If you are interested in learning how to get involved in community development efforts within the Capital District, consider checking out one or both of these community meetings this week:
Housing For All, Today, June 18th, at 5:30 pm, 255 Orange Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room, Albany, NY 12210. Housing For All is a community coalition group advocating for policies that will preserve or create access to affordable housing in Albany. If you are interested in housing issues, this meeting might be of interest to you.
South End Community Collaborative Meeting, Wednesday, June 20th, at 6:00 pm, Giffen Memorial Elementary School, 274 S. Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12202. A coalition of South End organizations and residents are coming together to discuss opportunities to bring about radical change within their community. During the meeting, there will be workgroups focusing on: a) youth and community development; b) environmental justice & health; and c) economic development & housing.
If you are interested in sharing any other community meetings, please feel free to email the information to David Craft, Albany Law Community Development Clinic Fellow, at dcraf@albanylaw.edu.
By: David Craft, Community Development Clinic Fellow
Inner-city neighborhoods have the capacity to collectively take ownership of development within their own communities. Community members, with facilitation by local government officials, spend extensive time and money creating comprehensive plans to shape the development goals for their neighborhoods. However, the actual development efforts are traditionally handled by developers who are not rooted within the community. The same process that traditional developers/investors use to conduct development or rehab projects within inner-city neighborhoods can be accomplished by the residents and groups already living in those communities. Through organizational structures such as real estate investment cooperatives, real estate investment trusts or community land trusts, a community can implement the goals from their comprehensive plans and have ownership of their own community assets. Additionally, community-owned development can slow down some of the issues (gentrification, flipping, real estate speculation, loss of community identity) that grow exponentially with the increased development from the “back-to-city movement”. Some examples of community-owned real estate structures include:
NYCREIC-a New York Not-for-Profit Corporation, based in NYC, that invests in real estate to create long-term affordable community-controlled space for cooperative enterprise, art, culture, and organizing. Individuals can become members by contributing a one-time fee of $10.00 which provides them with full voting rights. The purpose of using this organizational form is not to create wealth for community members but rather give them the opportunity to stabilize their neighborhoods and ensure there’s affordable space for civic, cultural and cooperative uses in their communities.
Pros: Very low buy-in (one-time contribution of at least $10). Members all have one vote regardless of initial contribution. Ran by a board which means no single individual can control the organization and nobody can use the organization to solely benefit themselves.
Con: Organized under state Not-for-Profit law which requires the profits made by the organization to stay within the nonprofit and cannot pass to the members.
Northeast Investment Cooperative-a real estate development cooperative in Minnesota that allows community members to become owners and investors in a cooperative that buys and rehab properties in their community. The purpose of using this organizational form is to give every member a vote on the types of amenities and service options within their community and provide a return on their investment.
Pros: All members have one vote regardless of their investment. Operates as a for-profit entity which allows the members to get a return through dividends and selling their shares.
Cons: High buy-in (minimum buy-in $1,000).
Community Investment Trust Program-provides a low-dollar investment opportunity in commercial property to local residents. Residents must complete a financial literacy course before becoming a member. Annual dividends are paid from profits of the building and the shares change value as the value of the property appreciates and the loan on the property is paid down. The purpose of this model is to provide residents an opportunity to invest in the commercial real estate (already purchased and operating by a community-based institution) within their own communities.
Pros: Minimum investment ($10, $25, $50, or $100 every month). Members profit from annual dividends and changes in shares value when property appreciates and loan on the property is paid down. Restricted only to individuals living in a specific zip-code.
Cons: Requires an institution to make a large up-front investment in purchasing the property.
Lack of financial resources does not have to be a hindrance to communities when deciding to take on development or rehab project. Many developers/investors will tap “OPM” (other people’s money) when taking on a real estate project. With the political power that a community can collectively harness, many funding resources will become available for projects. For example, Miracle on Craig Street, a group of community residents from the Hamilton Hill neighborhood of Schenectady, NY want to re-open a community center that was foreclosed by the City of Schenectady. Miracle on Craig Street is a client of the Albany Law Community Development Clinic. Initially, they raised $30K through community donations. Since then, the group has learned about other potential funding sources (i.e., government, private foundations, etc.) that are available for the group’s project. Communities have the opportunities to collectively bring the amenities and services to their areas. However, time will play an issue when it comes to community-led development efforts.
The longer it takes for decisions to be made in real estate, the more expensive it becomes to complete the project or the more likely the property ends up in another developer/investor’s possession. With a community-led development effort, time could become an issue when more people are required to approve issues that could arise during a real estate project. However, community-led development can avoid the political issues that traditional developers face when pursuing a development project. Depending on the government approvals needed for a project, traditional developers have to spend time obtaining community support and support from elected officials when seeking approvals for their projects. A community-led development project would have the community-backing from the beginning and elected officials would be more inclined to support the projects of its constituents compared to out-of-town developer/investor.
Too often, the focus of community and economic development in low-income communities is to bring developers from outside the community and give them every single subsidy possible to develop within the community. However, we have seen of how these same developers will abandon those communities when it does not fit their bottom line. Why not flip the script and give the resilient residents and groups a bigger share of the resources to bring their own plans to fruition?
Fiscal sponsorship can be one of the most valuable tools to community development, and yet it is relatively unknown to the average person venturing to start a non-profit. Fiscal sponsorship allows a “project” (any non-profit venture that would qualify for its own 501(c)(3) tax exemption) to take on the tax-exempt status of a “fiscal sponsor” (any entity that already has 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status that agrees to fiscally sponsor the project). Through fiscal sponsorship, a project can save the time, money, and headaches that come with incorporating as a nonprofit and filing for tax-exempt status and instead put those resources into the project itself. The fiscal sponsor will generally take a portion (typically 5-15%) of the funds raised for the project to go towards the cost of administration of the project.
Why consider fiscal sponsorship? The benefits of fiscal sponsorship are seemingly endless. Incorporating and obtaining 501(c)(3) status can be costly and time-consuming. Filing the IRS Form 1023 currently costs $600 and can take an average of 11 months to receive a determination letter. Even for projects eligible to file the IRS’s short-form application, Form 1023-EZ, the fee is still $275. When those costs are added to the $75 fee to incorporate as a not-for-profit in New York state, a project is looking at a $350-$675 bill before it has conducted any charitable activities. For short-term projects, going through the long process of incorporating and obtaining independent 501(c)(3) status may not be realistic. For other projects that are just starting out, the money to file with the Department of State and IRS is often better used for furthering the project’s charitable activities. Fiscal sponsorship also provides an opportunity for a new project to test its viability without bureaucratic hurdles. If a fiscally sponsored project does not work out, it is much easier and faster to phase out a project than it is to dissolve a not-for-profit corporation. If things do work out for a project, there will be greater resources available if the project decides to seek its own tax-exempt status down the road.
But fiscal sponsorship is not only for short-term or new projects. There are some projects that have remained in fiscal sponsorship arrangements for years. These long-term projects have found that the benefits of less administration and reporting requirements allow them to focus more energy and resources on the charitable purposes of the project.
Types of fiscal sponsorship arrangements. There are several ways to arrange the fiscal sponsorship relationship. Some arrangements involve the fiscal sponsor taking the project “in-house” and administering it using employees, volunteers, and agents of the fiscal sponsor. For other types of arrangements, the project remains with a separate entity (typically either an unincorporated association or a not-for-profit corporation that has not yet obtained its own tax-exempt status) but is funded by the fiscal sponsor through a series of grants. There are benefits and drawbacks to each type of arrangement, but having different options can give the project and fiscal sponsor flexibility to consider the needs of the project and plan accordingly.
In any type of valid fiscal sponsorship arrangement, the sponsor is legally required to retain complete discretion and control over any funds raised. This is known as the sponsor’s “variance power” and variance power prevents the fiscal sponsorship relationship from being a mere conduit prohibited under the Internal Revenue Code.
What to look for in a fiscal sponsor. If your project decides that fiscal sponsorship could be a good fit for its goals and needs, you will want to reach out and begin communications with potential fiscal sponsors. Practically speaking, any 501(c)(3) can provide fiscal sponsorship, but there are some key traits to look for to increase the likelihood of a successful partnership:
Financial and organizational health. You will be trusting this organization to collect donations to later be used for your project. Poor financial or organizational health is a red flag signaling that this organization may not be a good choice for a fiscal sponsor.
Exempt purposes aligned with the purposes of the project. In order for an organization to provide fiscal sponsorship to a project, the mission of the project must further the mission of the fiscal sponsor, as determined by the fiscal sponsor’s organizing documents. In many cases, the mission of a potential fiscal sponsor will be broad enough to encompass many potential projects.
Experience as a fiscal sponsor. While this is not a requirement, it can be beneficial if your fiscal sponsor is familiar with the mechanics of the relationship. At a minimum, you will want to verify that a potential fiscal sponsor is aware of and ready to comply with its legal responsibilities as a fiscal sponsor.
Key personnel. A great fiscal sponsorship relationship can provide the project and its staff with mentorship as it enters the non-profit sector. Evaluate whether potential fiscal sponsors’ contact persons are likely to provide the support your project may need.
Creating a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Once you have found the right match who is willing to be a fiscal sponsor to your project, you will want to reduce the arrangement to a contract. At a minimum, the contract should outline fees, the variance power of the fiscal sponsor, and an exit provision where the project can be moved to another 501(c)(3) organization (whether that be to a different fiscal sponsor, or to an organization of the project’s founders who subsequently attain 501(c)(3) status).
For 501(c)(3) organizations. For firmly established and stable organizations in the Capital Region that already have 501(c)(3) status, fiscal sponsorship presents a great opportunity to broaden their impact and diversify their activities by becoming fiscal sponsors for local projects. There are far fewer visible fiscal sponsors in the Capital Region than, for example, in New York City. Greater visibility of fiscal sponsors could lead to development of more nonprofit projects as project founders are able to see more financially realistic ways of getting their project off the ground.
Capital Region Fiscal Sponsors. The following organizations provide fiscal sponsorship in the greater Capital Region area:
Innovative Charitable Initiatives, Inc., a subsidiary of the New York Council of Nonprofits (NYCON) (Albany, NY): http://www.nycon.org
Center for Transformative Action (Ithaca, NY): http://www.centerfortransformativeaction.org
Sarah Besson is a 2018 J.D. Candidate at Albany Law School and serves as Executive Editor for Lead Articles on the Albany Law Review. In addition, Sarah is an intern with the Community Development Clinic for the current Spring 2018 semester.
Recently, I attended a community event hosted by several grassroots groups in Albany about criminal justice reform. The event focused on the need for statewide reform to bail, discovery and speedy trial. Criminal justice reform issues have been discussed throughout this current state legislative session. Particularly, the issue of the eliminating or reforming the cash bail system has come up throughout the nation (i.e., New York, California, New Jersey, Texas). Hopefully, there will be no need for this post in a few months. With advocacy efforts ramping up to bring about the elimination of the cash bail system, there are still many legally innocent individuals sitting in the Albany County jail. When I say “legally innocent”, I mean those individuals who have not been convicted of a crime but are detained in jails because they cannot afford to pay for their release while awaiting trial. Earlier this week, the New York Civil Liberties Union released a report called “Presumed Innocent for a Price” which looked at some counties across New York, including Albany, to show how many legally innocent individuals remain detained for prolonged periods of time while awaiting their trials. Rather than go into full detail of the report, I will just highlight some key statistics about Albany. From 2010 to 2014, 46% of pre-trial detainees spent more than 7 days in jail. In that same time period, white detainees were nearly twice as likely to be released the same day their bail was set compared to black detainees. Additionally, the bail for two-thirds of individuals detained for days and weeks was less than $2,500. Communities across the Capital Region have the capability to work together to help free their legally innocent neighbors from detention. Again, I reiterate that the only solution to the issue of cash bail is to completely eliminate the system. For those communities and legally innocent individuals sitting in Albany County jail who cannot wait for change, your collective efforts can help free your neighbors from bondage.
Community bail funds provide a means for communities to band their resources and free legally innocent people from pre-trial detention so that these individuals have a fair chance to prepare for their own defense. Communities in Brooklyn, Bronx, Philadelphia, and other cities have created community bail funds, and there is also a national network that has resources for communities who want to create their own community bail fund. In 2012, New York passed a law allowing for charitable organizations to pay for the bail of individuals who cannot afford to pay bail on their own. However, the law places restrictions on the amount of bail (only bail set at less than $2,000) and the types of offenses. Even with these restrictions, there are thousands of low-income individuals sitting in Albany County Jail for prolonged periods on low-level offenses or infractions due to their inability to pay a bail of a few hundred dollars. Thus, the community bail funds can make an impact and there are examples of how other community bail funds have impacted their communities. If communities decide to take on the initiative of creating their own fund, they should keep the following matters in mind:
Have an exit strategy from the beginning of the community bail fund. As mentioned before, I hope there will not be a need for this post in a few months so long as state government takes action to eliminate the cash bail system. If communities decide to create charitable bail funds or another nonprofit decides to take on the initiative, the organization has to be aware of New York’s Not-for-Profit Corporation laws which govern New York nonprofits and what happens with the assets of the organization. When the purpose of the community bail fund comes to an end, the community bail fund would need to make sure that the assets (in this case the funds) are either put to another charitable purpose that aligns with the organization’s original intent or distributed to another nonprofit organization with a similar purpose.
Be careful not to engage in any substantial lobbying or any electioneering activities or share a substantial amount of your resources with an organization engaged in lobbying or electioneering activities. Under New York’s Charitable Bail Bonds statute, charitable groups registered as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are allowed to create bail funds. The Internal Revenue Code restricts the amount of lobbying (seeking to influence a public official on an issue) activities a 501(c)(3) organization can conduct and completely bars an organization from electioneering (taking a position on a particular candidate). While it can be an effective strategy for a community bail fund to partner up with an advocacy organization in getting out the message about eliminating the cash bail system, it is important to not devote a substantial portion of your activities or resources to the advocacy efforts. With the midterm elections nearing, it is also important to be mindful for a community bail fund or 501(c)(3) organization to not conduct any communications that can be deemed to be taking a position on a particular candidate.
Partner with organizations who work with indigent individuals to ensure those in need are the ones getting help. Charitable bail funds must be charitable in nature. Thus, they must serve the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged. By creating referral systems and partnerships with organizations that are already providing services to the indigent (i.e., Center for Law & Justice, Community Fathers, Inc., Albany County Public Defender), the bail fund will ensure that it is providing services to the ones in most need and create a network to connect individuals with services offered by other organizations.
Kellie Roe, Executive Director of Second Chance Opportunities, Inc.
Second Chance Opportunities, Inc., (“Second Chance”) is a nonprofit organization located in Albany, New York. The organization’s mission is to assist and support people who are recovering from substance use disorder. Kellie Roe, the Executive Director, spoke with the Albany Law Community Development Clinic which is currently assisting Second Chance about the early beginnings of the organizations and its work in the community.
Kellie Roe is a wife and mother and a person in long-term recovery. To Kellie, what that means is that she has not had a drink or drug since February 6, 1995. Kellie considers it a privilege to be the Executive Director of Second Chance and loves the work that she does through the organization. But, Kellie did not originally find Second Chance.
Kellie’s husband, Brian Roe, and a couple of his friends founded Second Chance Opportunities in October of 2001. At that time, Kellie and her husband had full-time jobs at another not-for-profit which also worked with individuals in early-stage recovery. Kellie worked at that organization until 2011 when she was asked to become the Executive Director of Second Chance. When Kellie came on as the Executive Director, the organization was merely a shell with just a name and Kellie’s personal computer. Soon after Kellie took over the leadership within the organization, Second Chance was able to obtain its first janitorial contract at DMV in downtown Albany. Kellie’s role with Second Chance is her first and only executive role in any organization. It has been through mentorship that she has received from individuals like Liz Hitt, the Executive Director of Homeless and Travelers Aid Society, and Mickey Jimenez, the director of Camino Nuevo, which helped Kellie grow Second Chance into a completely self-supporting nonprofit that generates $500,000 in revenue, provides supportive housing, and employs or find job opportunities for at least 70 individuals in early-stage recovery. Second Chance prides itself on being a fully self-supporting organization because it gives them the flexibility in being the bridge for people to go from treatment to life in solid recovery. Second Chance provides a gamut of services to individuals in recovery (i.e., housing, education, employment, medical, hygiene, food, etc.), but the two main services that stand out are the housing and employment opportunities they provide to individuals in early-stage recovery.
Housing
In 2007, Kellie and her husband, Brian, personally acquired 3 two-family houses in Albany which were significantly inexpensive and did not require much capital to own. Initially, it was not the intention of Kellie and Brian to provide housing to people in recovery. It came about as a result of Kellie encountering individuals coming out of treatment needing a place to live. When people come out of recovery, Kellie normally finds that they have nothing but a plastic bag with clothes. The Department of Social Services (DSS) will help individuals with their first month’s rent but the payment generally maxes out at $350. The median gross rent in the City of Albany was $895 in 2016. Based on Kellie’s numerous encounters with individuals coming out of treatment in need of housing, Kellie and Brian decided to use two of the family homes that they acquired to house people in early-stage recovery. When a bed is available, individuals are welcome to stay in the home. Generally, Second Chance will work to decorate the room (i.e., provide a bed, dresser, desk, television, hangers, hamper, etc.). If an individual is in need of toiletries or clothing, Second Chance will provide individuals with the items they need and take an individual shopping for personal supplies (i.e., clothing). Initially, the individual is only charged $350 for rent. Kellie understands the huge undertaking it is for an individual coming out of treatment to find housing and most people are isolated from their friends at that critical time. Thus, Kellie believes in not creating a situation where individuals in early-stage recovery owe for anything. Even as individuals gain employment and obtain better-paying jobs, their rent maxes out at $450 per month plus $50-$60 per month for utilities, if the individual can afford to pay it. There’s no time limit for how long an individual can stay in the home. Kellie finds that by keeping their housing costs low, these individuals can accomplish other goals in life such as repairing their credit, going back to school, or saving up to afford their own apartment or even purchase their own home. Since Second Chance has started housing individuals, two individuals have been able to purchase their own homes and many others have gone on to rent their own places.
It is Second Chance’s goal to create more opportunities to provide supportive housing to many more individuals in early stage recovery. In April of 2013, Second Chance had the opportunity to buy 13 properties on one street. The goal was to provide these properties as supportive housing for more individuals in early-stage recovery, specifically women, and families which have very little access to supportive housing in the Capital District. For 18 months, Second Chance tried to find partners and resources in order to acquire the properties. After 18 months, the organization was not able to find partners so Kellie and Brian purchased the properties personally. The properties are not currently being used as supportive housing, but it is the organization’s goal to find resources to help subsidize the property taxes and other costs in order to provide these properties as supportive housing to individuals in early stage recovery.
Employment
Second Chance also works with individuals in early-stage recovery by providing job training and employing in their janitorial contracts. Second Chance will also work with other companies to help find jobs for individuals not interested in working in janitorial services. . Most of the janitorial contracts that Second Chance have are with state or county agencies which are beneficial since these contracts require paying prevailing wages (full time=$15.68/hr part-time=$11.75/hr).
Recovery Community Center
Second Chance has been working on obtaining a particular property to turn into a recovery community center. The property was originally owned by a nonprofit before it was foreclosed upon and its Second Chance’s goal to obtain this property since it is off the property tax-rolls because it would give the organization the ability to provide its current services on a bigger scale and expand into providing other services. Second Chance’s goal is to create a safe place where people in early-stage recovery can go when they have lots of downtime during the day and face fears of relapsing. Within this property, Second Chance wants to provide many types of classes, including but not limited to, lifestyle classes, classes on owning a home, classes on parenting and sobriety, and classes of repairing relationships. Second Chance plans on also using the space as a place where parents and families of individuals in crisis can go to get information and support since addiction can affect not just individuals but their families as well.
Leading Second Chance has provided Kellie and her staff the opportunity to explore creative ways to continue to fulfill their mission of acting as a bridge for people going from treatment to a life in full recovery. Last year, Second Chance tried its hand at fundraising and was able to raise $5,000 but the cost of running the fundraiser at $4,500 which left them with only $500. Still, everyone at the organization had a great time learning how to fundraise and they feel that they all play a key role in helping shape the organization’s future.
During my early experience in the Community Development Clinic, I have had the privilege to work with and encounter many individuals and groups taking on initiatives impacting their communities. The individuals and groups that I have had the opportunity to work with throughout the Capital Region provide a source of inspiration for my day-to-day work. However, I have noticed that some of the issues being tackled are too large or complex for a single or even few organizations to handle by themselves. Additionally, the issues that individuals and groups are tackling (i.e., affordable housing, blight, criminal justice, unemployment, lack of minority-owned businesses, environmental justice, lack of community resources and public services, inadequate public education, etc.) are not unique to any particular community but rather are present in all disadvantaged communities throughout the Capital Region. The similarity of the issues and the bootstrapping mentality present in disadvantaged communities point to the need for coalition building in the Capital Region.
.
The Center for Community Health and Development (the “Center”) defines “community coalition” as a group of individuals and organizations with a common interest who agree to work together toward a common goal. The Center provides a toolkit on starting and maintaining a community coalition. Some of the key takeaways from The Center’s toolkit that I find important to effective coalition building:
A common barrier to the formation of effective community coalitions is domination by professionals or some other elite. The Center states, “all too often, agency people with advanced degrees, local politicians, business leaders, and others, in their rush to solve problems or to ‘help the disadvantaged,’ neglect to involve the people most affectedby the issue at hand and other community members. The issue of lack of substantial community involvement and domination by elite occurs often around community benefits agreements with development projects. Julian Gross, a San-Francisco based nonprofit lawyer, defines community benefits agreement as a contract that sets forth a range of community benefits regarding a development project and resulting from substantial community involvement. In his article, “Community Benefits Agreements: Definitions, Values, and Legal Enforceability”, Julian addresses the issue with lack of substantial community involvement in determining community benefits for a development project. The article points to the Bronx Terminal agreement; Yankee Stadium agreement; and Columbia University agreement as examples of where local elected officials negotiated the benefits to be provided by a developer without involving the community that would ultimately be affected by the development. Groups and individuals from all sectors of a particular community through a community coalition can bear enough political pressure on local officials to create a seat at the discussion table for development projects.
When thinking about who should be part of a coalition, The Center advises including “formal and informal helpers who are charged with carrying out community functions related to the issue, and others affected by what the coalition might do.” For instance, the Center recommends that staffs of health and human service providers; school personnel, local employers, landowners, etc. should be directly or indirectly involved in the results of coalition initiatives.
Creating community coalitions are important because it provides consistency in addressing community issues and it empowers the community as a whole to take control of its future. The Partnership For Working Families (“PFWF”) is a national network of leading regional advocacy organizations who support innovative solutions to our nation’s economic and environmental problems. In their article about community benefits agreements, PFWF notes that a key indicator that can impact the effectiveness of community benefits agreements is the use of “divide and conquer” tactics by developers. In fractured communities, developers, and even local officials in some cases, will use the tactic, “to appease some community groups that could be more easily swayed or negotiated with, while excluding and shutting out of the decision-making process groups that were more critical of the project or that represented residents most vulnerable to the consequences of the development.” Through the formation of a community coalition with substantial community involvement, developers and local officials cannot easily deploy this tactic because there will be a consistent message as to the issues and solutions supported by the community.
Coalitions can be loose associations in which members work for a short time to achieve a specific goal and then disband. Coalitions can also become organizations in themselves, with governing bodies, particular community responsibilities, funding and permanence. Regardless of whether the coalition chooses to operate as a loose association or a wholly new organization, it is important to create committees (i.e., environmental committee, workforce development committee, etc.) so that individuals and groups can contribute their expertise to the coalition and feel included in the coalition’s efforts.
The people I have encountered in the Capital Region have the bootstrapping mentality and grit to take the large and complex issues impacting their communities. The use of community coalitions can be effective in bringing about permanent results to the large and complex issues that are similar to many disadvantaged communities throughout the Capital Region yet whose efforts are isolated to their own enclaves.
