I just read an excellent article by Ann Houston from Chelsea Neighborhood Developers (CND) and Hilary Marcus from Neighborworks America. The article talks about the difficult, yet ultimately productive, process that the CND board of directors went through in deciding whether and how to expand their services to Revere. The article offers important lessons for all CDCs considering a geographic expansion or any other major shift in their organizational strategy or focus.

The major thrust of the article is the importance of discussing the governance implications of expansion early on in the process. For me, however, the the most interesting aspect of the article was the discussion of how important it was for the board to reflect on, and respect, both the sense of loss, and the actual loss that might come from expanding to another city. CND has been focused on serving Chelsea since it was founded and the board members joined the board specifically because of their commitment to Chelsea. Would expanding to Revere dilute that focus? Ann and Hilary talk about how the board approached this question with respect and care. The board ultimately decided that expansion would be good not just for the organization but for both Revere and Chelsea. But part of that process was to mourn in meaningful and tangible ways the loss that inevitably comes with change.

In reading the article, I realized that I often fail to respect that sense of loss and fail to take the time with others to mourn and honor the past. Expansion and change are often necessary and good - but they do not come free. Those who might oppose a particular change or expansion are not simply bad people who are obstructionists or narrow minded. They may simply be fighting for the same community and the same people for whom they have always fought. Their sense of loss is often real - expansion can mean dilution for some communities. This should not necessarily stop change, but it is important to give respect and voice to that which is lost.

I encourage others to read Ann and Hilary's important article. I'm glad I did and I hope to apply its lessons as MACDC continues to change and evolve in the coming years. Mourning loss and change may be the key to our future growth and success.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post ran  a series of articles alleging widespread failures in the federal HOME program administered by HUD and hundreds of local and state government agencies. The articles claim that hundreds of projects have died, millions of dollars have been wasted and that HUD and local housing agencies have failed to protect the taxpayer's money.

The articles certainly uncover some distressing stories and clearly HUD and our local housing agencies need to do a better job. The story also underscores the importance of providing non profit developers with support, oversight and capacity building services - especially during challenging economic times like these.

However, the Washington Post articles do the country a dis-service by grossly exaggerating the problems and failing to put the small number of problem projects in the context of the one million homes developed by this program over the years. Even Adrian Gonzalez strikes out occassionally and we cannot expect a federal program with thousands of projects underway across the entire country to never have any problems - especially during the worst real estate market since the Great Depression.

Perhaps the most glaring error is the claim that 1 in 7 HOME projects are delayed when in fact less than 2.5% are delayed, and most of those have either been resumed or are delayed due to market conditions. This is not a minor mistake. Check out HUD's response to the Post for more factual errors in the article.

By failing to get its facts right and by failing to put the problems in the context of the overall track record of the program, Post demonstrates either laziness or a desire to create a scandal where none exists. It is unfortunate that the Post seems eager to jump on the "government is broken" bandwagon, especially when articles like this will create real harm for struggling families and communities.

MACDC staff and leaders will be joining with our NACEDA colleagues to take this message to Congress during our annual NACEDA Summit this week. Let's hope our elected representatives take the time to look at the facts and not just the headlines.

The Community Development Innovation Forum has helped to spur numerous efforts to expand and deepen collaboration with the goal of improving effectiveness and efficiency in the sector. With the help of new funding from Citi and Bank of America, MACDC is now leading a major planning effort to explore the efficacy and viability of a statewide partnership among CDCs and others who provide technical assistance to local entrepreneurs.

For years, MACDC members have helped entrepreneurs start, grow and sustain small businesses that provide jobs and opportunity for local communities. In 2010, our members served over 2,000 entrepreneurs develop business plans, find new locations and markets, access financing and deal with the slumping economy. CDCs have frequently partnered in these efforts with each other and with other organizations such as Small Business Development Centers, local governments, banks, and CDFIs (many of our members are CDFIs themselves.) Perhaps the most sustained and deepest of these partnerships has been the Community Business Network in Boston through which several CDCs have worked together since the mid 1990s.

Earlier this year, MACDC received funding from Citi and Bank of America to explore the potential for a statewide partnership that builds and expands on these earlier efforts. We formed a planning committee comprised of practitioners, public officials, bankers and scholars to guide our planning effort and hired two experienced consultants, Leslie Belay and Jason Friedman, to conduct research, planning and program design work.  Jason is examining best practices around the country and Leslie is conducting interviews and focus groups with stakeholders here in Massachusetts. At a recent meeting with the SBA and their partners, national SBA Administrator Karen Mills joined the meeting and voiced her strong support of the effort and specifically encouraged SBA partners like the SBDCs to partner with CDCs and vice versa.

The planning efforts has already identified several areas where collaboration could yield significant benefits. These could include: shared information technology and outcome measurement systems; shared protocols for intake, assessment and business plan assistance, shared expertise in specific sectors or areas of support (e.g. food industry, or green technologies); shared market research that would provide local businesses with access to better market data; joint partnerships with other organizations, professional development and training for practitioners, joint fundraising, and special projects.

We expect the planning process to proceed through the summer with the hopes of making a determination by early Fall as to whether such a Partnership makes sense. If we decide to move ahead, the next stage will include fundraising, recruitment of the initial class of members, and refinement of the program design, structure and services.

If you are interested in learning more or getting involved, please contact me.