All posts in “News”

HR&A’s Commitment to Anti-Racism

June 4, 2020 / No Comments

We humbly stand in solidarity with Black communities that have been fighting for over 400 years against state-sponsored violence and systemic racism in all forms.
 
A Just & Resilient Recovery began as our framework to help address the economic crisis in cities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to achieve equitable outcomes in the process. The past week has underscored the imperative of racial justice as a prerequisite to the recovery we seek.
 

We are reflecting on our role as well as that of our field in perpetuating White supremacy. We commit to take action in the coming days, weeks, months, and years to reshape our firm and the ways we work with communities to advance racial justice. As a first step, we have begun convening an Anti-Racism Working Group to hold our firm accountable to the hard work ahead. We have also established a Solidarity & Action Fund, which will invest in anti-racist advocacy organizations and be distributed under the guidance of staff in our Black Employee Resource Group. Moving forward, we commit to reaching out to and learning from our partners and collaborators who have deep experience dismantling systems of oppression and who are helping to organize and support protests, vital reforms, and communities of color.
 

Below, we have included a framework that HR&A is referencing as we begin the work of becoming an anti-racist multicultural organization. We share this as a resource and a starting point for conversation with you.
 
Anti

Digital Adoption is a Resilience Imperative

May 15, 2020 / No Comments

Written by Kate Wittels, Jessica Jiang, and Renee Barton
 
Over the past few months, digital tools have become indispensable to those who can accomplish their jobs digitally. As stay-at-home orders were put in place across the country, some Americans, many of whom were white, more educated, and higher income, were able to trade the open office for the open kitchen. For those workers, over half would prefer to continue to work remotely; Germany is considering mandating that all workers have the option to continue to work from home post-pandemic; and Twitter has announced that its employees will have the option to continue working from home indefinitely. In contrast, other workers, often lower-income, female, and non-white, were unable to conduct their work virtually and had to choose between a paycheck or exposure to the virus.
 
Recent studies from the St. Louis Fed and the University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Institute estimate that between 33% and 37% of all occupations can be conducted virtually. While some occupations can easily transition to virtual work, such as web developers, accountants, and writers, jobholders in many other occupations, such as teachers, health care providers and researchers, will tell you that, while they can technically work from home, they cannot do their jobs effectively with only a home laptop and residential internet access.
 
To understand which occupations can work effectively from home and which cannot, we evaluated Occupational Information Network (O*NET) work activity profiles to develop the following four categories of occupations: (1) jobs with the ability to conduct work virtually today, (2) jobs with the ability to conduct work virtually with additional investments or planning, (3) jobs that cannot be conducted virtually and are non-essential, and (4) jobs that cannot be conducted virtually and are essential. We classified all occupations based on these four classifications, evaluating the distribution of jobs across classifications, and considering income, ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and broadband access.
 
 

 
 
We conclude that a somewhat higher percentage than assumed by the St. Louis Fed and U. Chicago Becker Friedman Institute could work remotely, but that doing so effectively will require investments in universal access to high-speed internet, comprehensive training on virtual tools, and more user-friendly technology. Nationally, we believe only 23% of all jobs can easily transition to work from home effectively – i.e. in the midst of this pandemic, only 23% of American workers are able to perform their jobs at full productivity from home. If there were universal access to high-speed internet, comprehensive training on virtual tools, and more user-friendly technology, we estimate that an additional 19% of jobs could be performed productively in a virtual environment.
 
Included in this 19% are both jobs where the technology exists, but the training does not (e.g. teachers), and jobs that require technological innovation (e.g. scientists). Nearly a third of these workers (9 million) are in educational occupations, 1.2 million are in health care, and nearly 900,000 are scientists and researchers. While these jobs span a wide range of average income levels – from $46,000 for social service occupations to more than $100,000 in legal occupations – these are mostly middle-class jobs with a median wage of $55,000.
 
As we recover from COVID-19, and policymakers craft strategies to invest in universal broadband to build long-term resilience, they will need to remember that:
 

  1. Not all cities are created equal. In New Orleans, where the economy is driven largely by tourism, hospitality, and service jobs, only 19% of jobs can currently be conducted virtually. Conversely, in Washington DC, 33% of jobs can already be conducted virtually. If New Orleans prioritized universal broadband access, training, and technology development, an additional 19% of people could work virtually, meaning the overall share of the economy that could withstand future shocks would be closer to 38%.

    2.  
     

     
     

  2. Class and gender will need to be considered to obtain results that are both equitable and efficient. Currently, more than two-thirds of workers who could potentially work from home with further investments or planning cannot afford access to high-speed internet. Compounding the technological constraints, the majority of occupations that could work from home with better investment are performed by women (57% compared to a national average of 49%). With schools closed, the need for childcare and household support systems are needed now more than ever. Particularly in denser cities, many workers are finding their living arrangements too crowded to provide a quiet place to think.

    3.  
     

     
     

  3. Race is unsurprisingly also a major differentiator of those who may benefit from remote working and those who will not. Nationally, non-white workers hold only 31% of jobs that can be conducted virtually, with or without investment. In the aggregate, jobs that cannot be conducted virtually pay less – an average income of $37,000 – and have lower educational requirements – 93% of these jobs do not require a bachelor’s degree. To ensure a more just and resilient recovery, reskilling programs will need to acknowledge racial inequities.

    4.  
     

     
     

  4. Government will have to create markets, as it has in the past. Technological innovation has transformed numerous consumer products and services, such as food delivery and transportation. Widespread adoption of technology by institutional sectors such as education, health care, and government has not occurred at the same pace. This is in large part because conventional sources of capital (e.g. venture investors) have yet to formulate strategies to navigate these sectors, which often have numerous stakeholders with sometimes competing agendas and complex regulatory barriers. Our long, successful history of government investing in medical research, military technology, space travel, and other major innovations, and then seeing the payoff in citizen well-being, is a precedent to which we should turn.

    5.  
    The COVID-19 pandemic is a reckoning for how we produce, consume, and learn. As a critical first response, to achieve magnitude of change needed, we need to tailor policy and funding approaches to local dynamics. Through strategic investments in high-speed internet, comprehensive training, and accelerated adoption of virtual technologies, more Americans could have the option to work virtually, allowing them to better withstand future shocks and enabling a more just and resilient path forward.

Measuring What Matters: New Approaches for Assessing Economic & Social Impacts in the Wake of COVID-19

May 8, 2020 / No Comments

Written by Shuprotim Bhaumik and Kristina Pecorelli
 
With every passing day, it becomes clearer that the impacts of COVID-19 are exacerbating underlying inequities in American society. Understanding exactly which populations are most at risk in which localities will be important for fiscally constrained states and municipalities that need to target scarce resources equitably and efficiently. Rethinking how we approach economic impact assessment is critical to gaining that understanding.
 
Economic impact assessments (EIAs) estimate the impacts of projects, programs, and policies to support requests for investment. Results are typically expressed in terms of spending, jobs, and wages, and rely on multipliers that are based on observed economic relationships made over a period of time to show how changes in one segment of the economy reverberate throughout the rest of the economy. For instance, assume a jurisdiction proposes to use a tax abatement to secure the relocation of a back-office of a financial services firm: the analyst ascertains the number and types of jobs the firm proposes to bring to the location (“direct jobs,” e.g. accountants), then employs a model to estimate the number and types of jobs that the firm will create through its spending (“indirect jobs,” e.g. legal services) and that the employees of the firm will create through their own spending (“induced jobs,” e.g. baristas).
 
In the COVID-19 era, EIAs can help civic leaders accurately assess the damage, make the case for funding, and ensure that recovery funds are spent efficiently and equitably. The challenges of impact assessments during COVID stem from the peculiar nature of the pandemic, which is rewriting the fundamental patterns of local economies in real time. The multipliers contained in the traditional models are likely no longer accurate: amidst select business closures, phased re-openings, and massive shifts in consumer demand, impacts will vary widely by type of business and even the nature of work within businesses. Some impacts may become permanent as the crisis reshapes how certain sectors operate in response to the global pandemic.
 
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the federal response to the Great Recession of a decade or so ago, resolved this concern, which we believe to be far more fundamental now than it was then, by refusing to consider estimation of anything more than direct jobs in the EIAs it mandated to secure stimulus funds. We believe a more nuanced approach is possible, indeed required.
 
HR&A is currently working with Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New York to develop an approach to measuring the real-time impacts of COVID-19 on Long Island. The region has rapidly transitioned from the nation’s first postwar suburban district to more than a dozen distinctly different cities and townships with a population of 2.8 million. Long Island is also a more diverse place than it was decades ago, driven in part by a growing immigrant and non-white population. The jobs-housing balance has shifted to more job-intensity, and emerging health care, agritourism, biotech, and clean energy industries have replaced what was once a manufacturing-dominant region. Less positively, racial and income disparities and segregation in housing and schools have persisted. A lack of affordable housing is reinforcing a brain drain; young Long Islanders are leaving the region.
 
Working with leaders from both counties, we’ve developed an analytic framework that considers the initial economic shock from COVID-19, reflecting the impact of business shutdowns and subsequent reductions in consumer demand; differential rates of recovery, depending on when businesses are allowed to reopen and how well-positioned they are to resume full operations; and “new normal” levels of economic activity, which may be at, above, or below the pre-COVID levels depending on economic sector.
 
To apply this framework, we categorized all jobs within the regional economy according to unemployment risk. Expanding upon methods developed by the St. Louis Fed and UChicago Becker Friedman Institute, risk levels were assessed at the industry and occupation level, reflecting whether jobs were classified by public authorities as “essential” to public health and safety and thus “permitted” to remain open, can be performed off-site, and are salaried or wage-paying. For example, cashiers are typically considered an occupation at high risk of unemployment during an economic shock owing to non-essential status, inability of the job to be performed remotely, and hourly wage pay basis. However, this assumption does not hold true for grocery store cashiers in this (or most other) shocks. Hence, more careful examination of the effects of the pandemic is warranted to guide efficient, equitable policy response.
 
The table below shows the distribution of jobs on Long Island by high-, medium-, and low-occupational risk of loss and essential versus non-essential industry, a distribution we developed via consultation of cumulative weekly unemployment insurance claims, documented changes in monthly employment by sector available as of this writing, local and national survey data, and other sources portraying consumer behavior and demand responses under future public health scenarios.
 
By examining the characteristics of workers within occupations or industries at greatest risk of unemployment, we can also understand who is most likely to suffer economic losses (possibly in conjunction with poor health outcomes). As shown below, low-income, low-skilled workers, and to a lesser but still significant extent, Hispanic or Latino workers, are disproportionately affected by the economic shock of COVID-19 on Long Island. This is largely a function of the types of businesses that employ these populations—namely Retail, Accommodations and Food Services, and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation—being among the most severely impacted by the initial economic shock of COVID-19. (If risk were equally—which would not equate to equitably—shared, the percentages across any given row should be equal or similar to the percentage for all local workers shown in the final “Total Long Island” column. Differences suggest areas for policy focus.)
 
While the unfairness of the virus’s effects—both physical and economic—are well-known, that a disproportionate share of jobs at high risk for unemployment are occupied by workers without a post-secondary education, while jobs with the lowest risk of unemployment are disproportionately occupied by workers with a bachelor’s degree or above, suggests that those at highest risk are also those most limited in their ability to find alternative job opportunities given their existing skill set. This suggests that retraining or reskilling initiatives need to be central to future recovery efforts on Long Island.
 

 
This exercise will undoubtedly prompt uncomfortable but crucial questions for recovery. For example, should we prioritize aid to sectors that are disproportionately impacted, but which tend to be lower-paying and offer fewer opportunities for economic mobility? Or should we double down on sectors with the highest economic multiplier effects, and focus instead on addressing the barriers to entry that have historically prohibited access by currently low-skilled workers? Should aid be based on the size of business or those that employ a disproportionate share of high-risk workers? Do concentrations of impact among low-wage workers suggest there should be a focus on housing, transit, and other cost factors that influence economic survival during a long-term recovery? What sorts of retraining or reskilling efforts will be required for jobs permanently displaced by the crisis, and which organizations are best equipped to run them based on the populations affected?
 
All of these questions are critical to an economic recovery plan. Answering them begins with a robust understanding of impact and its distribution. The impacts, their distributions, and therefore the answers that inform recovery will all vary by location.

Why Communities Must Pay Attention to the Shape of the Recovery Now

May 1, 2020 / No Comments

Written by Andrea Batista Schlesinger
 
The word “recovery” seems innocuous, even positive, but masks a set of decisions that will be made by people in power, decisions that will seem either neutral or inevitable. Yet, in each and every one of these decisions there will be winners and losers. We must learn now what is meant by recovery, what decisions will be made, and how best to leverage our collective power to influence direction and, therefore, the future of our cities.
 
If history is any indication, the people who are suffering disproportionately now will continue to do so in the recovery. In New Orleans, 10 years after Katrina, predominantly black neighborhoods such as New Orleans East had regained only 60% of their pre-Katrina population, while predominantly white neighborhoods with similar flood impacts had largely rebuilt. One factor in this disparity was the Road Home program, which funded home repairs and buyouts based on pre-storm market value rather than replacement value – leading to similar homes with similar needs receiving different levels of funding that closely tracked pre-existing racial divides. Over time and across crises, these disparities compound: a 2019 longitudinal study found that, between 1999 and 2013, white Americans living in counties that experienced major storms saw their wealth increase by $127,000, whereas black Americans in the same counties lost $27,000 in wealth. Indeed, white Americans in these counties were significantly better off than white Americans in counties unaffected by storms, while the reverse was true for black Americans. These gaps were statistically significant even after controlling for a variety of personal and locational factors.
 
The phases of virus-related action will be emergency response, stabilization, recovery, and then institutionalization. At each stage, decisions will be made that will have profound repercussions even if they don’t seem to be of great consequence. In the current, response phase of action, communities have finally gotten access to more – but still inadequate – testing. But who gets tested, and how? Until recently, in New York City, arguably the best transit-served city in the nation, 1/3 of testing sites required a vehicle to access; 55% of New Yorkers – and as many as 80% of households in some low-income communities – do not have a car. Cities are letting people out of jail for public health and humanitarian reasons. But why is there no plan for where these people will go for safe housing and access to health care?
 
Likewise, as we move into the recovery phase: Will environmental regulations be relaxed in the name of securing a return to economic strength? Will recovery require dependence on the commercial banking channels that currently under-serve small businesses, notably those operated by people of color and women? How will cities provide critical public services in the face of mounting fiscal deficits? Who will oversee recovery for local governments? Which projects will local governments put forward for federal funding? What do these financial and governance choices say about the vision for how a city will thrive going forward? More such questions could and should be posed with respect to the definition of essential workers and businesses; timing of lifting eviction and foreclosure moratoria; eligibility of populations to receive aid; and allocation of rent assistance, debt relief, and emergency resources.
 
The disproportionate suffering of vulnerable and marginalized populations is the result of public policy that has reinforced racism. We see this in the work that is valued (and even, permitted), in the capacity of health care facilities to tend to the ill, in individual health by race before this pandemic, and in the disregard for people living and dying in close proximity (homeless shelters, jails, nursing homes). These people are not visible as individuals; they are only their status.
 
This makes it all the more important that every decision about recovery must be interrogated, its apparent neutrality closely examined. Federal grantee community engagement requirements have been effectively eliminated, so communities will have to demand opportunities for input and engagement, to insist on more than fancy blue ribbon task forces of elites.
 
Of course, these same communities have the least amount of knowledge, organization, and power to influence the contours of the recovery. The organizations that serve these communities are already overwhelmed by the work of caring for and tending to those most devastated. There are exceptions, and we are already witness to brilliant organizing from some of our friends and clients, to cite three: LAANE in L.A. has won a right of return for laid off workers if those jobs come back. Pittsburgh United, the Riverside Center for Innovation, and the Economic Justice Circle achieved moratoria on evictions and utility shut offs, secured support for black-owned small businesses, and made it harder for landlords to commence eviction of tenants making complaints to the health department. The Texas Organizing Project, in coalition with partners, won $9 million to assist families excluded from the stimulus package in San Antonio, gained preliminary approval of a $15 million emergency fund in Harris County, and obtained a ruling that all Texans will have the right to vote by mail.
 
Creating a longer list of wins will require organizations with resources to support communities trying to engage in the recovery process — including learning the alphabet soup that is federal recovery programs, their timelines, requirements and parameters. If my experience is any indication, foundations are still in the emergency response phase, but now is the time to reserve some cash, energy, and focus to zero in on the decisions being made by localities, on their own or as required by the state and federal government for aid, and to make sure that the priorities of the communities that are typically left out are driving what is important. It will be too late for philanthropy to launch an initiative to address what comes of this recovery in a year.
 
The questions that communities will need to have the capacity to ask and, as importantly, have the capacity to be skeptical about the first answer they hear from the powers that be, will fall into the following basic categories: Who is making decisions, both formally and informally; what is within the purview of the locality? What is the process by which decisions will be made; on what basis and with what data? When will decisions be made, and, therefore, what are the moments of influence for effective organizing?
 
Animating my entire career has been the view that those who have access to the tools of power, the levers of policy making, win. This is especially true of the field of economic development, where power consistently tends toward the decisions that maintain racism and solicits gains for those who already have resources. I came to HR&A to work with communities around the country to seize the levers of economic development, so that they can coopt them and deploy them differently. I am up at night knowing that the forces with power are up at night planning for how this recovery can further their interests. Will the next pandemic hit our communities in these same disparate ways? If the answer is yes, we will all have failed.

5 Priorities from the Front Lines of Small Business Recovery

April 23, 2020 / No Comments

We Asked 10 Leading Business Support Organizations What They Need to Help Businesses Now. Here’s What They Had to Say.

 
Written by Bret Collazzi, Olivia Moss, and Steven Reilly
 
Earlier this week we posted our thoughts on the vital role that business improvement districts (BIDs), downtown associations, community development organizations, and similar groups are playing as a lifeline to small businesses — and challenges they’re facing delivering help where it’s needed most.
 
We argued that City and State governments, foundations, and corporate donors should leverage CDBG and other available funding to broaden the impact of these frontline organizations by:
 

  • Providing grants for expanded coaching, translation, technology access, and referrals;
  • Incentivizing high-capacity organizations to “adopt” nearby districts to plug gaps in support;
  • Building a coordinated support network that informs local and national policy.

 
We shared these thoughts with 10 leading small business support organizations from across the country, posing two main questions: “If you had extra resources, what would you prioritize to bring our Main Streets back?” and “What should Mayors, Governors, and foundations fund to help you help Main Street businesses?”
 

The 5 Priorities from the Front Lines that follow represent our distillation of their responses. Click on each Main Street recovery priority to see a more detailed version of their observations – in their own words.
 

  1. Fund technical assistance to help businesses access funds and adapt to new realities. All 10 organizations agreed that immediate, expanded capacity for technical assistance is essential to helping businesses access emergency funding and rethink their business models, online presence, and operating plans. They offered creative, place-specific takes on how to direct that technical assistance, including leveraging local tech talent to help legacy businesses go digital. Read More →

    2.  

  2. Set aside funds for businesses with the greatest need. An unsurprising lesson from the CARES Act was that first-come, first-serve funding programs benefit the most resourced applicants, and one-size-fits-all rules leave out whole industries (e.g. restaurants and bars that couldn’t commit to restoring full employment by late June, a precondition of loan forgiveness under the federal program). Fixing this, according to our collaborators, requires dedicated funds for the hardest-hit businesses, among them immigrant-owned businesses, food and beverage companies, and the underbanked. Read More →

    3.  

  3. Leverage CDFIs and other trusted community networks with financial acumen. Congress’s latest relief package would set aside $60 billion for community banks, credit unions, and CDFIs (nonprofit lenders that exclusively serve low-income, underbanked communities). Cities can make an even greater impact, our collaborators say, by recapitalizing CDFIs and partnering with other community nonprofits and faith-based organizations to reach businesses in greatest need. Read More →

    4.  

  4. Ensure a safe and welcoming return to Main Streets. Many expect the recovery will be gradual and, at least until there is a vaccine, episodic. In that context, reassuring people that patronage of Main Street businesses is safe will be critical. Our interviewees suggested that public funds be used to activate the public realm in business corridors. Read More →

    5.  

  5. Streamline regulations to support existing and new businesses. One of the 10 Guiding Principles to a Just & Resilient Recovery stated that local government must remove barriers to recovery embedded in regulatory functions, especially for small businesses that are more likely to employ lower-income, less-skilled workers. Leadership of front line organizations agreed. Read More →

 
We’re grateful to the 10 frontline organizations that shared their experiences and their ideas for action: Accion East, Asian Americans for Equality, Central City Association of Los Angeles, Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, Downtown Vision, Inc., Georgetown BID, Houston Land Bank, Rochester Downtown Alliance, Street Vendor Project, and WHEDco.
 
As the recovery continues, voices of these organizations and hundreds of others across the country should be front and center as cities, states, and the federal government tackle the urban economic recovery.
 
HR&A will continue to gather and elevate innovative strategies for economic recovery. Please share your ideas by emailing JustAndResilient@hraadvisors.com.
 

 
The following proposed strategies have been edited for length and context and represent a sample of ideas recommended by representatives of the 10 organizations. They do not necessarily reflect the positions of all organizational leadership.


 
1. Fund technical assistance to help businesses access funds and adapt to new realities.
 
All 10 organizations agreed that additional technical assistance is essential to helping businesses access emergency funding and to rethink their business models, online presence, and operating plans. They offered creative, place-specific takes on how to direct that technical assistance, including leveraging local tech talent to help legacy businesses go digital.
 
“If our economy is going to have episodic starts and stops for the next 18 months, we can’t just build a bridge to what we had before, because businesses will once again run out of liquidity. Businesses need to have greater cash reserves to ride out the next episode and diversify their income streams so they can generate at least partial income during downturns. How can you shift your business model so you have more work from customers who are still around during downturns? Helping businesses think through their revenue plans requires hands-on assistance but not much money.”
– Accion East
 
“E-commerce has become even more important, but many business owners have limited digital literacy, don’t have websites, and aren’t active on social media. We have a hub of tech talent in our downtown capable of developing quick solutions. If we created an organized network of tech talent, we would be able to broker connections among individual businesses, helping more businesses stay competitive.”
– Downtown Brooklyn Partnership
 
“A post-COVID world will be fundamentally different and could impact demand and consumer behavior for years to come. Retailers, and businesses more broadly, will benefit from mechanisms that reduce exposure going forward. For example, will retailers seek leases that set rent as a percentage of sales, and can local governments help incentivize this type of market behavior? Should cities consider structuring real estate taxes as a value-added tax based on rent?”
– Joe Sternlieb, Georgetown BID
 
“Business owners who can no longer afford to operate should have support to leverage their loyal customer bases and the investments they’ve made in order to realize their company’s value. Otherwise, too many business owners will be forced to close up shop, instead of selling their business to limit losses and even generate some wealth.”
– WHEDco
Back to top
 

2. Set aside funds for businesses with the greatest need.
 
An unsurprising lesson from the CARES Act was that first-come, first-serve funding programs benefit the most resourced applicants, and one-size-fits-all rules leave out whole industries (e.g. restaurants and bars that couldn’t commit to restoring full employment by late June, a precondition of loan forgiveness under the federal program). Fixing this, according to our collaborators, requires dedicated funds for the hardest-hit businesses, among them immigrant-owned businesses, food and beverage companies, and the underbanked.
 
“Almost 60% of our small business clients are very low income, earning $32,000 or less a year. Immigrant small business owners were largely excluded from federal aid through PPP because they don’t have banking relationships or payroll documentation from operating cash businesses. Those who are undocumented immigrants don’t qualify for unemployment insurance, so their income has completely evaporated. Many put up their homes as collateral and equity to fund their businesses, and many borrowed from families or leveraged other assets. Without providing assistance to these types of businesses, the economic impact of a business failure will be devastating and widely felt.”
– Asian American for Equality
 
“There needs to be a separate fund for independent food and beverage businesses. Restaurants and bars are not only being hit especially hard, but they are vital to retaining employees and office tenants in our downtown.”
– Downtown Brooklyn Partnership
 
“The Bronx has the lowest share of bank branches per household in the United States – how many of the Bronx’s 18,000 mostly small businesses can we really expect to have strong banking relationships? These businesses will continue to be at a disadvantage unless government and banks set aside funds and technical assistance for historically underbanked communities and businesses to access.”
– WHEDco
Back to top
 

3. Leverage CDFIs and other community networks to reach in-need businesses.
 
Congress’ latest relief package would set aside $60 billion for community banks, credit unions, and CDFIs (nonprofits lenders that exclusively serve low-income, underbanked communities). Cities can make an even greater impact, our collaborators say, by recapitalizing CDFIs and partnering with other community nonprofits and faith-based organizations to reach businesses in greatest need.
 
“CDFIs have the staff, technology, network, trust, and track record to serve the businesses in greatest need. The fastest way to unleash our potential is to untether us from the immediate need to raise capital. By providing capital or taking a loss position, cities could allow us to serve thousands more businesses – our average small loan is $12,000. It’s not a lot of capital, and it’s easy for the city to assess who performs well: they can track our loss rates over time and judge us on our merits.”
– Accion East
 
“Even when they’re allowed to reopen, businesses will need significant support to refinance debt, negotiate rent relief, file insurance claims, deal with suppliers, and navigate countless other choices. Our staff is only 25 people. How can we enlist and train CPAs, translators, and other professionals to meet the volume of need?”
– Asian American for Equality
 
“We need additional financial assistance from government and the private sector in the form of zero-interest loans and grants to help small businesses get back on their feet. Key to the success of these initiatives will be a dedicated fund for CDFIs and LDCs across the city so we can target businesses in low- and moderate income neighborhoods who may have not the same access to credit with traditional lenders. With additional resources, LDCs such as us can partner with CDFIs to provide one-on-one technical assistance directly to our local merchants and business owners in accessing these critical resources before funds run out.”
– Downtown Brooklyn Partnership
 
“In cities or areas that don’t have a fully developed CDFI ecosystem, deploying resources efficiently will require organizations that have close relationships with area businesses, such as neighborhood social service agencies and faith-based organizations. This is particularly true for the communities that are most in need and don’t have established relationships with financial institutions. Getting resources to businesses quickly may mean creating a more streamlined, flexible flow of funds, so that organizations that are best positioned to scale are aware of, and can access, federal and local resources.”
– Houston Land Bank
Back to top
 

4. Ensure a safe and welcoming return to Main Streets.
 
Many expect the recovery will be gradual and, at least until there is a vaccine, episodic. In that context, reassuring people that patronage of Main Street businesses is safe will be critical. Our interviewees suggested that public funds be used to activate the public realm in business corridors.
 
“As the city’s recovery centers on our ability to make our streets and gathering places feel safe and vibrant to workers, residents, and businesses, the public realm is now more important than ever. The City, with the assistance of the state and federal government, needs to invest in upgrades to our public realm infrastructure to further enliven our streets and stimulate our economy. Tactical, flexible shared street and plaza improvements would create more space for people and encourage social distancing. More permanent green infrastructure and curb-less streets would offer respite for workers and residents in high-density business centers like Downtown Brooklyn. BIDs are uniquely positioned to partner with the City and State on creative financing solutions and to pilot new design solutions that enhance pedestrian safety, sustainability, and new technologies.”– Downtown Brooklyn Partnership
Back to top
 

5. Streamline city regulations to support existing and new businesses.
One of the 10 Guiding Principles to a Just & Resilient Recovery argued that local government must remove barriers to recovery embedded in regulatory functions especially for small businesses that are more likely to employ lower-income, less-skilled workers. Leadership of front line organizations agreed.
 
“Businesses face many of the same regulatory and permitting challenges today that they always face, but in light of the current crisis, relief is even more urgently-needed to streamline government processes and lower barriers to entry for businesses seeking stability and support. Expensive, lengthy, and complex review and permitting processes hinder businesses ability to be nimble and adapt to the current environment, which may be the difference between surviving this crisis versus not and will have a big impact on how quickly our city can recover.”
– Central City Association of Los Angeles
 
“One big difference that cities can make with no new money is through procurement. Buildings and schools need to be disinfected and cleaned, for example – if cities set aside some portion of this work for small businesses, you’d help these businesses build up their reserves and diversify their income during downturns. Making it easier for small businesses to compete for city contracts would also encourage more minority- and women-owned businesses to get certified.”
– Accion East
 
“We have to work with cities to consider how we adapt policy, at least in the near term. With the expected spike in vacancy, there is a need to fill vacant storefronts quickly. In Washington, DC, it can take up to a year and a half to receive all required approvals and permits to open a business. If we want to support new business creation and bring activity back to the streets as quickly as possible, a key part will be expediting permitting or allowing a business to operate temporarily while attaining approvals.”
– Joe Sternlieb, Georgetown BID
 
“Neighborhood business organizations are best positioned to monitor the challenges businesses have encountered as they navigate the web of government regulations, assistance, and recovery issues, and assist in troubleshooting and sharing creative solutions. NYC should appoint leaders in this network to advise the Mayor and Council on the citywide plan for recovery, in addition to key leaders in industry.”
– Downtown Brooklyn Partnership

Back to top

 

 
HR&A is grateful to the 10 collaborating organizations whose insights shaped 5 Priorities from the Front Lines and whose daily work is helping to secure and rebuild communities across the country. They are:
 
Accion East (Paul Quinteros): Part of a nationwide network of lenders, Accion East offers affordable business loans, complemented by in-depth guidance, coaching, and a support system of peers, mentors, and resources. Accion serves more than 8,500 business and invests more than $10 million annually through its CDFI.
 
Asian Americans for Equality (Jennifer Sun): Based in New York, AAFE is a non-profit organization dedicated to enriching the lives of Asian Americans and all of those in need. It is a preeminent housing, social service, and community development organization. Its affiliate, Renaissance Economic Development Corporation, is a CDFI.
 
Central City Association of Los Angeles (Jessica Lall): The premier advocacy organization focused on setting the vision for the future of Downtown Los Angeles, CCA represents the interests of 400 businesses, trade associations, and nonprofits from a broad range of industries that collectively employ more than 350,000 people in the county.
 
Downtown Brooklyn Partnership (Regina Myer and May Yu): DBP is a not-for-profit local development corporation that serves as the primary champion for Downtown Brooklyn as a world-class business, cultural, educational, residential, and retail destination. It manages three BIDs: the MetroTech BID, Fulton Mall Improvement Association, and Court-Livingston-Schermerhorn BID.
 
Downtown Vision, Inc.: The stewards of Downtown Jacksonville, Florida, Downtown Vision serves as place managers, connectors, strategists, and activators, dedicated to improving the heart of our city for its 5,800 residents, 55,000 employees, and 11 million annual visitors discovering Downtown’s attractions, natural amenities, restaurants and retail.
 
Georgetown Business Improvement District (Joe Sternlieb): The Georgetown BID is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the accessibility, attractiveness, and appeal of the Georgetown commercial district in Washington, D.C.
 
Houston Land Bank (Anne Gatling Haynes): Houston Land Bank’s mission is to strategically acquire, dispose of, and steward vacant, abandoned, and damaged properties, into productive use and to catalyze community and economic development for the City of Houston. Its work focuses on improving quality of life for Houston’s historically underserved communities.
 
Rochester Downtown Alliance(Holly Masek): The Rochester Downtown Alliance is a Minnesota nonprofit working to build a vibrant Downtown community through a series of special events, activities, and initiatives in collaboration with property owners, business leaders, the City, and others with a direct stake in enhanced business and economic development conditions in the Downtown.
 
Street Vendor Project: The Street Vendor Project is a membership-based project in New York City with more than 1,800 active vendor members who are working together to create a vendors’ movement for permanent change. It advocates for New York’s more than 10,000 street vendors, providing training, education on legal rights, and policy advocacy.
 
Women’s Housing and Economic Development Corporation (WHEDco) (Davon Russell and Kerry McLean): WHEDco is a community development organization in the Bronx, NY, that builds award-winning, sustainable, affordable homes and helps build strong communities, including through commercial revitalization and entrepreneurship programs.

HR&A Launches A Just & Resilient Recovery

April 17, 2020 / No Comments


 

The COVID-19 crisis is far from over, but planning for recovery has begun.

 

A transformative recovery begins with ideas.
 
A Just and Resilient Recovery is a new, collaborative initiative to translate those ideas into actions to build a better “next normal” for urban life.

 
The HR&A community has been at the center of urban resilience, recovery and rebuilding initiatives for decades. From New York City’s fiscal crisis to the Great Recession, the Northridge earthquake to September 11th, Hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, Sandy, and Maria, we’ve helped many different communities weather many different shocks.
 
Times of crisis are times to come together.
 
As we’ve worked with scores of clients over the last several weeks to assess uncertainty, take first steps, and prepare for recovery, we’re excited to see a growing desire to go beyond a “return to normal,” to proactively shape a stronger, more equitable, more resilient urban life.
 
Over the months to come, we will be using this campaign for A Just and Resilient Recovery to share the latest from our team and elevate the ideas and actions that you are advancing to institutionalize transformational inclusivity and innovation in urban practice.

 

10 PRINCIPLES FOR A JUST AND RESILIENT RECOVERY

Carl Weisbrod shares principles for economic recovery in cities, drawing on four decades of leadership in the City of New York through a wide range of crises. He shares some premises – the promise of cities is not extinguished, diversity and pluralism are cities’ greatest strengths, the COVID-19 pandemic is intersecting with epidemics of inequality – and sets forth the ten concepts that we must all take into account as we advance a just and resilient recovery. (HR&A)
 
Read More →
 
 
Sign up to get the latest, get involved, follow our thinking on Medium, and please share this initiative with others working to remake urban life towards a “next normal” that is more just and resilient.
 
Want to get in touch? Email JustAndResilient@hraadvisors.com

10 Principles for a Just and Resilient Recovery

April 16, 2020 / No Comments

By Carl Weisbrod
 
In the midst of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, government, civic organizations, and businesses are rightly focused on the urgent humanitarian and health crisis. In bringing major components of our economy to a halt, we have made a value judgment that saving lives is worth the economic damage caused by social distancing.
 
As we begin to emerge from the pandemic, our attention must shift to addressing the economic crisis. Civic leaders’ strategies to recover urban economies and neighborhoods must be premised on these observations about our cities:
 
The promise of cities has not been extinguished. Some have suggested that this pandemic will result in mass exodus from cities as the tide turns against density. This perspective is ill informed. Cities are not static. They have always reinvented themselves in response to economic and social change, and they will further evolve in response to this pandemic. Active streets, intellectual cross fertilization, brick-and-mortar retail, face-to-face interaction and all that makes urban life vibrant will return, perhaps to some extent in some new forms. Urban areas will continue to attract and retain people of talent and will regain their dynamism as centers of innovation and drivers of our local, state and national economies. That is the lesson of history, recent and ancient.
 
Diversity and pluralism – demographic, intellectual and economic – are cities’ greatest strengths. Recovery strategies must be inclusive, allowing a broad range of people to sit at the table to identify solutions that respond to the needs of the diverse residents of our cities – especially including those who often do not have a strong voice.
 
It is obvious that this pandemic has exacerbated deep inequalities that already existed in our society. The pandemic has disproportionately affected the poor, the undocumented, minorities, and service workers (including medical personnel) – the people who “take the early bus.” Strategies to support urban revitalization must make supporting them a priority. In the best of circumstances, they should help fuel the general economic recovery, not be the victims (once again) of it.
 


Ten Principles for a Just and Resilient Recovery

Building on those premises, any efforts toward economic recovery, particularly at the local level, will face challenges and constraints. A just and resilient recovery must take into account the following:
 

  1. “Recovery” from the pandemic will be gradual; as we have seen elsewhere in the world, the “lockdown” guidelines will decline incrementally and may even be restored to some extent. This crisis is quite different from previous ones in which the “recovery” could start almost at once. We should look to what should be done during the period roughly from the beginning of the relaxation of the “lockdown” period to about 18 months thereafter as we propose strategies for a longer term that includes institutional and permanent reform.

    2.  

  2. We must equitably address demographic, economic and neighborhood disparities that have been brought into relief. Too often, government programs and bureaucracy leave out those who need it most. Crisis response should reframe how we are all connected despite demographic and economic differences. In a pandemic, the underprivileged becoming ill has direct negative risk implications for those with more resources and power.

    3.  

  3. An equitable response must include finding ways to address the needs of those unlikely to qualify for direct federal assistance, such as the undocumented. This is, in particular, an issue for local and national philanthropies, whose resources in disaster recovery situations often bolster aid provided by government.

    4.  

  4. City leaders must recognize that the economic damage will be widespread, affecting downtowns, retail strips, industry, and virtually all neighborhoods. Regulatory relief, support for job retention/creation, and aid to businesses large and small will be necessary. Our cities’ economies are densely woven tapestries. Those areas most damaged will need the most assistance, but making that assistance available will require the resources and tax revenue generated by the rapid restoration to health of each locality’s major economic engines.

    5.  

  5. Local governments will have scant local resources. Because cities will experience severe fiscal challenges and are barred from deficit spending, they will need to rely largely on what is provided through various federal programs and what is allocated to them by the states, which will also be resource constrained. Federal resources will be critical to recovery, and how they can be accessed and deployed by localities will have meaningful implications for their effectiveness. In some cases, local and national foundations may be able to make up some of the difference; certainly, their talent and resources will be needed not only to ensure equity but also to fill gaps.

    6.  

  6. Coordination between local and state government will be critical. Most federal aid is likely to flow through the states, so local governments need strategies to enable state/local relationships to function in a coordinated fashion, with the states inevitably the senior partners. Given the red/blue divide between many major cities and their states, this will be especially important – and, perhaps, even more acute in some states where the state and local governments have had different perspectives on how to address the pandemic itself.

    7.  

  7. We must begin to identify an initial set of projects that can kickstart recovery when new federal funds become available. To avoid delays and to begin the recovery process that communities badly need, local government and its partners must tee up “shovel ready” projects.

    8.  

  8. We must remove barriers to recovery embedded in local government regulatory functions. Local governments largely have control over land use, licensing, and other regulations that affect businesses. We must investigate how these regulations can be streamlined, suspended, deferred and/or permanently changed to ease or remove barriers to recovery, especially for small businesses that are more likely to employ lower income, less skilled workers.

    9.  

  9. The channels through which recovery aid will be distributed at the local level need to be identified. Locally based organizations are critical partners in pushing out aid to local communities. Leveraging existing entities is often the fastest solution for immediate aid. But new or off-budget entities, such as local redevelopment authorities, may also need to be created to carry out certain functions that require more independence and flexibility.

    10.  

  10. Finally, we must identify how major local institutions can contribute to recovery as both resources and intermediaries, and how to leverage and guide them strategically. These include universities, hospitals, and major businesses. For example, banks are processing PPP applications, which may meaningfully increase the speed at which at least their established customers get help, but should not occur at the expense of small, neighborhood businesses – often minority owned – with less well-established banking relationships.

 
The challenges local governments face in supporting economic recovery will be numerous. Leveraging federal resources thoughtfully, restoring to health major local economic generators, ensuring an equitable response that benefits disadvantaged communities, as well as identifying ways to deploy aid efficiently and effectively are all key. As the public health emergency slowly begins to ebb, we must start planning how we will surmount the formidable challenges to a just and resilient economic recovery.

NYS Now Has Time to Get Cannabis Legalization Right

April 14, 2020 / No Comments

“If done thoughtfully, New York has an opportunity to … set a new standard for states to address longstanding injustice and inequity, build African-American wealth, and create jobs for those who have been marginalized.”
 
HR&A Partner Andrea Batista Schlesinger and Principal Jon Meyers co-authored an op-ed in City Limits calling for New York State to pass cannabis legislation that proactively drives equitable outcomes for communities harmed by cannabis criminalization and design policies that advance economic growth and industry development.
 
Read the full column here.
Learn more about HR&A’s Inclusive Cities practice here.

Federal Disaster Stimulus: A Primer for Local Governments

April 9, 2020 / No Comments

Local governments are facing difficult decisions and uncertain futures as their communities, and especially those most vulnerable, are being hit with unprecedented health and financial crises due to COVID-19. The Federal government has begun to provide support but navigating these programs is challenging.

On Thursday, April 9th, HR&A Partners Phillip Kash and Jeff Hebert, experienced leaders in disaster recovery and resilience, led Federal Disaster Stimulus: A Primer for Local Governments, a webinar highlighting the Federal programs addressing the current financial crisis, including:
• Federal funding streams
• Key programs in the CARES Act
• How local governments can best deploy funding

Watch the webinar here.

A Framework to Guide Communities Toward a Just and Resilient Recovery

April 1, 2020 / No Comments

Written by Phillip Kash and Jeff Hebert

Communities face two parallel crises because of COVID-19: an unprecedented global public health emergency, and the fastest economic decline on record, including over 6.6 million applications for unemployment insurance for the week of April 4 alone, and over 16.7 million applications cumulatively since March 21, while confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses continue to rise. While our public and private institutions rightfully focus on their immediate attention on emergency response, once we emerge from quarantine, we will need to collectively address the underlying economic and social challenges that made COVID-19 so devastating and destabilizing. A post-COVID-19 world can provide the opportunity to create just and resilient communities that can better weather future events.

Facing a Duel Crisis
Leading a just and resilient recovery

When COVID-19 struck the U.S., almost 40% of American households were unable to afford an emergency expense of even $400. 1 Because of this economic insecurity, the impacts of COVID-19 will be felt most sharply by those already in need of support. A just and resilient recovery will improve the well-being of all community members by addressing underlying inequities. Local leaders have the opportunity to recover stronger from this pandemic by taking a hard look at the underlying issues that contribute to the damage from COVID-19 in their community.

Choosing a Just and Resilient Recovery

Organizing principles for action
As the immediate threat from COVID-19 subsides, local leaders will shift their focus from emergency response to recovery. While the timeline for recovery is not linear – and health officials indeed have speculated that the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to recur – HR&A has developed a framework to guide the pursuit of a just and resilient recovery based on our work in past disasters.

Public and private institutions, including government, businesses, nonprofits, philanthropies, and community leaders, should organize their efforts around four phases: 1) emergency response, 2) stabilization, 3) adaptation, and 4) institutionalization.

COVID-19 has shown us that our communities are neither just nor resilient. As local leaders start the recovery process, each community will face a choice to either confront the issues that left so many community members vulnerable and our society as a whole fragile, or return to the status quo. Only recovery processes that address the underlying issues responsible will prepare communities for the next disaster.

 

Learn More

Phillip Kash is a nationally recognized practitioner and pioneer in resilience planning and disaster recovery. A leading expert on urban policy, Phillip works across the country to address two of the most pressing challenges facing cities today: climate adaptation, economic recovery and housing affordability. His visionary plans provide cities and their partners with strategic frameworks to guide their efforts; programs and policies to inform their actions; and implementation roadmaps that ensure projects are delivered.

Jeff Hebert is a pioneer of resilience planning and community revitalization. He works with cities around the country to develop strategies that mitigate future social, economic, and physical shocks and stresses. He is a national expert in the areas of resiliency, redevelopment, equitable and inclusionary growth, and economic development. Jeff was instrumental in the recovery of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina having served Mayor Mitch Landrieu as the city’s First Deputy Mayor & Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Resilience Officer, and as Executive Director of the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority. In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, he served as the Director of Community Planning for the Louisiana Recovery Authority under Governor Kathleen Blanco.
1 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018.”