1
Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative
Strategic Plan: 2015-2020
Outline
A. Goal of the CSHCDC Strategic Planning Process
B. Existing Conditions
i. Original mission of the CSHCDC
ii. Successes to date
iii. Function
iv. Strengths
v. Weaknesses
C. Environmental Scan
D. 2015-2020 Strategic Plan
i. Vision Statement
ii. Goals
iii. Strategies
E. Resources
i. Funding
ii. External Stakeholders
F. Metrics
G. Conclusion
Appendix A – List of Stakeholder Interviews
Appendix B – List of Municipal Interviews
A. Goal of the CSHCDC Strategic Planning Process
The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative
(CSHCDC) has been in existence for five years. Since that time, the housing market has
changed and new issues have arisen. The goal of the strategic planning process is to
reflect on the Collaborative’s progress, reassess the state of the housing market,
evaluate the structure and long-term sustainability of the Collaborative, and determine
what the Collaborative wants to accomplish in the next 3-5 years. Below is a list of
questions that we hope to answer through this process:
1. Reflect on CSHCDC’s progress
a. Reassess state of the housing market
b. How has the housing market changed since 2008?
c. What is the current state of the housing market subregionally/regionally?
d. How will the priorities of the Collaborative change given the present and
forward-looking economic climate and housing market?
2. Determine what CSHCDC’s vision for the next 3-5 year period and what does
CSHCDC wants to accomplish moving forward
a. What are the metrics for success?
b. What are goals/scope of accomplishments given current economic and
housing climates?
2
c. What are the roles of external partners, MPC, and MMC moving forward and
how do they support these goals and aspirations?
3. Evaluate the structure and long-term sustainability of the CSHCDC
a. What about the Collaborative’s structure has worked well? What hasn’t?
b. What is the ideal structure for the Collaborative?
c. What does financial sustainability mean for the Collaborative?
d. What steps can be taken to make the Collaborative more financially
sustainable?
In order to answer these questions, staff from the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC),
Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) and CSHCDC interviewed a number of
stakeholders including: active member municipalities, inactive member municipalities,
staff from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Cook County,
DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS), BRicK Partners, the South Suburban Land
Bank and Development Authority (SSLBDA), and Regional Housing Partnership (RHP)
members (see appendix for more detail). We also examined data trends to determine
how the housing market in the south suburbs has changed over the years. This report
provides a summary of our findings and a plan for the future direction of the Chicago
Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative.
B. Existing Conditions
i. Original mission of the CSHCDC
The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative
(CSHCDC) formed in 2008 in response to a growing awareness of the need for a more
coordinated response to the subregion’s housing crisis. The southern suburbs were
disproportionally hard hit by foreclosures. In 2010, the Southland had 51 foreclosure
filings per 1,000 mortgageable properties, exceeding rates seen in the region as a
whole and the City of Chicago itself. (Chicago City and Regional Foreclosure Activity
2010) Coupled with shrinking municipal budgets and low staff capacity, the Southland
was forced to rethink its approach to neighborhood stabilization and revitalization. With
assistance from the Regional Homeownership Preservation Initiative (RHOPI) and
partners such as the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and Metropolitan Planning
Council (MPC), the Southland was able to secure funding from The Chicago
Community Trust and Grand Victoria Foundation to hire a shared staff person to work to
address housing challenges on behalf of multiple communities. Collaboration was not
new to southland municipalities, as many had been involved in collective economic
development and legislative efforts through the South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Association (SSMMA). Housing challenges, however, had traditionally been dealt with
on a town-by-town basis. Working collaboratively through a shared staff person based
at SSMMA would allow member municipalities to leverage more funding and the
needed expertise to address foreclosure and vacant property issues.
ii. Successes to date:
Over the last 5 years, the CSHCDC has experienced many successes, including
leveraging a significant amount of funding to support its projects. Listed below are
some highlights of the high level CSHCDC successes to date:
3
Twenty one communities collectively submitted an NSP 1 application, resulting in
almost $9 million in funding from Cook County. Unfortunately, the County ended
up parceling out the award to 11 individual municipalities and excluding the
Collaborative from the process. However, the fact that communities were able
to come together and submit a collective application was a clear early win for
the CSHCDC.
In 2010, SSMMA was awarded a $2.4 Million HUD Challenge Grant. Part of the
award helped the CSHCDC to seed the South Suburban Land Bank and
Development Authority (SSLBDA) and the TOD Loan Fund.
Six South Suburban Communities were awarded $6.6 Million from the
Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) to purchase and
rehab or demolish vacant or abandoned homes and to upgarde water-sewer
lines and roads in the vicinty of the targeted housing projects. The award was the
result of a joint application submitted to DCEO by the CSHCDC.
CSHCDC has been the recipient of free staff assistance from the Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) through its Local Technical Assistance
(LTA) Program. Projects have included the Homes for a Changing Region housing
policy plan and the development of a Housing Investment Tool.
CSHCDC was part of a successful team application to the Illinois Attorney
General’s Office for National Foreclosure Settlement Funding. The funding award
of $335,536 will be used to work with a team of partners to help the southern
suburbs address the presence of investor-owned small multifamily and single-
family rental properties in the area and increase subregional code enforcement
capacity.
By no means is this list exhaustive, but it clearly shows that the CSHCDC has had great
success attracting funding to the Southland to initiate new policies and programs.
iii. Function:
CSHCDC members and stakeholders were asked to identify what they believe the
function of the Collaborative to be. Responses included:
To identify trends, policy changes, and resources that will impact the south
suburbs
Be a housing thought leader; educate municipalities on best practices and
connect the south suburbs with regional entities
Coordinate and bring together the south suburbs to address housing and
economic development
Provide education and added capacity to low-resource towns
Mobilize regional organizations to meet municipalities’ needs
Create a platform for municipalities to:
– Apply for funding and co-manage grants
– Share ideas and best practices
– Attract new development
– Discuss challenges and take joint action to address them
Overall, interviewees see the CSHCDC as an entity that stays up-to-date on the latest
housing policy innovations and trends, while connecting its members to other
4
organizations that can help address shared municipal challenges. Interviewees have
also seen CSHCDC as an entity that attracts funding and new development
opportunities for its member communities.
iv. Strengths:
Interviewees identified a number of strengths of CSHCDC. Overall, members and
stakeholders see the CSHCDC as an important organization and subregional effort that
should be commended for its success to date, including attracting funding to its
member communities, providing a platform for municipalities to brainstorm and analyze
solutions to common housing challenges and connecting the Southland to regional
organizations that can provide expertise and resources. Noted strengths of the
CSHCDC included:
Opens up new funding channels and supports joint applications for state and
federal resources
Secures philanthropic, County, State, and federal resources to think through
policy challenges
Creates opportunities for information sharing and collaboration between
municipalities and potential local and regional partners
Vehicle for innovation, such as the GIS Consortium and the South Suburban
Land Bank Authority (SSLBDA)
Strong alignment of vision and values between CSHCDC and SSMMA, SSLBDA,
and TOD Fund
Local and regional credibility with strong municipal buy-in
Cook County views the CSHCDC as a reliable representative of the region and a
worthy investment
South Suburban Mayors and Managers (SSMMA) staff are well-respected and
connected in the communities they work in; their understanding of local policies
and practices is critical to the Collaborative’ success
Overall, members and stakeholders can see the value in the CSHCDC and would like it
to continue to operate moving forward.
v. Weaknesses:
Despite it strengths, interviewees identified a number of areas of improvement for the
CSHCDC. Overall, member municipalities and stakeholders recognize that there are a
limited number of staff at CSHCDC and SSMMA, and that staff capacity needs to be
added in a few specific areas. Over the last 5 years, the MMC and MPC have provided
a substantial amount of assistance to the CSHCDC when applying for both
philanthropic and capital grant programs. In order for the CSHCDC to be sustainable in
the long-term, its fundraising and grant management capacity needs to be
strengthened. In addition, both members and stakeholders recognized that the
CSHCDC needs to clearly define its role and specific responsibilities related to other
organizations in the Southland, such as the SSLBDA and TOD Loan Fund.
Other areas for improvement included:
Need active involvement across Collaborative towns to yield greatest benefits;
specifically, a large portion of the 23 Collaborative municipalties do not attend
5
the monthly meetings and participate in projects, which reduces the
effectiveness of the organization overall
Need a clearer communications and marketing strategy to attract developers,
realtors and investors
Uncertain buy-in from some state and federal agencies (i.e. grants often do not
allow Collaborative entities to apply)
Collaborative could benefit from additional capacity to manage its data
projects, including the Atlas tool and GIS Consortium, and it was suggested that
CSHCDC engage data expert organizations when embarking on data projects
moving forward.
Collaborative needs additional organization capacity and technical expertise
relating to:
– Implementation of coordinated programs
– Administration and management of large grants
– Development and rehab of homes
The input received through the strategic planning process was taken into consideration
when crafting the goals and strategies for the CSHCDC moving forward.
C. Environmental Scan
An important part of the strategic planning process is identifying how the housing
market has changed since the Collaborative’s inception five years ago. The team
looked at a number of indicators to understand which issues should be focused on
moving forward. Many of the findings below speak to the strained housing market and
slow economic recovery that still exists throughout the Southland. Housing values in
much of the subregion are still well below 2000 levels, and a large percentage of low-
and moderate-income households are housing cost burdened, paying over 30% of their
income toward monthly owner costs/gross rent. Foreclosures and long-term vacancy
have also been persistent challenges, although filings have decreased significantly in
the last year which is a positive sign. However, with property values slow to rebound,
investor owners have entered into housing markets throughout the south suburbs and
many member municipalities are concerned that they are showing little interest in
making positive, long-term investments in these communities. Overall, the data shows
that many of the issues that the Collaborative came together to originally address are
still present today. This is not to say that the Collaborative has not had success in its
efforts; simply put, the resources available to address these issues have not been nearly
enough to make a sizeable impact on the crisis. Moving forward, the CSHCDC should
continue to focus on developing and implementing collaborative strategies that the
results of the foreclosure crisis and the increased presence of investor owners in the
subregion. The graphs below show data that was examined through the strategic
planning process in order to determine the health of the housing market in the southern
suburbs.
6
$51,637
$62,366$60,560
$80,514
$34,044 $34,927
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
SSMMA MSA (Chicago, Joliet, Naperville)
Me
dia
n H
ou
seh
old
Inco
me
Geography
Median Household Income by Tenure
All Households
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Source: 2012 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Using the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville MSA as a point of comparison, median household
income by tenure illustrates the financial health of home owners and renters. Data
shows that homeowners across the Southland have significantly lower incomes than
those around the region. The fact that homeownership in the south suburbs is attainable
for households with a wider range of incomes could be an indication of low housing
values. Southland renters, on the other hand, have similar incomes to the rest of the
region.
7
Source: 2012 ACS 5-year Estimates
Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Households that are housing cost burdened are defined as those paying 30% or more of
their income toward monthly owner costs/gross rent. This spending includes both
housing (rent or mortgage) and housing-related costs, such as property taxes,
insurance, and utilities. Housing cost burden is greatest amongst low- and moderate-
income households but prevalent across all income levels. Housing cost burden is
greater for renters making less than $35,000, and greater for homeowners making more
than $35,000.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
% o
f H
ou
seh
old
s P
ayin
g 3
0%
or
Mo
re o
f In
com
e
Tow
ard
Mo
nth
ly O
wn
er
Co
sts/
Gro
ss R
en
t
Household Income
Housing Cost Burden
Rental Households
Owner Households
8
Source: HUD PD&R and 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Includes the following HUD programs: Public Housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, Mod
Rehab, Section NC/SR, Section 236, Multi-family Other, and LIHTC
Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers
The number of assisted housing units speaks to the investment by the federal
government in creating affordable housing options for moderate- and low-income
households. Subsidized housing is a sizeable share of the total affordable housing stock
in our region. The percentage of assisted housing units as a total of all housing units for
both SSMMA and the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville MSA is just above 7%.
10,780 254,471
128,136 3,176,288
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SSMMA MSA
% o
f To
tal H
ou
sin
g U
nit
s
Geography
Assisted Housing Units
Housing Units Receiving NoAssistance
Assisted Housing Units
9
Source: HUD Location Affordability Index
Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Regional Median Income (RMI): Household Size= 2.7, Income $60,574
RMI refers to full Chicago-Naperville-Joliet IL, IN, WI metro area (including portions
of Wisconsin and Indiana).
Transportation costs often make up a considerable portion of household expenditures,
and have added a new dynamic to affordability in our region. Some households that
are not housing cost burdened are now finding their monthly budgets stretched thin
due to high transportation costs. Both renters and home owners at RMI are spending
well above 45% of their income toward housing and transportation costs, highlighting
the need for affordable housing and public transit options in the Southland. Housing
and transportation costs as a percentage of household income are significantly higher
for homeowners than for renters.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
H&T H&T Own H&T Rent
% H
ou
seh
old
Inco
me
To
war
d H
ou
sin
g an
d
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Co
sts
Housing and Transportation Costs
Housing and Transportation Costs
RMI
80% RMI
10
Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies
Geography: South suburban subregion
Housing values in the Southland are beginning to show some signs of recovery, but
housing values in two out of four south suburban submarkets are significantly below
2000 levels. Low housing values will make it harder for the Southland to attract new
investment to its communities. It’s also likely that many homeowners are underwater on
their mortgage.
In comparison, housing values in Cook County are beginning to rebound, and most
areas have experienced nominal price appreciation since 2000. Single-family home
prices increased 20% from the first quarter of 2000 compared to the fourth quarter of
2013. However, struggling submarkets like those found in the graph above illustrate why
it has been so difficult for housing prices in Cook County to fully recover.
Source: http://www.housingstudies.org/dataportal/info/2013-housing-market-
conditions-report/
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
% C
han
ge in
Ho
usi
ng
Val
ue
s
Year (Quarter 4)
% Change in Housing Values Since 2000 (Seasonally Adjusted)
Orland Park/ Tinley Park
Oak Forest/ Midlothian
Calumet City/ Harvey
Chicago Heights/ Matteson
11
Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies
Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Foreclosure filings peaked in 2010 and remained elevated through 2012. In 2013, filings
took a large dip and for the first time in 6 years and dropped below 2006 levels.
DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS) notes that new foreclosure filing activity
decreased significantly between 2012 and 2013 in all markets, not just the south
suburbs. This can be seen as positive sign that homeowners are facing less economic
hardship than they did previously. However, a 2013 market conditions report released
by IHS points out that despite recent declines in new foreclosure filings, persistent and
high levels of foreclosure activity have left certain areas weak and significantly
foreclosure distressed. One of the significantly foreclosure-distressed areas includes
municipalities in south Cook County.
Source: http://www.housingstudies.org/dataportal/info/2013-housing-market-
conditions-report/
Cook County as a whole follows a similar trend to that of the Southland. After reaching
a peak of over 48,000 residential foreclosure filings in 2010, and with filings remaining at
about 40,000 in 2011 and 2012, the County saw a dramatic drop in 2013 to fewer than
24,000 filings. Even though these trends are promising for Cook County and the
Southland, South Cook has had the largest number of foreclosure filings per year of any
region in suburban Cook County since 2011.
Source: IHS Data Portal
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
# o
f Fo
recl
osu
re F
ilin
gs
Year
Total Residential Foreclosure Filings
12
Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies
Geography: South Cook
Properties in the Southland vacant for longer than 24 months peaked in 2013 and
declined slightly in 2014, although the 2014 rate is still higher than it was in 2010. Both
South Cook and Cook County show a steady increase in the long-term vacancy rate
starting in 2010, which begins to level off between 2013 and 2014. Comparison data for
Cook County shows long-term vacancy rates below those of South Cook. In the first
quarters of 2013 and 2014, Cook County’s long-term vacancy rate was 2.5%, up from a
low of 1.7% in the first quarter of 2010. Although foreclosure filings have recently
decreased in the south suburbs, municipalities are still struggling with vacant property
issues. Source: IHS Data Portal
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ad
dre
sse
s V
acan
t 2
4+
Mo
.
Year (1st Quarter)
Long Term Vacancies in South Cook
13
Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies
Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Business buyers as a percentage of all residential sales in the Southland has been
climbing since 2010, and is over 20 percentage points higher than it was in 2006. In 2013,
29.2% of all residential sales were made by business buyers. All of suburban Cook
County and the City of Chicago have seen increases in the percentage of residential
properties sold to business buyers between 2012 and 2013. In 2013, 19.2% of all
residential properties in Cook County were sold to business buyers, an increase of over
11% since 2006. IHS points out that business buyers represent a range of investor types
from small mom-and-pop investors to large Wall Street-traded equity funds. These large
institutional investors are often purchasing lower-value and foreclosure-distressed single
family properties to convert to rental housing – the next graph examines this property
type in greater detail (source: http://www.housingstudies.org/dataportal/info/2013-
housing-market-conditions-report/). South suburban municipalities have expressed
concern about whether investors will be good community partners and maintain
quality rental properties.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Bu
sin
ess
Bu
yers
in T
ota
l Sal
es
(Pe
rce
nt)
Year
Business Buyers of All Residential Sales
14
Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies
Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Investor-Owners Business buyer sales in the Southland have steadily increased since 2006, making up
over 31% of all single-family home sales in 2013. 1,300 single-family homes in Cook
County were bought in 2013 by the institutional investor Blackstone, the leading
purchaser of homes in the County and one of the world’s largest private equity firms.
The latest data from IHS shows that 19.8% of single-family homes in Cook County sold in
2013 went to business buyers. However, acquisitions have slowed over the last year.
Purchases of single-family homes in Cook County by the largest investors in the first
quarter of 2014 were down 63% compared to the same time in 2013. Source:
http://www.housingstudies.org/news/blog/examining-patterns-concentrated-
institutional-inve/
In conclusion, a review of these data shows that there is still a need for collaborative
action in the Southland to address the issues that the municipalities came together to
address in the first place. In addition to reducing the impact of foreclosures and
vacant property, the CSHCDC will want to focus on making sure new investment
benefits local communities and that current residents have access to a variety of
housing options appropriate for their income level. While foreclosure activity may be
declining, vacant property challenges have increased and should addressed moving
forward. The next section of the report addresses these issues in greater detail.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Bu
sin
ess
Bu
yers
in T
ota
l Sal
es
(Pe
rce
nt)
Year
Business Buyers of Single Family Homes
15
D. 2015-2020 Strategic Plan
The section below outlines the vision and goals of the CSHCDC and the strategies that
will be needed to reach that vision.
i. Vision statement:
By 2020, the Chicago Southland will be a stable, thriving region that is pursuing housing
investment and revitalization strategies that support subregional economic
development activities and ensure that limited public and private capital is being
deployed strategically to advance local and regional goals.
In order to achieve this vision, the Chicago Southland Housing and Community
Development Collaborative will build its member municipalities’ capacity to address
pressing housing and community development challenges related to neighborhood
stabilization, foreclosure and vacant property issues, while supporting larger SSMMA
economic development activities.
ii. Goals:
From this vision, the following goals have been developed for the Collaborative:
1. Identify shared housing challenges through tracking relevant data trends
2. Propose interjurisdictional initiatives and/or policy innovations to address these
housing challenges; designing and pursuing implementation strategies
3. Convene member municipalities, developers and the local and regional
nonprofit community to develop and support these subregional housing
strategies
4. Serve as a single-point of entry for government agencies and private actors
related to housing issues
5. Educate member municipalities on lessons learned from the Collaborative’s
activities and best practices from around the region and nation
6. Pursue funding to sustain the Collaborative’s operations and implement its
programs; increase internal grant management capacity
iii. Strategies
In order to achieve the vision and goals, CSHCDC needs to pursue a number of
strategies. Many of these strategies are a continuation of work that has already started.
CSHCDC has made great strides in the last 5 years and it should continue with a specific
focus on housing strategies that support broader economic development efforts of the
SSMMA. The Collaborative should implement housing programs and policies that
support transit-oriented development (TOD), job access and growth, neighborhood
stabilization and subregional economic development priorities. It will be important to
continue to pursue activities related to foreclosures and vacant property. The following
implementation activities were identified through the strategic planning process:
1. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
a. Convene the Loan Fund and Consortium team that consists of Enterprise
Community Partners, Chicago Community Loan Fund, MPC, and Center
16
for Neighborhood Technology to continue identify policy challenges and
potential developments on a biweekly basis.
b. Identify potential TOD sites for redevelopment, undertake site analysis to
identify potential challenges, engage municipal staff and leadership, and
work with Enterprise Community Partners to outreach to housing
developers interested in developing these sites.
c. For developers that approach the TOD fund for capital on their own
accord, the Collaborative will utilize SSMMA’s Housing Investment Tool to
confirm that the development meets local and regional goals around
location efficiency.
d. Continue educating and promoting transit-friendly housing and retail
development as a redevelopment model to municipalities and
developers across the region and with key government leaders who set
policy and funding priorities; ideally the Southland TOD Loan Fund is a
revolving fund that has its own momentum.
e. Enterprise Community Partners will undertake site development work in
Blue Island, Richton Park and Olympia Fields that will further this activity
and goal.
Meets Goals: 3, 4
2. Housing Plus
a. The Housing 'Plus' Model, A Live, Learn, Earn Initiative is an effort to create
affordable and workforce housing that is close to transit, retail, recreation,
health care, day care, and government services. The model aims to
create opportunities for education, job training and entrepreneurial
activities, anchoring interdisciplinary community and economic
development for the specific property and for the Chicago Southland
more broadly. The broader Live, Learn, Earn Initiative will also facilitate
access to workforce development, and a range of social and health care
services. The Housing Plus developments will provide the community
entrepreneurs with access to the manufacturing "fab labs," via a well-
designed building and training program.
b. Work to secure planning funds to build a Housing Plus pilot team, with the
goal of creating a replicable model for municipalities and subregional
collaborations.
c. Build a partnership with developers, employers, local service providers,
educational institutions and others to further the Housing Plus model.
d. Educate member municipalities about the Housing Plus model and
encourage them to utilize this model in their own communities. Assist
municipalities in raising funds for Housing Plus developments.
Meets Goals: 2, 5
3. Attracting Investment
a. Develop a marketing plan for the south suburbs that highlights the area’s
livability, transit access, and other amenities; a robust marketing plan will
help reshape the negative public image of the south suburbs and will help
with outreach to potential homeowners, families, and others interested in
living, developing, or opening businesses in the Southland.
17
i. The Collaborative should revisit the marketing plan created for the
CSHCDC by Jason Sherman and determine which
recommendations can be implemented. Seek funding for those
activities that need financial support.
ii. Hold a roundtable event/collaborative meeting to allow
municipalities to share their existing strategies around marketing;
include realtors and possibly local businesses and Chambers of
Commerce in the discussion.
iii. Continue to coordinate marketing activities with NHS.
b. Work with municipalities to standarize their development approval
processes and share theses processes with developers. Use lessons
learned from the Regional Transportation Authority and Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s local technical assistance and share
widely with Collaborative municipalities. Continue to promote CSHCDC as
the “first point of entry” in the region and a partner that is familiar with
local development goals.
c. Attract development partners that will build market rate housing in the
south suburbs.
Meets Goals: 3, 4, 6
4. Data
a. Improve the SSMMA’s Atlas GIS system so that regional and municipal
governments are able to regularly use the database for their planning
and development and work
b. Work with DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS) and other MMC AG-
funded partners to create a intermunicipal database that tracks property
conditions and landlord behavior. Determine if/how this database will be
integrated with Atlas.
c. Consult with DePaul Institute for Housing Studies, Woodstock Institute, and
other regional actors to ensure that the Atlas GIS system and any other
data implementation projects are following best practices and aligned
with other data efforts taking place around the greater Chicago area.
Meets Goal: 1
5. Vacant land
a. Continue to partner with and support the South Suburban Land Bank and
Development Authority by:
i. Assisting the SSLBDA in identifying and pursuing grants to acquire
and rehab vacant buildings (e.g. gathering information from
municipalities, assisting with writing, etc.).
ii. Provide the SSLBDA with property analysis information from GIS Atlas
in order to assist in developing priorities for redevelopment areas.
b. Work with the numerous National Foreclosure Settlement grantees in the
Southland to ensure coordination between grantees and with local
municipalities; help grantees focus and direct their housing counseling
and rehabiltiation funding to targeted communities and priority areas
across the Southland to achieve greater impact.
Meets Goals: 2, 4
18
6. Employer-engagement
a. Once Spanish Coalition for Housing is officially the Southland’s EAH
counselor, the Collaborative can work with MPC to establish an employer
outreach strategy and determine a list of potential employers.
b. Make introductions and invite employers to the outreach and education
events; distribute invitation materials (letters, emails, flyers) to local
employers.
c. Assist MPC with planning and hosting an annual outreach event (i.e.
breakfast) or one-on-one meetings with communities and their key
employers.
Meets Goals: 2
7. Homeownership
a. Serve as the liason between Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) and
the SSLBDA and Cook County Land Bank Authority in order to connect
potential homeowners to recently rehabilitated homes .
b. Continue to facilitate the relationship between municipalities and NHS by
communicating local municipal goals to NHS and coordinating outreach
activities.
Meets Goals: 2, 3
8. Rental Housing Quality
a. Work with MMC AG-funded partners, including MPC and the Center for
Community Progress (CCP), to develop strategies to ensure that existing
investor landlords are maintaining high quality rental properties and being
a positive community partner.
Meets Goals: 1, 2, 5
9. Municipal Capacity
a. Work with MMC AG-funded partners to create a pilot program that aims
to increase municipal code enforcement capacity. Once pilot is up and
running, share best practices and lessons learned with other SSMMA
municipalities and assist in guiding other municipalities that may want to
participate in similar efforts.
b. Bring in experts to discuss issues of interest with member municipalities and
hold trainings to increase local knowledge of how to address housing
challenges (e.g. vacant property panel)
c. Consider creating a “buddy system” or pool of volunteers for
Collaborative members that pairs higher capacity municipalities with
lower capacity municipalities and allows for municipalities to share lessons
learned and assist with areas of need.
Meets Goals: 2, 5
10. Sustainability
a. CSHCDC currently operates through indirect financial and office support
from SSMMA , philanthropic grants that are raised and managed by the
Metropolitan Mayors Caucus and Metropolitan Planning Council, and
19
funding from government awards like the HUD Challenge Grant and the
National Foreclosure Settlement Award. Over the past 5 years, key
philanthropic funders have included: The Chicago Community Trust,
Grand Victoria Foundation, the Field Foundation and JP Morgan Chase
Foundation. It is likely the Collaborative will always need to rely on some
level of foundation support. However, as these funders begin to reduce
and/or cut off their support, the Collaborative will need to explore other
funding solutions moving forward.
i. Explore integrating an additional fee into the SSMMA municipal
due structure to raise revenues for housing and community
development programs.
ii. Pursue funding opportunities through local and national banks,
including Bank of America, Wells Fargo and local community
banks.
iii. Consider having a special membership level for Collaborative
communities that want to voluntarily contribute funds and provide
extra acknowledgement for those communities in communication
materials.
b. Historically, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus has served as fiscal agent to
the Housing Collaborative and played a large role in fundraising efforts.
The Caucus will continue to serve this role for existing grants and any other
grants that are pursued in collaboration with the West Cook County
Housing Collaborative. However, any new sources of funds, particularly
fundraising efforts that involve municipal dues should be managed by
SSMMA.
i. The goal should be that SSMMA will manage all Collaborative
grants internally in three years.
ii. There needs to be continued discussion moving forward about how
to increase SSMMA’s capacity to attract and manage grants in
order for this transition to be successful. This discussion lies
somewhat outside the scope of this strategic planning process but
will be important to its success. MMC and MPC remain committed
to assisting SSMMA in resolving this issue.
Meets Goal: 6
11. Structure
a. Currently, SSMMA municipalities may join the CSHCDC by passing a
resolution which appoints a staff member to serve on the Housing
Collaborative Committee. The CSHCDC Committee meets monthly with
the Housing Coordinator leading the agenda. Moving forward, more time
and resources should be spent to better engage elected officials in the
activities of the Collaborative to ensure ongoing buy-in.
i. Over the last year, a Mayor has started serving as the liason
between the Housing Collaborative and the SSMMA Executive
Committee. This structure should remain the same moving forward.
ii. The Collaborative could also consider having an annual meeting
with mayors to update them on activities and get their feedback
on new initiatives to pursue. There is a possibility this meeting could
20
serve as a small fundraiser for the Collaborative and other parters
could be invited. Staff will need to consider the amount of work
involved before making a commitment to this activity.
b. The Collaborative should make an effort to increase both non-member
and member municipalities’ participation in meetings and activities.
c. CSHCDC staff are housed at SSMMA and currently include the Housing
Coordinator and a Planner. Additional staff capacity will likely be needed
moving forward in order to increase the Collaborative’s capacity to
attract and manage grants and conduct effective communications. The
CSHCDC will need to work closely with SSMMA on this staffing issue
moving forward.
Meets Goal: 5, 6
12. Communication
a. The CSHCDC website should be revamped to be more user-friendly, and
a more robust communications plan should be set in motion as a quality
control measure for Collaborative communications materials.
b. The Collaborative will need to build its staff capacity to manage its
marketing and communications materials moving forward.
Meets Goals: 4, 5
E. Resources
i. Funding
The CSHCDC has primarily relied on philanthropic funding to support the staffing
needed for its day to day operations, which include a Housing Coordinator position (i.e.
Deputy Executive Director of Housing at SSMMA) and a supporting Planner position.
Major CSHCDC funders have included The Chicago Community Trust, Grand Victoria
Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation and the Field Foundation. In addition, the
CSHCDC has attracted government grants to support its staff, including grants from
Cook County, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of
the Illinois Attorney General. Current philanthropic funding is listed below:
Chicago Community Trust (expires July 2015) - $5,460
JP Morgan Chase Foundation (expires November 2015) - $22,500
IL Attorney General National Foreclosure Settlement Funds (expires February
2016) - $127,844
Of this funding, $68,158 is available for the Housing Coordinator position. The CCT and
Chase grants broadly support development activities that relate to strategy 1 on transit-
oriented development. Both grants can also support any additional
projects/implementation activities that result from this plan. The IL AG Grant provides
funding for a code enforcement pilot project that supports strategies 4, 8 and 9.
21
SSMMA manages additional government grants that are available to support a portion
of the Coordinator and Planner positions over the coming year. An additional IL
Attorney General Grant awarded to the SSLBDA has funding set aside for funding for
CSHCDC staff to assist with strategy 5 around vacant land. Although there does not
appear an immediate gap in funding to staff the Collaborative, it is likely that there will
be a gap once the grants listed above begin to expire. SSMMA staff will need to work
closely with the MMC (as fiscal agent to philanthropic grants) to monitor the program
budget and determine when new funding will need to be raised. Additional funding
may be needed in order to staff up to execute some of the strategies listed in this plan.
ii. External Stakeholders
Forging relationships with external stakeholders has allowed CSHCDC to bring
additional resources, knowledge and expertise to the south suburbs. External
stakeholders have also relied on CSHCDC, viewing the Collaborative is as a central
point of contact for south suburban municipalities and an expert on local priorities and
goals. The CSHCDC should continue to engage with the following partners moving
forward as it advances it vision and goals:
1. Community and Nonprofit Organizations
a. DePaul Institute for Housing Studies (IHS)
i. The IHS data portal can serve as an important resource in data
collection efforts for metrics related to foreclosure, renter and
ownership patterns, and other key housing and economic
development indicators and trends.
ii. IHS is in a position to answer important policy questions that inform
and can help direct the Collaborative’s work.
b. National Housing Services of Chicago (NHS)
i. Through homeownership counseling and foreclosure prevention
training, NHS can aid the Collaborative’s efforts in working with
residents across the south suburbs to stem the tide of foreclosures.
ii. NHS can also assist the Collaborative and SSLBDA in getting
qualified homeowners into rehabbed homes.
c. The following nonprofit organizations can help with education and
implementation of housing best practices and strategies around the
region: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI), the
Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Community and Economic Development
Association (CEDA).
d. The Regional Housing Partnership (RHP) is going through its own strategic
planning process this year. CSHCDC should remain involved in any
relevant activities that come out of this process.
2. Regional and State Governments
a. Cook County and CMAP
i. The Collaborative should continue to act as an intermediary in
guiding future funding and programs sponsored by the County and
CMAP.
b. Illinois Housing Development Authority
i. The Collaborative should continue to advocate that funding
programs coming out of IHDA be interjurisdictional in their
22
appproach and allow for multiples communities to submit one
application.
3. Realtors, developers and investors
a. The Collaborative should continue its recent efforts to partner with Realtor
organizations and encourage local realtor representatives to attend
Collaborative meetings.
b. CSHCDC should engage both developers so that they better understand
the potential housing and redevelopment opportunities in the south
suburbs
4. Banks
a. Along with the SSLBDA, attend meetings and build relationships with banks
and financial instiutitons to raise funding that supports community and
economic development initiatives.
Aside from the stakeholders listed above, the MMC and MPC should continue to play a
technical assistance role in advancing CSHCDC’s workplan, but the role of both
organizations should be more focused moving forward. MMC and MPC will to develop
the Collaborative’s annual workplan activities and ensure that those activities are
aligned with this strategic plan. The MMC will continue to remain involved in activities
that are of interest to its broader membership. Currently, those activities include those
funded through the AG grant, including increasing code enforcement capacity
through intermunicipal service sharing, landlord incentives and data sharing. MPC is
interested in engaging the development community to support the South Suburban
Community Development Loan Fund and South Suburban Land Bank Authority as they
pursue the objectives of the Sustainable Communities Challenge grant. MPC plans to
continue meeting biweekly with SSMMA and the TOD partners to advance these goals.
Additionally, MPC is part of the code enforcement team and will support the
Collaborative’s efforts to improve housing quality in single-family rental properties. Both
organizations will continue to play a role in connecting the Collaborative to larger
policy audiences.
F. Metrics
Establishing metrics for success to evaluate the Collaborative over the next 5 years is an
important component in understanding the reach, effectiveness and impact that the
Collaborative is having on its member communities. The metrics will be used to engage
CSHCDC stakeholders and funders in a deeper conversation about the value add of
working through a collaborative model. Below are metrics for success developed to
evaluate fundraising and financial sustainability, community revitilization and recovery,
and municipal participation and engagement:
1. Fundraising and financial sustainability
a. Grants applied for
b. Grants approved for
c. New contacts made
d. New requests made
e. Other funding sources established
23
2. Revitalization and recovery
a. Number of newly constructed homes
b. Number of rehabbed homes
c. Number of demolished homes
d. Value of real estate
e. Total residential foreclosure filings
f. Percent of properties vacant for longer than 24 months
3. Municipal participation and engagement
a. Meeting attendance
b. How often are municipalities connecting with Collaborative and taking
advantage of resources that it has to offer?
c. On what and how often is Collaborative sharing best practices?
G. Conclusion
Overall, the Strategic Plan shows the value of the CSHCDC and reiterates the
importance of its past activities and initiatives. The Environmental Scan clearly shows a
need for municipalities in the southern suburbs to continue their efforts to collaborate
on creating new policies and programs to address their collective housing challenges.
The Collaborative should continue to pursue activities that address foreclosure and
vacant property issues while also connecting its housing initiatives to the broader
economic development goals of SSMMA. In order for the Collaborative to be
successful, however, the issue of sustainable funding and organizational and staff
capacity must be addressed. The Chicago Southland Housing and Community
Development Collaborative has been featured in national and regional publications for
its innovation; continuing to raise awareness and implement new policies and strategies
should be balanced with the pressing need to create a stable institution committed to
housing in the Southland.
24
Appendix A: List of Stakeholder Interviews
Name Organization
Russ Rydin South Suburban Land Bank Authority
Andrew Williams Clark Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
Bob Dean Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
Kendra Smith Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
Jonathan Burch Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
Geoff Smith DePaul’s Institute for Housing Studies
Dominic Tocci Cook County, Bureau of Economic Development
Jane Hornstein Cook County, Bureau of Economic Development
Robin Snyderman BRicK, LLC
Ed Paesel South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association
Adam Gross Business People for the Public Interest (BPI)
Stacie Young Preservation Compact
Becca Goldstein Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago
John Gerut IFF
Katie Buitrago Woodstock Institute
Spencer Cowan Woodstock Institute
Appendix B: List of Municipal Interviews
Name Organization
Gary Gerdes City of Oak Forest
Regan Stockstell Village of Richton Park
David Mekarski Village of Olympia Fields
Mark Miller City of Blue Island
Nicholas Crite City of Blue Island
Ernestine Beck-Fulgham Village of Robbins
Hildy Kingma Village of Park Forest
Mayor John Ostenburg Village of Park Forest
Gary Holcomb Village of Sauk Village
Karen Kreis Village of Midlothian
Ryan Franklin Village of Matteson
Pat Mahon Village of South Holland
Kristi DeLaurentis Village of Lansing
Top Related