportive services and economic development program in Boston, is the most illustrative example of a non-hierarchical, collective organizational management model. ESH does not have an executive director and defines its unique organizational structure as the "Shared Administrative Model." All full-time staff participate in executive decision-making through weekly planning and evaluation meetings and are collectively responsible for evaluation, and personnel issues as well as for working with the board. While the model was originally conceived when the organization had a staff of only six, it has been adapted with some difficulty to accommodate the increasing number of staff and program areas. Making the transition to a larger organization and holding true to the model has been a challenge to the members. Recent changes have allowed decision-making to be decentralized, and power remains shared. Work planning, supervision and issue identification takes place in team meetings. Each team sends a rotating representative to a weekly meeting where the various activities of each team are reported and discussed and where there is opportunity for input from members of other teams. In addition, there are procedures in place for staff to meet on an "as needed" basis as well as for quarterly meetings of the entire staff to provide evaluation of issues, procedures, and organizational direction. ESH thoroughly articulated its values and corresponding structures and procedures that ensured decentralization of power and staff participation in decision making. The democratic and open structure of the organization makes decision making more thoughtful but also more complicated. Participation is also central to the operation of the Elizabeth Stone House’s comprehensive programs. Two programs within its Community Education for Economic Development initiative, the Personal Economic Planning Program (PEP) and a Women’s Business Opportunity Program (WBOP) illustrate how these involvement processes engage women participants. PEP is a four-session economic literacy course which focuses on goal planning and identifying and pursuing resources towards a personal economic development strategy, while the WBOP program concentrates on economic literacy with the goal of facilitating the establishment of new businesses. Former coordinator, Laurie Holmes described the experience of a group of nine women from the Transitional Housing Program (THP) who decided they wanted to start their own business. Initially the group of women participated in a seven-week course. Four of the women decided to continue working together: " They explored real estate, tested various aspects of their business plan for feasibility, produced dances in different venues throughout the community, and organized a boat cruise on the Boston Harbor. They paid themselves a one-hundred dollar weekly stipend from the grant monies and each worked twenty hours for the co-op. They rotated responsibilities so that each member would gain experience in bookkeeping marketing, production, etc." Ultimately after a process of program evaluation and a move to a for-profit focus, three of the women continued to work together for a year after which the reaming women separated to deal with life and other issues. Through the development of new skills as well as new relationships and bonds with each other and the community, the women participants created new networks of support and trust. New Columbia Community Land Trust Washington, DC New Columbia Community Land Trust (NCCLT) is an eight year-old, women-led organization focused on cooperative housing development, community organizing and education on housing and development issues. NCCLT was formed to end the displacement of low-income tenants due to gentrification in and around downtown Washington, DC and is an example of a highly participatory organization. Taking advantage of a DC law that gives tenants the rights to purchase their buildings, NCCLT has helped tenants acquire, develop and purchase the land beneath 36 cooperative housing units in six properties. NCCLT grew out of a collaboration among several faith-based housing, organizing and community service organizations operating in the Shaw, Columbia Heights and Adams Morgan neighborhoods of Washington, DC. These organizations were interested in the community land trust model as a way to ensure community-based control and permanent affordability of housing for low-income residents. Collaboration remains a hallmark for the organization. Executive director Pamela Jones, explains, "We collaborate on every project. We serve as developers, consultants and partners…The residents are part of the development team, too. This is key to their empowerment and ability to take over and then manage the property at the end of the construction period." An activist and attorney, Jones credits her interest in housing to a grandmother who sent her to Georgia at age 12 to supervise some repairs being made to her home. With a drawing and instructions about the necessary repairs on the back of a paper bag, Jones was admonished not to pay anyone unless the work was completed and done right. "And so I learned how to represent and carryout a property owner’s instructions and how important it was to do things in a certain way -- all in my first business transaction." Today, Jones sees her role as an African-American woman leader in the housing field very broadly and is deeply committed to organizing and community education. In 1991, she created a popular talk show that aired for four and a half years on a local university’s public radio station providing information to the general public about their housing rights and options. She collaborated with others to create an accessible guide to the affordable housing development process and directory of local organizations and resources. Jones explains, "Tenant co-ops in DC are a response to helping low income tenants avoid displacement. …If people are aware, they know they have the first right of refusal to try to buy their buildings. …However, they must also be aware of the financial resources and technical assistance available to pursue their rights…. That’s why I started the radio show — to let people know" Once a cooperative property is established, NCCLT works closely with members of the co-op board to ensure that they have the skills they need to manage their properties. Most board members and co-op leaders are women. According to Jones, many are in leadership roles for the first time in their lives. She tailors NCCLT training to women’s needs and sees herself as a learner in this participatory process. "…training really permeates everything we do. We do training on how to find financing, the housing development process, how to fight the city… There is a lot of reinforcement….We try to help co-op members understand that they are running a little business. We need them to ensure good property management, keep elections going and handle the finances. We work with them as they develop…... With the women, I have found we need to pay attention to the ways people learn… I’ve even watched 67 and 68 year olds pursue lifelong dreams of homeownership. You get to see what has always really been there, what was just covered over. I’ve learned a whole lot from these women." Bridge Building and Breaking Down Barriers for Organizations Women-led organizations experience many of the same barriers that confront almost all community development organizations, but they also face additional barriers due to gender and local culture and politics. Working beyond the common barriers. Women describe the same general barriers noted by almost all community development organizations and leaders: lack of funding for day-to-day operations of their organizations, institutional barriers to access information, the complexity of fund raising, difficulty in creating change, and frustration with the low level of community participation. Women also cite other general barriers such as racial and ethnic issues, low salaries for staff, lack of access to power and resources, the magnitude of the work to be done. Some women describe initial concerns with what they or others perceive to be inadequate training and experience. The accomplishments and leadership of the women who participated in this study are even more striking in light of these barriers and others that are more specific to women. Defining development differently. Women perceive that their broad definition of community development is itself a barrier. This is compounded by the fact that many within the field place a higher value on technical skill than on grassroots experience and advocacy. Women cite communication problems that can arise with banks and funders when they create programs that do not meet traditional expectations. While women have a holistic and multifaceted approach, traditional funders and financial institutions are looking for focus and quantifiable output such as housing units produced, new homeowners, loans made, or jobs created. Some women, however, view some funders as valued partners who support their work because of their holistic approach to community development. "You are constantly in the position of convincing people what you are doing is right. I used to be fearful of talking to funders but now my attitude is that what [we are] doing is right and I hope you will want to be a part of it." Inflexible work schedules. Women who are primary care givers raised the need for flexible work arrangements. Positions such a executive director or community organizer often require extensive attendance at night meetings which is difficult for women caring for young children or elderly parents. The preponderance of full time positions closes that option off for many women with families. In other cases, activist women who have invested time over the years are displaced when funding leads to the hiring of full time professional staff. Funders frequently demonstrate a preference for full time staff and do not appreciate the value of encouraging part time staffing. "Women bring barriers. Women have to balance the job with family responsibilities. I may really want to attend a conference out of town, but if I have small children …. I have an elderly mother and have to take care of her. I have to schedule around my family. It’s harder for women than for men." Inability to pursue education. Some women who have overcome these barriers have done so by pursuing training or degrees to fill specific gaps in skills or by obtaining credentials but many others cite their lack of conventional education as a major barrier. Women mention the time they devote to raising families and the lack of good, affordable day care as major factors in their inability to pursue education. At the time of the study interviews in 1997, women also expressed a concern that changes in welfare legislation would intensify this barrier. Low-income women who used their time on public assistance to complete education and training are now being forced to get jobs rather than pursue college and post-secondary education. Women in the study are committed to recruiting staff from among active members and to giving recognition to experience-based skills, but they also see the failure to provide opportunities for further education as a significant barrier to women’s advancement in community development. Financial institutions, government, and the construction industry. Women frequently cite relations with financial institutions, government entities, and contractors as hinging on their ability to "prove" themselves. Some newer leaders cite their lack of familiarity with professional jargon and terminology, especially with regard to the construction industry and financial organizations. Even experienced women describe the initial assumption of bankers, contractors and others that they are incompetent because they are women. While a significant number of more experienced leaders are very conversant in financial and construction terminology, women generally acknowledged it as an entry problem that keeps women out of the field. Women leaders also described being asked to account for themselves and their work in ways they did not perceive male directors to be. This was particularly evident in situations where women assumed directorships in organizations in which they were already employed. "I think there is a greater entree for women into the social services probably because there are more males in the CDC world and certainly in the construction industry …. I think that when I came here there was an idea that there would not be a continuation of housing or programs that were viewed as male …. It took me a while to get comfortable going to the construction site. I mean, I have a background in construction and it was still hard." Racial discrimination. Many women feel that race is more of a barrier than gender, especially in the South. In some communities, resources are largely controlled by white men and their prejudices against women, African-Americans, and Latinos are considered pervasive. Women frequently cited the general lack of respect given to women, particularly women of color and those without a formal education or credentials. For some women, race and gender barriers are intertwined. Racism and sexism exacerbate barriers for women of color. Several women described taking white or male board members with them to meetings to ease concerns felt by project development partners or funders who were unaccustomed to working with women of color. "Race has a serious impact on whether you can get funding. [Some funders] have a linear, male, European notion of success. The way women do their work isn’t even on the radar screen." Personal, class, and cultural barriers. Many women cited issues related to their lack of economic security as barriers to their participation. These included the lack of childcare, the lack of freedom to leave domestic responsibilities, and feelings of powerlessness. Family and other personal issues can pose significant obstacles to their involvement in the community. Women noted that they overextend themselves and suffer from "burn-out" without an adequate personal support system. Many women expressed the view that women are not always comfortable with or encouraged to assert their authority by taking on leadership roles. Women also recognize that strengthening self-esteem is a critical factor in their own work and for the women they serve. "I don’t want young females to be frightened. I don’t call it feminism, but I work with them so they do not doubt their strength or work from weakness. I want them to know that because they are female [and black] it will be hard, but that it can be done …. You need to have confidence in who you are." "As Mexican women, we are educated in a very conservative way --- to be pure, to put men out front. Because of religion, everything is a sin, everything is bad. We should stop being objects. We need to act." "Classism is a major issue [for low-income white communities]. There are so many stereotypes to deal with. Bureaucrats believe that if you’re poor, it means you’re a poor manager — that you have to teach these women how to manage their money. That makes me so mad. If they couldn’t manage money they would be dead and so would their children." "The fact is that for an Asian woman to be well-known is trouble. You have to be effective but not in a way that draws personal attention to yourself. You have to balance the cultural idea of not showing off." Limited professional networks. Because activist women have served as front line workers and volunteers and often been denied leadership and staff roles, their networks within the establishment sector are very limited. This is especially true in relation to networks with political leaders, government officials, corporate executives, and other organizational leaders. Intermediary organizations often fill the gaps of networks which marginalizes women leaders by limiting their contacts and undermining opportunities to participate in the arena of community politics. Many women also agreed that some male-led community development organizations contribute to this marginalization of women leaders. Local culture. Conducting research in nine sites illustrates the difference between communities in the recruitment and support for women leaders in community development. The political culture of a city or region can be a powerful factor in creating a more receptive and respectful environment for women leaders in the field. In Portland, for instance, there are many agencies headed by women, an abundance of women elected officials, and a strong tradition of roles for women leaders in the city. This environment is clearly conducive to the recruitment of women into leadership position in community development and women in those jobs say there are fewer barriers to their assumption of leadership. In other sites where strong civil service systems dominate, there is less respect for community experience as the basis for leadership and less regard for activist women. "There is still a preference for men to be doing this work. One leader has a very good female staff, but he is in the lead publicly as a white male because that is what it takes to do and say some of the very progressive things they are doing." Limited access to political networks. Most women do not feel they have adequate access to political leaders, corporate executives, and other powerful groups that generally consist of men. Women’s access to power brokers does, however, vary from city to city and region to region. The local political culture and the age of the community development movement in a given area also affect women’s access to elite networks. In cities and states where there is a history of women holding political office and leadership positions in local intermediaries, women-led organizations have greater access to political and other power networks. Thoughtful coalition building at the state level can open these doors for women and have a positive impact on their community development work. Profiles Networking and the Legacy of the Civil Rights Movement North Carolina’s Experience North Carolina was notable among the sites in the study in terms of the degree to which organizations were networked with each other and with elected officials, particularly at the state level. Through an effective state-wide association of CDCs, as well as funding from the state government, the community development movement has grown and intensified while at the same time becoming more coordinated and networked. Although these networks and support for community development were not explicitly focused on women, women were clearly instrumental in the organizing movement, in the establishment of many community development groups and the state network of CDCs. African-Americans and African-American women in particular, have played and continue to play a central and instrumental role in community development in North Carolina. Many CDOs and intermediary directors as well as elected and appointed government officials have longstanding relationships with each other dating back to the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, so many of the local leaders in the community development field can trace the roots of their relationships to the 1960s, that one described community development in North Carolina as the "last vestiges of the Civil Rights Movement." The legacy of the voter registration drives, community organizing, and legal activism of the Civil Rights Movement is the foundation for the present-day community development movement in this state. In addition to the existence of longstanding relationships among organizers and leaders, several key factors contributed to the development of an effective network of leaders and CDOs in North Carolina. These included the effective legal activism of North Carolina Legal Services, the presence of local progressive funders, and timely funding from a national intermediary. The first step in North Carolina was an emphasis on the registering of African-American voters and the election of African-Americans to state-wide office. In the late 1980s, the Legislative Black Caucus pushed a major state funding bill, the North Carolina Community Development Initiative (NCCDI), through the legislature. This bill was the basis for the development of the majority of CDCs now in existence in North Carolina. The NCCDI secured funding for both established and emerging community development groups. Several of the CDO directors we interviewed were involved in drafting the funding bill, and virtually all were involved in the organizing which preceded it and had often worked together in numerous capacities. As Andrea Harris, now director of the Minority Business and Economic Institute, explained, "What happened in North Carolina was no accident." Many of the leaders we interviewed had worked either directly or indirectly with North Carolina Legal Services. In the early 1980s, Legal Services decided to allocate a portion of its budget to community development advocacy and training. In 1985, they formed a partnership with LISC in rural North Carolina and sponsored community economic development training in four counties over a three-month period. At the same time, Legal Services began to challenge North Carolina’s banks under the federal Community Reinvestment Act (1976) in order to push the banks to fund community development efforts. By 1986 agreements had been signed with several banks which began to fund and implement community needs assessments according to the CRA. In 1989, the North Carolina Association of CDCs (NCACDC) was founded with 11 statewide members. By 1997 it had now grown to a membership of 41 CDCs and nine affiliate members made up of funding and organizing groups as well as other non-profits and is coordinated through regional offices. One leader noted that an important goal of the effort was to ensure that "we would never allow a funder or a legislator to cause us to pull against one another when it comes to going after funding." Cooperation between groups is both formal and informal and is based at least in part on the established relationships among leaders. The continuing networks between elected officials and community development leaders and activists have helped to create continuing support for community development efforts. Community development in North Carolina has also been positively affected by the commitment of local funders and intermediaries. Most of those we interviewed mentioned the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation and the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation as having provided important funding for their organizations, including funding for operating budgets (which is often limited), and paid sabbatical program for executive directors. Another important point of connection for a number of leaders in North Carolina was participating in the Community Development Training Institute (CDTI) program. CDTI’s Community Economic Development Studies Program helped to establish relationships between community leaders as well as create a cadre of leaders who shared similar approaches and goals for community development in North Carolina. Among the nine sites in this study, North Carolina had the most highly articulated and effective network of leaders at the state level. Unlike some areas where the association of CDCs was essentially an umbrella-trade organization, NCACDC is an important part of the networking infrastructure. Although not devoid of tensions, networks among leaders are solid and contribute effectively to the success of community development efforts. Throughout the state, women were and continue to be instrumental in maintaining the community, political and economic networks that support community development. A Call to Action Recommendations to sustain the growth and development of women-led community development organizations. Across the country, women have created innovative, comprehensive programs to meet the needs of their communities. Women have established themselves as leaders in the community development field and have used their skills to bring positive change to their communities. As effective builders of social capital, women leaders play key roles in establishing and maintaining important relationships and networks in their communities. Their own life experiences and a common experience of community activism and participatory leadership leads them to persist in working for social change in the face of difficult racial, cultural, economic and political barriers and uncertain funding. Influencing the evolution of community development. Women’s comprehensive approaches have influenced the evolution of the community development field, but their contributions have been neither widely acknowledged nor explicitly credited. While a few individual women community leaders have received public attention, the work of the broader spectrum of women and its cumulative impact in moving the community development field toward more integrated and comprehensive strategies and programs is not generally understood. A ground-breaking study. We believe that this study and its broad public dissemination will be important steps in opening a dialogue and communicating the impact of women’s contributions within the community development field. We plan to use the study to bring the ideas and accomplishments of the women community development leaders to the attention of community development practitioners, funders, intermediary organizations, financial institutions, government, academics and the media. First steps. McAuley Institute has already begun to integrate the lessons from the study into its technical assistance, organizational development and capacity-building programs for community and faith-based housing development organizations. In addition, McAuley Institute is joining with a group of women who participated in the study to explore formation of a national women’s community development network for peer support, to raise visibility of women’s leadership and to address a range of policy, funding and related issues. Sharing "best practices". These efforts are just a beginning. The women we interviewed represent a small sample and there are many more compelling stories to be told and effective approaches to be shared. One of the best ways to do this is to create opportunities for women in community development to document and tell their own stories. The Howard Samuels Center is available to assist women-led organizations interested in developing oral history projects. Another avenue is to recognize individual women’s community development achievements and those of their organizations through conferences, awards, and in the popular media. Our research identified many "best practices" models that can be more widely shared through outreach, publications, conferences, articles, and effective use of a full scope of Internet applications including an engaging, interactive website and communications network. Dissemination of the study. The Study is available via the Internet on two sites: the full report, "Women Creating Social Capital and Social Change" can be found on the Howard Samuels Center website http://web.gc.cunty.edu/howardsamuels and both reports on McAuley Institute’s website www.mcauley.org. In addition, McAuley Institute, and some of the women leaders interviewed are available to present and discuss the study’s findings at conferences or other convenings. Comprehensive recommendations. Finally, the women we interviewed expressed many ideas that would help them overcome the barriers identified in this study to have a greater impact on the communities in which they work. They also articulated the types of funding and other support they need to continue their work and enhance their capacities. Their insights and ideas translate directly into recommendations to sustain the growth and development of women-led organizations and to thus strengthen the community development field as a whole. The following recommendations are offered for all those who have the power to create and sustain community change including, not only funders, intermediaries, governments, educational institutions and women’s organizations but also community development organizations themselves. We invite you to join us in working within your own sphere of influence to take action in addressing these recommendations. Social Capital and Community Building 1.Invest in women’s organizing and community building strategies that create social capital. Community organizing is at the heart of women’s approaches to community development. It is a key ingredient in how women successfully build the social capital that is essential to healthy communities. Funders, intermediaries, government, and CDCs can play an important role by renewing their commitment to and financial support for basic community building, organizing, and participation activities. In doing so, it will be important to expand the definition of community building to include the effective approaches women use that may not fit traditional organizing models or more development-oriented timeframes. Researchers and others can contribute to this investment by collaborating with women leaders to evaluate the impact of their organizing methods and to develop useful communications materials to disseminate this "best practices" information to the field. 2.Support continued collaboration between practitioners and researchers to document and analyze women’s models of community development. Women are leading the way in developing social capital and their approach is a model for all community organizations. More in-depth analysis is needed to create case studies of women leaders and women-led organizations and peer groups. Women’s approaches and practices need to be incorporated into community development literature and feminist theory. Analyzing the methods women use to build common norms, trust, and networks in their organizations and in the community is a first step in further documentation of the effectiveness of women’s comprehensive approach to community development. 3.Create opportunities for women to document their own development as leaders and community activists. Women leaders are underutilized or ignored as recorders of their own leadership growth, development programs, and community participation efforts. Many have designed unique programs and curriculums that can be published and disseminated. Studies and reports that include women telling their own stories, using oral histories and video documentaries, will raise awareness of women’s achievements and contributions to the field and build a valuable body of information on their comprehensive approaches to community development. With educational support, research tools, and collaboratives with colleges and universities, women will be able to more widely disseminate information about their community development work in influential forums. 4.Expand and continue this study to investigate the role that race, ethnicity, and class play in women’s experience in community development. Research based on women’s specific cultures is needed, rather than more analyses of women of color as a single category, for example. Additional issues relating to class differences among women of the same race or ethnicity also should be explored in future studies. Investing in Women Leaders 1.Invest in women’s development as leaders, activists and professionals. Women’s leadership is an integral part of the growth of the community development field. The study confirmed that women take many different routes to becoming leaders in their communities and express their leadership in the context of their cultural, class, racial, and ethnic identities. Effective personal and professional development programs for women in community development must recognize this variety of experience and skills in their design and execution. Community development institutes and fellowship programs for women’s leadership and professional enhancement are needed to build on women’s comprehensive approaches, develop networks among women in the field, and address the gender, racial, class, and cultural barriers faced by women. These can be new programs or enhancements to existing programs offered by colleges, funders, CDC associations, intermediaries, women’s organizations, or others. It will be essential to provide a range of choices tailored to a continuum ranging from emerging to experienced leaders, to provide ongoing offerings and support rather than "one-shot" training opportunities, and to take into consideration women’s family, work, and community responsibilities. Ongoing collaborative research and evaluation among participants and researchers to analyze the impact of women’s leadership in their communities will be a key component of these new types of "adult learner" programs and women’s networks. 2.Support the development of local, regional, and national peer networks for women in community development. Where they exist, peer networks of women are an important source of information and other assistance for women personally, professionally, and organizationally. Networks are particularly important for women to mobilize support for policy change. At the national level, a group of women interviewed as a part of this study are already working to develop a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse peer network. They plan to combine personal support and renewal programs in retreat settings with systematic efforts to advance the community development field from a women’s perspective. Some women interested in creating new peer networks to support leadership and advocacy at the local level are seeking need committed partners interested in providing in-kind assistance or funding for the network’s administrative, facilitation and convening needs while others may have the organizational capacity for networks to be self-sustaining. Support is also needed for organizing conferences, retreats, and other gatherings for women to learn from one another. The ability to address barriers within local political and cultural climates and to build more receptive environments for women’s networks and development strategies will depend on the creation of flexible networking models that respect women’s family, work and community responsibilities, as well as transportation, child care and language interpretation needs. Using communications technologies to connect women for information sharing and support will reduce the physical distances between women practitioners and highlight the effectiveness of their work. 3.Cultivate new leaders from within communities. To build on the strength of their existing leadership in the field, women are developing the next generation of community leaders through organizing, recruitment, and leadership training for young women, women of color, and immigrants. More time and focused attention are needed to expand women’s participation in community development work and to broaden and diversify leadership. Women struggle with the tension of pursuing "measurable" activities often required by funding programs, while knowing that the lessons of their experience in community development point to the importance of basic relationship building and leadership development. Essential elements in this effort will include the creation of mentoring opportunities for younger women and emerging leaders, recognition of the importance of ongoing leadership recruitment from within the community, and meeting the need for childcare, transportation, and other services that are often crucial factors in enabling young women to participate in community development. 4.Support access to post-secondary education and credentials for women in community development. Women recognize that education can be crucial both for their own economic self-determination and for their organizations’ effectiveness. Particularly in the arena of development and finance, credentials can enable women to more effectively pursue their social change agendas. College and university programs that incorporate women leaders’ perspectives and value their life experiences and commitment to the community are proving to be effective ways for women to gain credentials in education programs. The creation of new programs to fund scholarships, financial assistance, and part-time work in community development will enable more women to pursue college education. Building an advocacy strategy to restore welfare benefits at the state and federal levels will allow women receiving temporary public assistance to pursue post-secondary education. Alliances between women-led organizations and colleges, universities and research centers to support grassroots leadership can expand undergraduate community economic development curricula. Alternative approaches, such as a peer fellows program, are needed to reach women in more remote geographic areas. It will be useful to document the "best practices" of educational models that give credit for life experiences and to provide funding to support these programs. 5.Integrate lessons from this study into existing community development training programs. Developing, documenting, and sharing examples of course offerings or programs that successfully engage women leaders and build effective networks is essential. In addition, convening local and national forums to explore interest in training, technical assistance, and program development will more effectively support women’s approaches and leadership. Bridge Building and Breaking Down Barriers for Organizations 1.Change funding policies that discriminate against women-led organizations. In an effort to be "gender blind," or to address "hard" development objectives, funders can unintentionally discriminate against programs specifically targeted to women and girls or organizations led by women. Increased efforts to document and share "best practice" models with funders to highlight effective programs designed specifically to meet the needs of women and girls would help counteract this effect. In order to increase and diversify the funding base of women-led organizations, analysis of grant making in targeted program areas is needed to identify funding patterns and chart a course for more equitable and strategic investments in effective models. Program areas to analyze include comprehensive community initiatives, community organizing, capacity development, leadership development, domestic violence, neighborhood safety, education, training, arts and humanities, and youth. 2.Open honest dialogues among women-led organizations and a broad range of resource providers. Particularly in this period of shifting funding priorities, women leaders are seeking additional knowledge, skills, and personal connections to gain financial stability for their programs and organizations. Forums to provide mutual education among women community development leaders, funders, intermediaries, financial institutions and women’s organizations are needed to open new dialogues about the challenges and constraints on all sides of the funding picture. These forums and other events or tools to bring information directly to community leaders about funding opportunities and strategies leading to financial stability need to be hands-on, practical and honest. Important topics for women-led organizations include financial strategies that move toward achieving a mix of income generating, fee-for-service programs/products in combination with public and private grant and contribution sources. 3.Eliminate salary and benefit inequities for women in the community development field. The community development field perpetuates gender-based pay inequities. Women’s salaries and benefits continue to lag behind those of men in the community development field. The problem is compounded by the fact that many women begin doing community development work as volunteers and continue to be perceived as having less substantial salary needs. Providing information for funders, board members and directors of women-led organizations on compensation packages that pay just wages will help stabilize organizations. At the same time, advocating public policies to guarantee pay equity for women will help highlight this problem in the community development field. 4.Encourage political education, civic engagement, and the building of political networks. Many women leaders expressed that they were not part of the political networks that give male-led community development organizations access to funding and political support. Gender, race, and class barriers separate many women leaders from public officials. Women-led organizations that have been successful in entering into political networks and those that carry out political education, civic engagement, and community organizing programs provide a variety of models for women to apply to their won situations and locales. Building alliances between women-led organizations and public policy centers to analyze the effects of local, state, and national policies and legislation on the lives of community residents will link women to networks of state and local legislators concerned with these issues. Investment in civic education programs will increase civic engagement and build political networks among women community development leaders. Another important component in engaging women-led organizations is to provide support for naturalization, voter registration, and voter education programs. Acknowledgments This project was supported by grants from The Ford Foundation. We are grateful for The Foundation’s commitment to the work of women in community development and for its support of this collaborative study. Our thanks to Ruth Román, Program Officer, Community and Resource Development during the course of this study, for her valuable assistance in initiating the research team’s collaboration and participating in the study’s National Advisory Panel. Our thanks also to the National Advisory Panel for their encouragement, insight, and assistance throughout the course of the study. And finally, a special thanks to the many community development leaders we interviewed over the course of a year who graciously shared their personal experiences and their work to bring a better life to members of their communities. Without them, this study would not have been possible. National Advisory Panel Prudence Brown Chapin-Hall Center for Children New York, New York Barbara Burnham Boston Redevelopment Authority Boston, Massachusetts Rose Dominguez The Resurrection Project Chicago, Illinois Hattie B. Dorsey Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership Atlanta, Georgia Robin Ely Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs New York, New York Denise Fairchild Community Technologies Center Los Angeles, California Ruth Goins Consultant Saint Paul, Minnesota Gloria Guerrero National Rural Development & Finance Corporation San Antonio, Texas Janice Jones Consultant Oakland, California Lynette Lee East Bay Asian Development Corporation Oakland, California Nora Lichtash Women’s Community Revitalization Project Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Ruth Román The Ford Foundation New York, New York Patricia L. Smith National Congress for Community Economic Development Washington, DC Study participants Interviewees (Organizations and Individuals by Site) Interviews were conducted in 1997 and 1998 and this listing represents the positions interviewees held at that time. Boston, Massachusetts Boston Aging Concerns, Young and Old United, Inc. (BAC-YOU) Janet Van Zandt, Executive Director Boston Foundation Prentice Zinn, Program Associate Boston Women’s Fund Jean Entine, Executive Director Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation (CEDAC) Charleen Regan, Senior Program Manager Community Education for Economic Development Elizabeth Stone House Laurie Holmes, Coordinator Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation Jeanne Du Bois, Executive Director Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiatives Roz Everdale, Director of Organizing Che Madyun, former Board president Fenway Community Development Corporation Ellen Caraccilo, Director of Development Carrie Dalrymple Madison Park Community Development Corporation Danette Jones, Executive Director Nuestra Comunidad Development Corporation Evelyn Friedman-Vargas, Executive Director Project Hope Sr. Margaret Leonard Quincy-Geneva Housing Corporation Marilyn Sanchez, Office Manager Pearl Plange, Clerk of Board Claudia Owumi, Director of Resident Services Mary Knight, Former Board Member Zaida Vides, Coordinator of Girls Leadership Program Shelter, Inc. Susan Duley, Executive Director Women’s Educational and Industrial Union Mary Lassen, Executive Director Women’s Institute for Housing and Economic Development Jean Kluver, Executive Director Lynn Peterson, Development Specialist Chicago, Illinois Alivio Medical Center Carmen Velasquez, Executive Director Austin People’s Action Cynthia Williams, Executive Director Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation Joyce Arguete, Executive Director Chicago Foundation for Women Christine Grumm, Executive Director Joyce Love, Program Director, Executive Director’s Roundtable Chicago Women in Trades Lauren Sugerman, Executive Director Claretian Associates Donna Drinan, Executive Director Covenant Development Corporation Carrie Ponder, Executive Director Development Corporation North Dorothy Gregory Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Andrew Mooney, Program Director John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Susan Lloyd, Director of Building Community Capacity, Program on Human and Community Development Mid-South Planning and Development Commission Pat Dowell-Cerasoli, Executive Director Mujeres Latinas en Accion David Sinski, interim Executive Director Marta Cerda, Board President Nuestra Gaytan, Youth/Family Coordinator The Resurrection Project Rose Dominguez, Board Member Susana Vasquez, Research Development Director South Chicago Neighborhood Housing Collaboration Cindy Larson, Executive Director Southeast Chicago Development Commission Lynn Cunningham, President Southwest Women Working Together Shelley Crump, Executive Director Woodlawn Development Associates Juanita Burris, Executive Director WECAN Mattie Butler, Executive Director Delta Region: Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana Big River Community Development Corporation Sharon Johnson, Executive Director Marks, Mississippi Communities Collaborating for Economic Development, Cheneyville, Louisiana Mordessa Corbin Gilbert, Louisiana Delta Research Education and Development Foundation (DRED) Vickie Robertson, Executive Director West Memphis, Arkansas First American Bank Cindy Ayers-Elliott, Chairman and CEO Jackson, Mississippi Foundation for the Mid South George Penick, President Sherrie Pugh, Program Officer Jackson, Mississippi Greater Greenville Community Development Corporation Torris Purnell, Housing Development Manager Greenville, Mississippi Hope Center Flodene White, Director Cullen, Louisiana Mississippi Action for Community Education (MACE) Ruby Buck, Executive Director Greenville, Mississippi New Horizon Community Development Corporation Rev. Margaret McGhee Fordyce, Arkansas Nellie Johnson Village Sr. Gus Griffin and Sr. Angela Susalla Tunica, Mississippi Northeast Louisiana Delta Community Development Corporation Benita Young, Housing Coordinator Tallulah, Louisiana Northern Mississippi Leadership Project, Women’s Leadership: Tunica, Walls, Hernando and Holly Springs Helen Love, Hernando Organizer Hernando, Mississippi Outreach Community Services Georgia Gaines, President Lake Providence, Louisiana Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation Dianne Williams, Senior Program Officer Little Rock, Arkansas Sacred Heart Southern Mission Morgan Billingsly, Director of Housing Services Sr. Marianne Guthrie Patricia Hines Center for Neighborhoods Walls, Mississippi Tallahachie Housing Rochella Cole, Housing Director Webb, Mississippi Voice of Calvary Ministries Lee Harper, Executive Director Jackson, Mississippi We Care Community Services Rose Bingham, Administrator Vicksburg, Mississippi El Paso, Texas and surrounding colonias State Representative Norma Chavez El Paso El Paso Collaborative for Community and Economic Development Rose Garcia, Executive Director El Paso Habitat for Humanity Cecilia Vazquez, Board President El Paso Lower Valley Housing Development Corporation of El Paso Nancy Hanson, Executive Director Fabens La Mujer Obrera Maria Flores, Coordinator Cindy Arnold, Economic Development Coordinator El Paso Meadows Foundation Dee Pascal, Senior Program Officer Dallas Organizacion Progresiva de San Elizario Tony Araujo, Executive Director Daniel Soliz, Construction Specialist Angel Gonzalez, VISTA Supervisor Linda Bannuelos, VISTA Volunteer Sofia M. Lo Carillo, VISTA Volunteer Martha Gomez, VISTA Volunteer Maria Ortiz, VISTA Volunteer Magda Salido, VISTA Volunteer Irma Villa, VISTA Volunteer San Elizario Southside Low-Income Housing Development Corporation Carmen Felix, Executive Director El Paso Sparks Housing Development Corporation Irma Perez, Executive Director El Paso University of Texas El Paso Department of Political Science Prof. Patricia Frederickson Sandra Sanchez El Paso Women in Action Belen German San Elizario YWCA Home Ownership Center Joanna Guillen, Coordinator El Paso YWCA Teen Pregnancy Program Mary Lacey, Coordinator El Paso Houston, Texas Avenue Community Development Corporation Mary Lawler, Executive Director The Bridge Over Troubled Waters, Inc. Linda Madeksho, Executive Director De Madres E Madres Sylvia Castillo, Executive Director Dubuis Fund Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Houston Barbara Aires, SC, Coordinator Fifth Ward Community Redevelopment Corporation Kathy Flanagan-Payton, Executive Director Freedmen’s Town Association, Inc. Gladys House, Executive Director/Founder Greater Houston Urban Redevelopment Corporation Andrea Cooksey, Executive Director Greater Park Place Community Development Corporation Antonia Cahn, Executive Director Houston Area Women’s Center Ellen Cohen, Executive Director Houston Endowment Donald Shepard, Grant Officer Northwest Assistance Ministries Rebecca Mathis, Executive Director Pyramid Community Development Corporation Tina Moore, Executive Director Sunnyside Up Community Development Corporation Rick Dyson, Executive Director Toni Lockett, Assistant Direcetor Third Ward Community Development Corporation Marvalette Fentress, Executive Director Woman, Inc. Marion Fischer, President North Carolina Down East Partnership for Children Henrietta Zalkind, Executive Director Rocky Mount Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation Gayle Williams, Executive Director Winston-Salem North Carolina Department of Commerce Susan Perry Cole Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Community Development Raleigh North Carolina Hunger Network Shirley McClain, Executive Director Raleigh North Carolina Institute for Minority Economic Development Andrea Harris, Executive Director Raleigh Passage Home Jeanne Tedrow, Executive Director Raleigh Rocky Mount/Edgecombe Community Development Corporation Joyce Dickens, Executive Director Rocky Mount Self-Help Kate McKee, Associate Director Durham Southerners for Economic Justice Cynthia Brown, Executive Director Durham Warren Family Institute Cathy Lawrence, Executive Director Warrenton West Greenville Community Development Corporation Barbara Fenner, Executive Director Greenville Wilson Community Improvement Association Fannie Corbett, Executive Director Barbara Blackstone Wilson The Women’s Center of Wake County Jean Williams, Executive Director Raleigh Oakland Asian Health Services Sherry Hirota, Executive Director Bridge Carol Galante, CEO Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS) Boona Chema, Executive Director Center for Third World Organizing Rinku Sen, Co-director Community Economic Development Agency Elissa Brown, Title XX Program Manager East Bay Asian Development Corporation Lynette Lee, Executive Director East Bay Spanish Speaking Unity Council Arabella Martinez, Executive Director Enhanced Enterprise Community Community Economic Development Agency Margie Ellis, Board Member Njelela Kwamilele, Policy Board Co-chair Barbara Montgomery, Board Member Queen Thurston, Board Co-chair Kathy Washington, Board Member Family Day Care Training Project Noa Mohlabane, Director Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Foundation Diana Bermudez, Program Officer Jubilee West Gus Newport, Executive Director La Clinica De La Raza Jane Garcia, Executive Director Narcotics Education League Regina Chavarin, Executive Director Oakland Chinese Community Council Corinne Jan, Executive Director National Economic Development and Law Center Jan Stokley, Executive Director National Latina Health Organization Luz Alvarez Martinez Spanish Speaking Citizens Foundation Rosario Flores, Program Manager University Avenue Housing Susan Felix, Executive Director Urban Strategies Council Maria Campbell-Casey, Executive Director Women’s Economic Agenda Project Ethel Longscott, Executive Director Portland, Oregon Bradley-Angle House Jeannie LaFrance, Outreach Program Coordinator Community Development Training Institute Portland State University Prof. Pat Rumer Franciscan Enterprises of Oregon, Inc. Karen Voiss, Executive Director Housing Our Families Alberta Simmons, Founding Member, Board of Directors Low Income Housing for Native Americans Julie Metcalf, Executive Director Neighborhood Partnership Fund Kathy Kniep, Program Officer Neighborhood Pride Team Molly Cooley, Executive Director Oregon Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence Margaret Brown, Executive Director Portland Community Reinvestment Initiative Maxine Fitzpatrick, Executive Director REACH Dee Walsh, Executive Director The Rose Jennifer Nielsen, General Manager Sabin Community Development Corporation Diane Meisenhelter, Executive Director Sisters in Portland Impacting Real Issues Together (SPIRIT) Sandra Davis, Executive Director Technical Assistance for Community Services Kay Sohl, Executive Director Washington, DC Arlington Housing Corporation Lou Ann Frederick, Executive Director Arlington, Virginia Building Futures Kathryn Stephens, Executive Director Julia Moran Morton, Housing Specialist Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation Karen Kinney, Program Officer Coalition of Nonprofit Housing Developers Olive Idehen Akhigbe, Executive Director Martha Davis, Consultant Frederick Douglass Resident Council Brenda Graham, President Hannah House Margaret Bush-Ware, Executive Director Roxanne Murray, Program Director Housing Opportunities for Women Nancy James, Executive Director Mary O’Melveny, Board President Jubilee Enterprise of Greater Washington Louise Stoner Crawford, Program Director Sheila Royster, Director of Community Management Robert Boulter, Executive Director Manna, Inc. Rozanne Look, Director of Housing Development Marshall Heights Community Development Organization Lloyd Smith, Executive Director Ruth Dyson, Vice Chair of Board Aretha Frizzell, Treasurer Natalie Greene, Recording Secretary Miriam’s House Carol Marsh, Executive Director Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. of the National Capital Area Angela White Narain, Executive Director New Columbia Community Land Trust Pamela Jones, Executive Director Vietnamese Resettlement Association Kim Cook, Executive Director Falls Church, Virginia Wider Opportunities for Women Lina Frescas Dobbs, Executive Director Bernadette Gross, Work Skills Program Credits McAuley Institute JoAnn Kane Carolyn Farrow Garland Margaret Grieve Susan Rees Keven Vance Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, the Graduate School and University Center, the City University of New York Marilyn Gittell Isolda Ortega-Bustamante Tracy Steffy Additional Research Assistance Kathe Newman Consultants Dorothy Ettling Colette Winlock Additional staff assistance Heather Burns Alison Campbell Phyllis McDonough Robinson Rhoda Stauffer April Shaw Karen Stults Kathy Tyler Interview Sites Boston, Massachusetts Chicago, Illinois Delta (Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana) El Paso, Texas and colonias in surrounding metropolitan area Houston, Texas North Carolina (Raleigh/Durham, Warrenton, Rocky Mount, Wilson, Greenville) Oakland, California Portland, Oregon Washington, DC Ordering Information Women Creating Social Capital and Social Change: A Study of Women-led Community Development Organizations Full Report, 171 pages, text only Price $6.00 Women as Catalysts for Social Change: A Study of Women-led Community Development Organizations Summary, 56 pages with photography Price $9.00 La Mujer como Agente del Cambio Social: Estudio de Organizaciones de Desarrollo Comunal Dirigidas por Mujeres Summary, 64 pages with photography Price $9.00 Please make checks payable to McAuley Institute For further information regarding ordering, contact McAuley Institute 8300 Colesville Road, Sutie 310 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: 301-588-8110 Fax: 301-588-8110 www.mcauley.org Howard Samules State Management and Policy Center, The Graduate School and The University Center of the City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, Suite 5305 Tel: 212-817-2055 Fax: 212-817-1578 http://web.gc.cuny.edu/howardsamuels Author and Copyright Information Copyright © 1999 McAuley Institute McAuley Institute McAuley Institute is a national Nonprofit housing organization whose mission is to support the work of community-based organizations and their partners to create affordable, accessible housing and communities that celebrate the dignity and vitality of the human spirit. The Institute’s programs focus on organizations led by and benefiting women and their families. McAuley Institute was founded and is sponsored by the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas. Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center Since its founding in 1988, the Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center has become an important source of comparative state and city research and political analysis, especially on education, higher education, economic development and welfare polices. The Center has made the study of advocacy part of its analysis of public policy.