Community Action Leaders

Rooting Out Poverty at the Local Level

Beverly Bunch, Dalitso Sulamoyo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317191872
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Affairs & Administration
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Nationwide, approximately 1, 000 Community Action agencies advocate for the poor and provide diverse but critical services such as (but not limited to) emergency food and shelter, energy bill assistance, weatherization, education, job training, transportation, housing, and health services. In the face of dynamic environments and shifting poverty needs, Community Action agencies are constantly seeking innovative ways to effectively address poverty in their communities while building their internal capacity to ensure sustained impact and outcomes. This book focuses on the major leadership roles and responsibilities of the Community Action leaders, the types of challenges they face, and how they address those challenges, covering questions such as:

• 
  
  

• How do Community Action leaders identify the needs of low-income people and use that knowledge to tailor programs to meet those needs?
• In what ways are low-income people involved in Community Action agencies (e.g. board or advisory council members, volunteers, employees, advocates)? What are the advantages and disadvantages associated with their participation?
• How do the leaders and their staff assess and demonstrate the effectiveness of their organizations and programs? What challenges do they encounter in assessing and communicating performance?
• What approaches are Community Action leaders using to diversify their revenues? What are the advantages and challenges associated with those approaches?
• How are the leaders developing their staffs and preparing for leadership succession?
• How do the leaders benefit from an affiliation with state and national associations?

Through original and comprehensive research undertaken by the Center for State Policy and Leadership at the University of Illinois Springfield and the Illinois Association of Community Action Agencies (IACAA), this book is designed to inform and enhance leadership in Community Action agencies and other nonprofit or government organizations with similar missions. It is written in a nontechnical manner and includes a chapter on the history and evolution of Community Action agencies for readers who are unfamiliar with Community Action and the War on Poverty. It will be required reading for professionals working at the frontlines of income inequality, as well as university professors and their students in the fields of public administration, nonprofit management, and social work.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315563497-1

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 created Community Action agencies to root out poverty at the local level. As part of the War on Poverty, these agencies were to tailor their approaches to meet the needs of their local communities. Today, more than 50 years later, approximately 1,000 local Community Action agencies nationwide advocate, provide services, and mobilize communities to help low-income individuals and families become more self-sufficient. The majority of the local Community Action agencies (about 85 percent) are nonprofit organizations, whereas the remainder operate as units of local government.

Poverty is a complex and lingering problem. Nationwide, about 46.7 million Americans lived in poverty in 2014, including 15.5 million children. The official poverty rate was 14.8 percent, although the rates were higher for minorities (26.2 percent for blacks and 23.6 percent for Hispanics) and for children under the age of 18 (21.1 percent) (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015).

Community Action agencies serve a diverse clientele, including people of different ages, race/ethnicity, and backgrounds with varying needs. For example, a young mother in an urban area may need education, employment training, and childcare services, whereas a low-income senior citizen in a rural area may need health-care services and transportation. During the Great Recession, the agencies served a new type of client—those who found themselves in poverty for the first time as a result of losing their jobs or homes.

Like many nonprofit organizations, Community Action agencies face funding challenges. Their main source of revenue is federal grants; however, federal funding is subject to the uncertainties associated with annual congressional appropriations and often comes with restrictions on how the funds can be used. The federal government, as well as other funders, is demanding better performance indicators or evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of Community Action agencies and their programs. In addition, some federal grant programs are becoming more competitive.

Many Community Action agencies also are faced with retirement of baby-boomer leaders, many of whom have been with Community Action for two or three decades. The retirement of these leaders leaves a gap in experience and knowledge, but can also result in opportunities for new ideas and approaches. The agencies are working together to identify, train, and develop new leaders.

The local leaders of Community Action agencies play an important role in helping their agencies respond to these internal and external challenges. A leader can work with the board members and staff to develop a vision for the agency. The leader also plays a critical role in the acquisition and development of resources needed to achieve that vision. A leader needs to ensure that the Community Action programs meet the needs of the community and are in compliance with funder requirements. And the leader needs to develop strategies for the agency to remain fiscally sustainable in both the short-run and the future.

This book presents the results of a study of local Community Action agency leaders in a six-state region comprised of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. This region has 185 Community Action agencies, the majority (88 percent) of which are nonprofit organizations (the remainder are part of a unit of local government). This book shares the perspectives and experience of these leaders, drawing on information obtained through a survey of local Community Action leaders and interviews with Community Action leaders.

This book describes the major leadership roles, responsibilities, and strengths of the local Community Action leaders; the types of challenges they face; and how they address leadership issues related to their staff, board, clients, funders, and other organizations within their communities. It addresses critical questions, such as: How do Community Action leaders identify the needs of low-income people and use that knowledge to tailor programs to meet those needs? To what extent and in what ways are low-income people involved in Community Action agencies? How are Community Action leaders preparing for a possible reduction in federal grants? What type of collaborations do they find useful in addressing the needs of their clients and communities? What approaches are they using to develop their staff and prepare for leadership succession? And how do they benefit from an affiliation with state and national associations?

The rest of this chapter provides an overview of Community Action agencies, discusses the similarities and differences between Community Action agencies and other organizations that provide similar services, and describes the approach used in this study. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the audiences for this book, as well as the organization of the book.

An Overview of Community Action Agencies

Community Action agencies are guided by the Community Action promise which states:

Community Action changes people’s lives, embodies the spirit of hope, improves communities, and makes America a better place to live. We care about the entire community, and we are dedicated to helping people help themselves and each other.

(Community Action Partnership, n.d.)

Community Action agencies were established based on the principles that each agency would: (1) tailor its services to local needs; (2) take a holistic approach to addressing the needs of low-income individuals, families, and communities; and (3) facilitate “maximum feasible participation of residents of the areas and members of the groups served” (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Section 202). As a condition of receiving federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds, which are one of the most important sources of revenue for local Community Action agencies, the agencies are required to conduct a local community needs assessment and develop an action plan to address those needs.

Community Action agencies are also required to have a tripartite board whose members must include at least one-third low-income people or their representatives and one-third elected government officials or their appointees. The remaining board members come from the community and may include representatives of businesses, labor, nonprofit organizations, and other community organizations. Nationwide, the average size of a Community Action agency board is 25 members (Community Action Partnership, n.d.).

Most Community Action agencies are heavily dependent on federal grants and, to a lesser extent, state grants. For some Community Action agencies, federal and state grants combined account for as much as 80–90 percent or more of an agency’s total revenues. Other revenue sources vary by agency and may include funding from local governments, foundations, the United Way, corporations, private donors, fundraisers, as well as revenues from programs that charge fees or operate on a cost-reimbursement basis.

Community Action Agencies Compared to Other Nonprofit and Governmental Organizations

Many of the challenges and opportunities Community Action agencies encounter are similar to those of other nonprofit and governmental organizations that provide similar services. However, there also are major differences between Community Action agencies and other organizations. This section provides an overview of the similarities and differences.

Similarities

Community Action agencies, like other organizations in the social sector, are mission driven. The mission of Community Action is compelling and inspiring. Many people who work in Community Action see their work as more than a job—it is a calling, a passion, or an honor. However, over time, some agencies have found that new and younger staff are less informed about the history of Community Action and may feel less attached to the intrinsic rewards from serving others. Extrinsic rewards, such as competitive salaries and fringe benefits, may be more important to some employees.

The Community Action agencies that are nonprofit organizations are governed by a board of directors. The executive director reports to the board, but also plays an important role in educating and training the board members. Board members can bring ideas, connections, and resources to the agency; however, as with most governing boards, there may be variations in levels of engagement and commitment among the board members. There may also be differing perspectives among board members, which can be an asset, but also may present challenges for a leader.

The Community Action agencies that are units of local government are governed by a publicly elected body such as a county board or a city council. The leader of the Community Action agency reports to either the mayor or chief executive of a city or the county board chairperson. These Community Action agencies are still required to have a tripartite board that participates in the development, planning, and evaluation of the Community Action programs; however, the board serves in an advisory capacity. Although the Community Action agency leader works closely with the advisory body on Community Action issues, the leader is not hired by members of that body and does not report directly to that body. This can present a different set of challenges for the Community Action leader, especially if there is conflict or tension between the governing body and the advisory body.

Community Action agencies also share similarities with other providers of social services in terms of the challenges associated with measuring program effectiveness. Historically, Community Action agencies have utilized vignettes illustrating how individuals or families have benefited from Community Action services. Since 2005, the agencies have been mandated by federal requirements associated with CSBG funds to report data for a series of national performance indicators.

Increasingly funders, such as the federal government, are calling for evidence-based measures of effectiveness. For agencies that provide social services this can be challenging, as progress may occur over multiple years and it can be challenging to track current and past clients, as well as a control group, over time. Plus, the manner in which existing data are maintained may make it difficult to segregate the impact of one program from the effects of other programs or from the combined effects of multiple programs.

Community Action agencies, like many other social sector organizations, collaborate with other organizations. The agencies identify gaps in service provisions in their communities and then strategize about how to address those gaps either through direct service provision or by working with other service providers in the community. The agencies also make referrals to and receive referrals from other nonprofit and governmental entities.

Community Action agencies face funding challenges. Increasingly Community Action agencies are seeking alternative funding sources based on the concern that federal funds for existing programs are uncertain and may be insufficient to sustain Community Action agencies in the future. Some Community Action agencies are pursuing new types of grants, such as those associated with the Affordable Care Act, or increased funding from foundations. Others are venturing into services that will result in the generation of fees or reimbursement of costs. This is similar to what is occurring in other nonprofit organizations. A survey of nonprofit organizations conducted in 2015 found that 26 percent of the respondents plan to change the main ways in which they raise and spend money, while 20 percent of the respondents plan to pursue an earned income venture (Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2015).

Community Action agencies, like other social-sector organizations that receive federal or state grants, are subject to numerous grant requirements. This includes documentation of eligibility criteria, financial and performance reporting requirements, and federal audits, standards, rules, and regulations. These requirements impact the allocation of staff resources and require the local leaders to stay current on requirements and proposed changes.

Community Action agencies have state and national associations that provide training and technical assistance to the local agencies and advocate at the state and national level on their behalf. However, unlike nonprofit organizations such as the Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity, there is less widespread awareness of the national Community Action network. This is at least partially attributable to the fact that many Community Action agencies do not have the words “Community Action” in the name of their agencies. People may not realize that organizations with widely varying names such as Lincoln Hills Development Corporation, the Peoria Citizens Co...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Frontmatter Page
• Half Title Page
• Frontmatter Page 01
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Boxes
• List of Featured Leaders
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction—BEVERLY S. BUNCH, DALITSO S. SULAMOYO, J. TRAVIS BLAND, AARON M. ITUYLA, LORENA JOHNSON, AND JUNFENG WANG
• 2 Understanding the Origins and Evolution of Community Action—BEVERLY S. BUNCH, AARON M. ITULYA, AND LORENA JOHNSON
• 3 Leading Community Action Agencies—JUNFENG WANG AND BEVERLY S. BUNCH
• 4 Focusing on Local Needs—BEVERLY S. BUNCH
• 5 Collaborating to Build Value—J. TRAVIS BLAND, BEVERLY S. BUNCH, AND JUNFENG WANG
• 6 Motivating and Aligning Human Resources—J. TRAVIS BLAND
• 7 Ensuring Performance and Accountability—BEVERLY S. BUNCH AND JUNFENG WANG
• 8 Pursuing Fiscal Sustainability—BEVERLY S. BUNCH
• 9 Preparing for the Future—DALITSO S. SULAMOYO
• Index