A Review and Synthesis of
EBMC Evaluation Materials for
Workforce Development, Job
Creation, Capacity Building and
Quality of Life Focus Areas
Prepared by:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Empower Baltimore Management Corporation (EBMC) retained the Jacob France Institute of the University of Baltimore (JFI) to review, analyze, synthesize and prepare a report describing the findings of available evaluation materials prepared during the operation of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone from 1994 to 2005. This report describes the available EBMC evaluation materials in the four major areas where EBMC implemented programs – job creation, workforce development, community capacity, and quality of life (housing and crime reduction). In the areas of job creation and workforce development, this report also extends the results of existing evaluation materials to include an analysis of the leveraging effects of EBMC outcomes.
Job Creation
• The 6,603 jobs created or retained by EBMC job creation programs would contribute more than $1.2 billion in economic activity to the City of Baltimore economy. These 6,603 jobs would be combined with 4,012 jobs created through the “spin-off” or “multiplier effects” of these jobs for a total employment impact of 10,615 City jobs created or supported by the Baltimore Empowerment Zone job creation programs. • There is an estimated $455 million in salaries and wages associated with these 10,615
jobs. The economic activity supported by the Empowerment Zone generates an
estimated $21 million in State sales and income taxes and $21.3 million in City income and property taxes.
Workforce Development
• The recorded increase in employment activity after receiving workforce development assistance increased by a low of 3% to a high of 8%. The average incremental earnings increase for EZ workforce development program participants after receiving workforce development assistance ranged from a low of $374 per quarter to a high of $1,515 per quarter.
• The national Interim Assessment of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities (EZ/EC) Program: A Progress Report (2001) by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that Baltimore has successfully targeted the multiple barriers to employment facing residents through the locally driven, coordinated delivery of linked social service (basic education, substance abuse counseling), training and placement.
Community Capacity
• In 2003, EBMC commissioned the Community Development Capacity Building Impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone report to analyze the impact of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone’s community capacity building efforts. This report found that the community capacity building efforts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone have been successful in terms of building community capacity - defined as creating functioning community organizations that have engaged the community to design and implement key strategic goals through a core set of programs.
• In assessing the community capacity building efforts, the Lessons Learned from the Community Capacity Building Efforts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone Village Centers report in 2004 found that EBMC’s technical assistance and community oriented strategic planning efforts were of critical importance, but the capacity building efforts could have benefited from additional start-up time and an expanded communication effort in order to: better mobilize the community; identify, support and build community leadership; build the networks of linkages necessary to promote redevelopment; and address the history of failed redevelopment attempts in these communities.
Quality of Life
• According to statistics provided by the Baltimore City Police Department, from 1994 to 2003, the total numbers of crimes including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and stolen automobiles have dramatically declined within the
Empowerment Zone. For all of Baltimore City, these crimes have decreased by 38% and within the Zone they have decreased by 56%.
• From 1995 to 2000, over 900 completed projects (public, private, community, and institutional) representing $1.1 billion in investment and approximately 200 pipeline projects representing a minimum of $631 million have been identified within the Empowerment Zone. Additionally, as of the end of 2002, 813 Housing Venture Fund program loans had been made totaling over $3.4 million in funds.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...1
2.0 Job Creation ...1
2.1 EBMC Loan Fund Vehicles...1
2.2 Baltimore Empowerment Center ...4
2.3 Baltimore Empowerment Zone Main Streets ...5
2.4 Fairfield Ecological Business Park ...6
2.5 Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis...7
2.6 Leveraging Analysis ...8
3.0 Workforce Development... 9
3.1 Employment and Earnings Evaluation Reports ...10
3.2 Leveraging and Impact Analysis ...12
3.3 Other Baltimore Evaluation Report Findings ...15
3.4 National Evaluation Materials ...17
4.0 Community Capacity ...17
4.1 Overall Analysis...18
4.2 Village Center Level Analysis ...19
4.3 Summary and Leveraging ...20
5.0 Quality of Life...21
5.1 Crime Reduction and Prevention ...21
5.1.1 Crime Reduction Statistics...22
5.1.2 Evaluation of EBMC Crime Reduction and Prevention Programs...23
5.1.3 Village Centers Crime Prevention Program Interviews...24
5.2 Housing ...25
5.2.1 EBMC Housing Plans and Analysis of Housing Market...26
5.2.2 Evaluation of EBMC Housing Programs...29
5.3 Quality of Life Summary ...31
6.0 Summary ...31
List of Tables
Table 1 Baltimore City Empowerment Zone Loan Funds by Type of Fund ...2 Table 2 Baltimore City Empowerment Zone Loan Funds by Year,
1996 to 2004 ...3 Table 3 Baltimore City Empowerment Zone Loan Funds by Village Center,
1996 to 2004 ...3 Table 4 Baltimore City Empowerment Zone Job Creation and Revitalization Impacts, 2000 to 2004...6 Table 5 Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis...8 Table 6 2002 Action Item Review Selected Workforce Development
Outcomes ...10 Table 7 Selected Results of the Jacob France Institute Research ...12
Table 8 Return on Investment Calculations Benefit-Cost Ratio for an
Employed Participant EBMC Workforce Development Programs ...14 Table 9 Change in Crime Statistics: Empowerment Zone
vs. Baltimore City ...22 Table 10 Percent Change in Crime Statistics: Empowerment Zone and Village
Centers, 1994-2003 ...23 Table 11 Housing Demographics for the Village Centers of Poppleton,
Washington Village, Harlem Park, and East Harbor by Percent
Change, 1990-2000 ...26 Table 12 Investment in Baltimore’s Empowerment Zone,
1995-2000 (Millions of $)...28 Table 13 Average Total Real Property Values, 1997-2000 ...29 Table 14 Number of Home Closings and Funds Allocated through the Housing
Appendix
Table 1 Leveraging Impact of the Workforce Development Programs of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone All Sub-Populations (2004 $)...34 Table 2 Leveraging Impact of the Workforce Development Programs of the
Baltimore Empowerment Zone All Populations
Except Intake Only (2004 $)...35 Table 3 Leveraging Impact of the Workforce Development Programs of the
Baltimore Empowerment Zone All Customized Skills Training and Occupational Skills Training (2004 $)...36
1.0 Introduction
The Empower Baltimore Management Corporation (EBMC) retained the Jacob France Institute of the University of Baltimore (JFI) to review, analyze, synthesize and prepare a report describing the findings of available evaluation materials prepared during the operation of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone from 1994 to 2005. This report describes the available EBMC evaluation materials in the four major areas where EBMC implemented programs – job creation, workforce development, community capacity, and quality of life (housing and crime reduction). In the areas of job creation and workforce development, this report also extends the results of existing evaluation materials to include an analysis of the leveraging effects of EBMC outcomes.
2.0 Job Creation
In 1994, Baltimore City was awarded an Empowerment Zone designation by the federal government, providing a $100 million dollar ten-year grant to develop sustained economic opportunities for Baltimore residents and businesses. This section of the report provides a description of the job creation activities of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone through the impacts attributed to loan fund vehicles created by EBMC, the Baltimore Empowerment Center (BEC), Baltimore’s Main Streets located within the Empowerment Zone, and the Fairfield Ecological Business Park. Also included in this analysis of the job creation impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone is an economic impact and leveraging analysis of the job creation efforts that were done by the Jacob France Institute.
The goal of The Job Creation Impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone: 1994-2004 (2005) report by the Jacob France Institute of the University of Baltimore was not to calculate the total number of jobs created through the programs established by EBMC but to provide a report of the jobs created and to provide information on the Empowerment Zone programs that played a significant role in supporting the creation of these jobs in Baltimore City. This report summarizes the findings from the Jacob France Institute report on the job creation activities and programs of EBMC. This report found that from 1994 to 2004, it was estimated that there were 5,777 jobs directly created and 826 jobs retained within the EZ that are directly tied to the job creation programs of EBMC. Additionally, the report found that EBMC had been successful in leveraging their job creation activities. The job creation programs created by EBMC accounted for 29% of the total federal funds and 29% of all funds spent by EBMC.
2.1 EBMC Loan Fund Vehicles
The largest way in which the Empowerment Zone was able to support the creation of jobs was through five loan funds that it created as a financing vehicle. The goal of the finance vehicle was to offer incentive financing to stimulate job creation, enhance existing economic
development programs, retain current jobs, and to generate increased private investment and induce revitalization of sites with environmental issues in EZ neighborhoods. Where available, the program leveraged financing and technical assistance that will build management and other business capacities of Zone businesses to assure the sustainability and viability of the businesses served. These loans were administered by a fund manager and selected through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. There were five loan programs established by EBMC. These loan programs were: a Micro loan program, a Small Business loan fund, a Brownfields program, an equity fund, and the Up to 50/50 loan fund. These programs accounted for 53% of the federal funds for job creation activities and 51% of all funds for job creation activities. This section of
the report will provide brief information on each loan program and the job creation impacts that are associated with each loan fund.
In total, there were 109 loans made from 1996 to 2004 with over $16 million in funding disbursed.1 There were 826 jobs retained and 1,729 jobs that were created as a result of these loans made to local businesses. For each job created or retained that used these financing vehicles, the programs disbursed an average of $6,390.
Table 1 lists each loan fund with the number of loans made and the project costs and loan amount disbursed with the number of jobs retained and created for each loan fund from 1996 to 2004. The 50/50 fund created the greatest number of jobs (892), followed by the Equity
Investments (324), and Brownfields loans (303). The largest number of loans was made in 2001 with the greatest number of jobs being retained occurring in 2003 and the greatest number of jobs being created occurring in 1998 (see Table 2). When looking at the loans made by Village Center, the greatest numbers of loans were awarded to businesses located in East Harbor (49), followed by Washington Village (31) (see Table 3). It was in these two Village Centers that the greatest number of jobs created also occurred with 918 jobs being created in East Harbor and 389 jobs being created in Washington Village.
Number of Loans/ Project Loan Jobs Jobs
Year Investments Costs Disbursed Retained Created
Total 109 $105,882,050 $16,325,634 826 1,729
50/50 fund 45 $35,418,825 $5,714,204 500 892
Brownfields 9 $45,509,045 $2,954,000 0 303
Equity Investments 19 $17,213,501 $4,180,867 264 324
Micro loans 7 $110,500 $73,179 11 7
Small business loan 29 $7,630,179 $3,403,384 51 203
Table 1
Baltimore City Empowerment Zone Loan Funds by Type of Fund
Source: Empower Baltimore Management Corporation
1
These loans do not include a 2002 Track 5 loan of $4.5 million to the Montgomery Park project with a four-year job creation goal of 135 residents. As of October 2004, 93 Empowerment Zone residents gained employment in various positions at Montgomery Park.
Number of Loans/ Project Loan Jobs Jobs
Year Investments Costs Disbursed Retained Created
Total 109 $105,882,050 $16,325,634 826 1,729 1996 1 $436,600 $87,000 0 10 1997 8 $6,130,245 $787,000 2 69 1998 18 $16,272,175 $2,433,326 14 269 1999 20 $14,622,266 $2,553,659 75 253 2000 18 $14,151,229 $3,435,734 25 183 2001 23 $29,155,500 $2,754,350 37 246 2002 6 $2,410,000 $850,233 76 221 2003 7 $10,490,082 $1,814,310 597 226 2004 4 $10,392,073 $925,000 0 195 No Year Provided 4 $1,821,880 $685,023 0 57 Table 2
Baltimore City Empowerment Zone Loan Funds by Year, 1996 to 2004
Source: Empower Baltimore Management Corporation
Number of Loans/ Project Loan Jobs Jobs
Year Investments Costs Disbursed Retained Created
Total 109 $105,882,050 $16,325,634 826 1,729 East Harbor 56 $73,553,523 $9,820,993 91 951 Washington Village 34 $22,354,159 $4,439,447 551 402 Poppleton 6 $1,837,960 $597,234 11 55 Fairfield 4 $5,972,000 $505,500 0 54 Self-Motivated 4 $942,500 $426,836 166 237 HEBCAC 3 $371,000 $277,296 7 22 Harlem Park 2 $850,908 $258,328 0 8
Source: Empower Baltimore Management Corporation
Table 3
The Micro loan fund was established to assist businesses located within the EZ or that was planning on locating their business within the EZ and their business fit the loan criteria. The maximum loan that was available by this program was $50,000. There were seven Micro loans made in 2000 and 2001. These loans retained a total of 11 jobs and created seven new jobs. For each job created or retained that used the Micro loan fund, the program disbursed an average of $4,066.
Small Business loans were available to EZ businesses that own or are starting a business and to companies located outside of the EZ that are willing to open or expand into the EZ or to expand an existing EZ business. These loans ranged from $51,000 to $500,000. There were 29 Small Business loans made from 1997 to 2004. Loans made through the Small Business fund retained 51 jobs and resulted in the creation of 203 jobs. For each job created or retained that used the Small Business loan fund, the program disbursed an average of $13,399.
Brownfields loans were established to aid existing or potential businesses that are developing in Brownfield revitalization sites. Brownfields are previously used industrial or commercial sites that often have environmental issues and often require greater funds in order to clean up the location or to reduce the environmental hazards of the land. Brownfields loans ranged up to a maximum of $250,000 per loan. There were nine Brownfields loans made from 1998 to 2004 that resulted in 303 jobs created. For each job created or retained that used the Brownfields loan program, the program disbursed an average of $9,750.
The Equity Investments program was a financing vehicle established to assist companies with a need for investment rather than debt financing with the potential for participation in other EBMC loan funds. Equity investment allows a firm to use their existing investment and equity instead of taking on additional debt. Assuming debt to finance growth can hinder a firm’s ability to grow and some firms are not qualified to take on additional debt. There were 19 Equity Investments made from 1998 to 2003. These investments resulted in 264 jobs retained and 324 jobs created. For each job created or retained that used the Equity Investment program, the program disbursed an average of $7,110.
The up to 50/50 loan fund was listed in the original Empowerment Zone application as the High Risk Capital Fund (as a 80/20 fund) with the idea that it would provide subordinated debt to EZ businesses to allow them to gain access to capital from banking resources. It evolved to a 50/50 loan fund where the loan could not exceed 50% of the total amount of financing needed. Loans were approved up to a maximum amount of $200,000 and there was a single exception to this limit where the loan for a single company was $500,000. This program had the greatest number of jobs retained (500) and jobs created (892) of any of the financing vehicles. For each job created or retained that used the 50/50 loan program, the program disbursed an average of $4,105.
2.2 Baltimore Empowerment Center
In support of the core mission of EBMC, the Business Empowerment Center (BEC) was established in 1996. The mission of the BEC was to be a strategic facilitator for existing and prospective EZ businesses in meeting the economic challenges of a competitive marketplace. The BEC accounted for 15% of the federal funds for job creation activities and 14% of all funds for job creation activities. The BEC offered an array of business development services that assist in the creation, retention, and attraction of job opportunities within the EZ. These services include the following:
• Technical Assistance – Refer businesses to partners who assist with the development of business plans, organization training, and managerial support.
• Access to Capital – Links businesses to funding sources such as commercial banks, and/or private or public organizations, including the finance vehicles established by EBMC.
• Site Location Assistance – Assist in the identification of site locations and/or operational space in the Zone for businesses seeking to locate and/or expand.
• Coordination of Services – Provide linkages with governmental partners as well as private partners to assist in addressing issues faced by business.
• Marketing Opportunities – Utilizing the Strategic Alliance Officer to facilitate with the identification of new marketing/business opportunities for EZ businesses.
• Workforce Development – Connecting businesses to employment resources including direct hire resources, customized training, recruitment and work readiness assessments, etc.
In order to best serve EZ businesses, the BEC partnered with numerous State, City, and other agencies to contact and respond to companies that are interested in expansion, relocation, or starting up within the EZ. Some of the many partners of the BEC included: the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED), the Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC), the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development (MOED), the Greater Baltimore Alliance (GBA), the Small Business Administration’s One-Stop Capital Shop, Morgan State University Small Business Development Institute, and American Express Financial
Advisors.
In 2002, the BEC and its staff were transferred to the Community Development
Corporation of Harbor Bank. The Harbor Bank CDC would continue to provide the services of the BEC to businesses located within the EZ and would provide technical assistance to both for-profit and non-for-profit organizations. It is estimated that the BEC played a critical role in the creation of jobs located within the EZ. Whether those jobs were a result of the hands-on assistance and services provided by the BEC or through the referral of businesses to partnering agencies of the BEC are uncertain. It is estimated that the BEC is directly responsible for the creation of 3,203 jobs located within the EZ from 1996 to 2004. It is not possible to estimate the number of jobs created by partnering agencies that received referrals from the BEC, therefore the number of jobs created by the BEC is a conservative estimate.
2.3 Baltimore Empowerment Zone Main Streets
There are two designated Main Streets within the Empowerment Zone. These are East Monument Street located in HEBCAC and Washington Boulevard located in Washington Village/Pigtown.2 These main streets have been successful in revitalizing the commercial opportunities within these communities and have led to the creation of new businesses and jobs within the EZ. The two Main Streets in the Empowerment Zone have created 198 new full-time
2
A section of a third Baltimore City Main Street, Pennsylvania Avenue is part of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone. Pennsylvania Avenue was not included in this analysis since it was not possible to collect data for the portion of the Main Street located within the Empowerment Zone.
jobs and eight part-time jobs from 2000 to 2004. The Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Commercial Strip/Market program was used to provide strategies for developing usable
commercial strips and a revitalization strategy for these commercial strips and accounted for 3% of the federal funds for job creation activities and 3% of funding from all sources spent on job creation activities. The national Main Streets Program was used to implement this revitalization strategy.
Both East Monument Street and Washington Boulevard have been successful in their commercial revitalization efforts. The revitalization of East Monument Street is aided by its location, where there is a large population within walking distance and it has a low commercial vacancy rate. Washington Boulevard has experienced growth due to new residential
communities, the development of the University of Maryland Biotech Park, and community-led involvement. The two main streets in the EZ have led to the creation of 198 full-time jobs and eight part-time jobs, accounting for 37% of the total full-time jobs created by all eight of the City’s main streets (see Table 4). From 2000 to 2004, there have been 55 business openings, relocations, or expansions and 88 Main Street funded façade renovations that have occurred on East Monument Street or Washington Boulevard. More important is the community
involvement in the revitalization efforts of these commercial areas as its own neighborhood group oversees each main street. Over 5,400 volunteer hours to revitalization and marketing efforts were made between East Monument Street and Washington Boulevard between 2000 and 2004. These numerous volunteer hours are directly responsible for the job creation and
economic revitalization impacts that these commercial areas have experienced.
Full-Time Part-Time Openings, Main Street Number of Jobs Jobs Relocations, Funded Façade Volunteer Created Created Expansions Renovations Hours Total Baltimore City Main Streets 529 279 250 305 29,891
Total Empowerment Zone Main Streets 198 8 55 88 5,410
East Monument 105 3 28 47 2,393 Washington Blvd 93 5 27 41 3,017 Total EZ as a % of Baltimore City Main Streets 37% 3% 22% 29% 18% Source: Baltimore Main Streets
Baltimore City Main Streets Job Creation and Revitalization Impacts, 2000 to 2004 Table 4
2.4 Fairfield Ecological Business Park
The Fairfield Ecological Business Park, a 1,300-acre site located in South Baltimore, is home to more than 50 businesses ranging from large multinational corporations to small local operations. The Business Park possesses several competitive advantages. Among these are its business friendly environment, its location, its business incentives, major capital investments that have been made to the Business Park, and its accessibility – Fairfield is accessible to a major airport (BWI), roads and interstate (I95, I-895, I-295, and I-695), rail (CSX), and deep water port access. In 1994, there were a total of over 200 acres that could be developed within the Business
Park. Currently, there are less than 80 acres left to develop and there are several potential projects that will further reduce the number of acres available for business development.
There are four principal industries that are located within the Business Park. These are: automotive import and export, chemical manufacturing, petroleum import and export, and maritime services. The development of the Business Park is directly related to the goals of EBMC in business development and job creation. The Park has managed to successfully leverage private funds with investments by EBMC and the Baltimore Development Corporation to expanding existing businesses and the development of new businesses leading to the creation of new jobs. The Business Park accounted for 3% of the federal funds budgeted for job creation and 3% of the total federal and other EZ funding spent for job creation.
The Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC), the economic development agency of Baltimore City, was charged with the direct development and implementation of the Fairfield Ecological Business Park. Baltimore City and the BDC have made sizeable contributions to make Fairfield attractive to business prospects and EBMC’s role in providing funding to Fairfield served as the foundation to this economic development project. The inclusion of the Business Park within the EZ allowed for business tax credits and for workforce training credits to be provided to businesses that have located within the Park. A key feature to the growth in jobs and firms locating within the Park were the improvements to the Park’s infrastructure, especially the roads.
From 1995 to 2003, there have been a total of 374 direct jobs created by a total of 23 business expansions or relocations in the Business Park. Several projects that are being developed are also expected to create jobs in the Business Park. The five projects in
development are expected to create an additional 265 jobs bringing the total number of jobs created in the Business Park to 639.
2.5 Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
It was outside of the scope of the JFI report to verify the job creation numbers of the EZ or the duration of those jobs created or retained. As presented in Table 5, the 6,603 jobs created or retained by EBMC job creation programs would contribute more than $1.2 billion in
economic activity to the City of Baltimore economy. These 6,603 jobs would be combined with 4,012 jobs created through the “spin-off” or “multiplier effects” of these jobs for a total
employment impact of 10,615 City jobs created or supported by the Baltimore Empowerment Zone job creation programs. There is an estimated $455 million in salaries and wages associated with these jobs. The economic activity supported by the Empowerment Zone generates an estimated $21 million in State sales and income taxes and $21.3 million in City income and property taxes.
Table 5
Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Economic Impacts
Direct Economic Employee
Jobs Created Output Employment Compensation or Retained (Mil. $) (# Jobs) (Mil. $)
6,603 1,230.3 10,615 454.9
Estimated State Income Tax Revenues (Mil. $) 6.9 Estimates State Sales Tax Revenues (Mil. $) 14.1
Estimated City Income Tax Revenues (Mil. $) 1.9 Estimated City Property Tax Revenues (Mil. $) 19.4
Source: JFI and IMPLAN
2.6 Leveraging Analysis
From 1994 to 2004, EBMC was successful in leveraging its federal designation of being an Empowerment Zone into creating 5,777 new jobs and retaining another 826 jobs for
Baltimore City residents. These new jobs most likely undercount the total number of jobs that are directly linked to the programs and activities of the EZ. There are several reasons that this figure is a conservative estimate of the total jobs created from EBMC programs. First, many programs created and implemented by EBMC will continue to create opportunities for job creation past the sunset of EBMC’s management and have been passed onto the Village Centers or other agencies. Second, some companies that requested assistance from job creation
programs, such as the BEC, while receiving EZ assistance were also connected to other State and local agencies that also provided them assistance. Finally, some companies that received
assistance from EBMC will not lead to the creation of jobs till after this report has been completed and presented and EBMC no longer oversees the Baltimore Empowerment Center. Examples of these projects include the University of Maryland BioPark (3,000 new jobs where completed) and the JHHS BioScience Research Park (8,000 new jobs when completed).
EBMC was effective in leveraging its funds for job creation activities within Baltimore City from 1994 to 2004. As a comparison, the Small Business Administration uses a benchmark of $35,000 spent per job created. Per direct job created or retained, EBMC spent on average:
• $4,103 in funding from all sources for job creation activities
3.0 Workforce Development
Workforce development is one of the four critical areas of EBMC’s strategic focus and the area that has received the most funding. Workforce development programs, which were broadly defined by EBMC and include job placement and training, substance abuse counseling, basic literacy and a number of other programs, accounted for 34% of federal EZ funds budgeted and 35% of total federal and other EZ funding spent to date.
The underlying principle of Baltimore’s EZ strategy is to promote economic development by providing integrated services to EZ residents and businesses as a means of improving both economic vitality in EZ communities and employment opportunities for EZ residents. The Baltimore Empowerment Zone’s workforce development strategy was implemented through the creation of neighborhood career centers, which provided residents with a wide range of
employment services, including basic employment information, skill and barrier assessment, basic job training, employment barrier remediation, and job placement and retention services. The goal of the career centers was to provide a one-stop shop where residents could access the services required to become job ready or to improve their employment opportunities.
A core element of the Empowerment Zone program nationally is the focus on providing multiple services in a local, neighborhood context. Residents of the disadvantaged communities targeted by the federal Empowerment Zone program and Baltimore Empowerment Zone often face multiple barriers to employment, and thus require multiple services – such as basic literacy substance abuse counseling combined with job training and placement. Existing workforce development delivery systems are often fragmented and do not offer the comprehensive services required by the urban poor and are often located outside of the communities where these services are in the greatest need. Baltimore’s core EZ workforce development strategy was targeted on addressing these gaps with comprehensive, locally provided employment services located within each of the EZ’s target communities.
EBMC established the guidelines for Career Centers in August 1996, and the first Career Center was approved in January 1997 and all six Village Centers had operating Career Centers by May 1998. Career Centers were the single largest expenditure item in the workforce development strategy and accounted for more than one-third of total workforce development spending. According to the 2002 Action Item Review report, EBMC had met 63% of its Career Center placement goals as of 2002. The Village Centers have been an important partner in workforce development by managing the operations of the Career Centers, but in two cases workforce development services have had to be implemented through a direct contract between EBMC and an outside vendor. The core challenge to the Career Centers is sustainability. While there are other workforce development services available to Zone residents – there are no
alternative comprehensive local one-stop providers. Thus, sustainability planning is currently under way.
In addition to the Career Centers, EBMC’s workforce development strategy included a variety of other core services implemented through a centralized design and decentralized delivery strategy. For example, EBMC selected a core group of vendors for training, literacy or
substance abuse, and the Village Centers/Career Centers controlled referrals to each program. Several programs were implemented. The largest programs were customized skills training, occupational skills training; substance abuse, and reverse commuting. These four programs accounted for 49% of EBMC workforce development spending and 17% of overall EBMC spending. Of these four programs, three have been evaluated and are included in the analysis below. In addition to the career centers customized skills training, occupational skills training; substance abuse, and reverse commuting programs, EBMC funded a wide variety of other efforts ranging from computer databases to youth employment opportunities. The goal of these
programs was to assist the mission of the Career Centers to make as many EZ residents job ready and employed as was possible.
3.1 Employment and Earnings Evaluation Reports
According to EBMC a total of 12,825 Empowerment Zone residents registered with a Village Center Career Center from the beginning of operations through October 2004. This amounts to 24% of the total number of 54,012 Empowerment Zone residents as of the 2000 Census and 40% of residents of working age (18-64). However, not all persons that visited a Career Center received placement or training services. Of the 12,825 residents that signed up at an EBMC Career Center, 5,849 were placed in a job. This accounts for 18% of the EZ’s
working age population and 11% of the EZ’s total population. Some of the selected outcomes of the workforce development programs, based on the 2002 Action Item Review are presented in Table 6.
Number of Residents
Served Placed in Jobs Other
Career Center Job Placements 3,103 3,103 $8.57 per hour average
Literacy Training 725 101
Occupational Skills Training 523 271 Average cost per placement $10,259
Soft Skills Development 233 156
Customized Training 1,425
2002 Action Item Review Table 6
Selected Workforce Development Outcomes
Source: Empower Baltimore Management Corporation
EBMC contracted with Brandon Roberts Associates and the Jacob France Institute of the University of Baltimore (JFI) to track the earnings of Empowerment Zone residents that received workforce development assistance. Brandon Roberts Associates produced a report in 2001 that analyzed the employment and earnings outcomes of EBMC’s workforce development program. Since 2001, the Jacob France Institute produced six tracking reports on the earnings of
participants in EBMC’s workforce development programs. The JFI tracked the employment status of these populations, including pre and post placement earnings, employment status and welfare – Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) – status over the 1995 through 2003 period of the
Baltimore Empowerment Zone for five sub-populations of EZ residents that visited a Career Center; as defined by the 2001 Brandon Roberts study. These populations were the:
Intake Only Group are clients who received intake services from a career center but
were not placed in a job by or receive training from any Title XX funded EZ workforce program.
Placed Group are clients placed in a job through the career centers.
Direct Hire Group are clients placed in a job by a EBMC’s Direct Hire program. Occupational Skills Training Group are clients that received training and were placed
by EBMC’s Occupational Skills Training Program.
Customized Training Group are clients that received training and a job commitment
from the employer.
Some of the key findings of the Brandon Roberts Associates and JFI reports are as follows:
The 2001 Brandon Roberts Associates report found the following:
• Overall, EZ residents that participated in workforce development programs do not have sufficient earnings to achieve economic self-sufficiency or move out of poverty.
• While the overall earnings increases for EZ residents participating in workforce development activities was small, the increase for customized training participants was 73% and for residents placed in a job was 57%.
• Customized skills training and occupational skills offer the best chance for EZ residents, especially those from hard to serve populations, to achieve self-sufficiency.
The JFI reports on the earnings of workforce development program simply tracked earnings and employment outcomes and welfare and job training status. The most recent JFI report found that:
• The EZ residents that received workforce development services had a higher incidence of employment and increased incidence of regular (multiple sustained quarters) employment. This was especially true of residents that received the more intensive occupational skills training and customized training.
• Median quarterly earnings increased for all five sub-populations studied, with residents that received more intensive occupational skills training and customized training reporting the highest gains in income.
• The percentage of EZ workforce development participants earning more than the full-time minimum wage equivalent increased, especially among residents receiving occupational skills training and customized training, however, most still earned below the full-time minimum wage level and below poverty income levels.
3.2 Leveraging and Impact Analysis
A core goal of this analysis was to look at the leveraging impact of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone workforce development programs. The initial findings of the JFI reports identify relatively modest improvements in employment activity and a somewhat larger improvement in earnings (see Table 7). According to the JFI, the recorded increase in
employment activity after receiving workforce development assistance increased by a low of 3% for the Direct Hire group to a high of 8% for the Placed Group. The average incremental
earnings increase for EZ workforce development program participants after receiving workforce development assistance ranged from a low of $374 per quarter for the Intake Group to a high of $1,515 per quarter for the Customized Training Group.
Table 7
Selected Results of the Jacob France Institute Research
Any Employment
Median Quarterly Earnings (2004$)
Group/Item Pre Post Difference Pre Post Difference
Intake Group 75% 81% 6% $1,435 $1,809 $374
Placed Group 84% 92% 8% $1,715 $2,452 $737
Direct Hire Group 80% 83% 3% $1,983 $2,570 $587
Occupational Skills Training 86% 92% 6% $1,767 $3,108 $1,341
Customized Training 85% 91% 6% $1,820 $3,335 $1,515
Source: Jacob France Institute
The incremental employment and earnings gains for the EZ workforce development program participants can be compared to the costs of the programs to describe the leveraging impact of the program. A full cost-benefit or return on investment analysis of the workforce development impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone was outside of the scope of this summary report of the available EBMC evaluation reports and data. However, a basic high-level analysis of the benefits versus the costs of the program was prepared consisting of a simple leveraging analysis of the overall costs versus the benefits of the program using readily available information. The costs of the workforce development program are the Title XX and other funding spent on workforce development by EBMC. This information was available from the EBMC budget, for total spending as of October 31st, 2004. The most important benefit of a workforce development program is the increase in earnings attributable to the training and placement assistance received. This analysis uses the incremental earnings impact from the JFI reports to quantify the benefits of the EBMC workforce development programs.
The results of three simple leveraging analysis scenarios of the benefit-cost ratio per employed participant for EBMC’s workforce development programs are presented in Table 8. These analyses were prepared using assumptions comparable to the
benefit-cost/cost-effectiveness study conducted for Baltimore City’s workforce development program and
two analyses are not directly comparable. The cost per participant of EBMC’s workforce development programs was calculated by dividing the overall cost of the EBMC workforce programs by the number of participants. The benefit of the programs was the increase in earnings by each type of participant.
The first scenario was for All Workforce Development Programs, and compares the average cost per participant for all empowerment zone residents signing up at an EBMC
workforce development program to the average increase in annual earnings for all residents that participated in any workforce development program.3 As presented in Table 8, the average cost per participant was $2,540 and the average annual first year earnings increase was $2,456 for a benefit-cost ratio of $0.97/$1 or an increase of $0.97 in first year earnings for each $1 invested.
The second scenario, Total Placements, excludes the EZ residents that were intake only and were not placed in a job or did not receive training. The intake cohort was excluded because these residents received only limited, if any, service from a Career Center. This is the most reasonable estimate of the overall benefit-cost ratio of the EBMC workforce development program because it only includes residents that received actual services from a Career Center. Allocating all of the costs of the workforce development program to these participants yields a cost per participant of $5,570, compared to an average annual first year increase in earnings of $3,464, for a benefit-cost ratio of $0.62/$1.
The third and final scenario, Occupational Skills and Customized Training Only, was conducted on the cohort of EZ residents that received occupational skills training or customized training. These training programs were considered the most likely programs to provide non-poverty employment opportunities for EZ residents and were a substantial focus of EBMC’s workforce development program. The benefit cost ratio for occupational skills training was $0.50/$1 and for customized training, the benefit cost ratio for was $1.56/$1, including only the costs of training, not including program administration costs.
It is important to note that this simple leveraging analysis compares program costs to only one-year of earnings impacts. The impact of an improvement in job readiness or occupational skills can benefit a person throughout their working life. Thus, it is better to compare the costs of the program to the expected increase in lifetime earnings. This simple leveraging analysis however is informative and is compared (below) to the results of an analysis of Baltimore City workforce development programs.
3
Annual incremental earnings were estimated as the quarterly increase multiplied by four. These figures are for the cohort of 7,007 workforce development program participants tracked by the Jacob France Institute. It was assumed that later cohorts received similar earnings gains.
Table 8
Return on Investment Calculations
Benefit-Cost Ratio For an Employed Participant EBMC Workforce Development Programs
Annual
Total Pre-Post
Spent Number of Cost per Earnings Cost
To Date Residents Resident Gain1 Ratio
All Workforce Development Programs $32,579,308 12,825 $2,540 $2,456 $0.97
Total Placements $32,579,308 5,849 $5,570 $3,464 $0.62
Occupational Skills and Customized Training Only
Occupational Skills Training -Placements $3,873,326 360 $10,759 $5,364 $0.50 Customized Training - Placements $5,225,165 1,344 $3,888 $6,060 $1.56
(1) Earnings gain calculations are based on the experience of the cohort of 7,007 program participants tracked by the Jacob France Institute.
Source: EBMC and The Jacob France Institute
The results of this high-level leveraging analysis can be compared to other studies of the impact of workforce development training programs. There are no comparable evaluations for the overall creation and operation of local career centers similar to those created by EBMC at the Village Centers. However, both local and national evaluations have been conducted on training programs similar to EBMC’s occupational skills training and customized training. An analysis of the return on investment of Baltimore City training programs was conducted as part of the 2004 Baltimore’s Workforce System at Work Report.4 This report found similar increases in participant earnings – an annual increase in earnings of $7,154 for the employed workers studied ($9,669 for customized training and $5,572 for Individual Training Accounts- ITA) which is similar for the annual increase of $6,060 for the EBMC customized training cohort and $5,364 for the occupational skills training cohort. However, these two programs had lower training costs -- $2,348 for customized training and $3,892 for ITA -- compared to the much higher EBMC training cost of $10,759 per customized training participant or $3,888 per occupational skills training participant. However, the difference in training costs between these two programs can be explained by two significant differences between the programs. First, the EBMC program includes stipends, leading to its higher costs, and second the OED program requires a 50% match in funds with the result that the actual cost of training is higher when the private match is
included. There was insufficient data to adjust for the differences between these two programs. The Baltimore’s Workforce System at Work Report found a positive first year leveraging impact of $2.20 in increased first year earnings for each $1 spent, compared to EBMC’s leveraging
4
impact of $0.50 for each $1 spent on customized training and $1.56 for each $1 spent on occupational skills training, however actual cost/benefit differences would be small if more information was available. The increased earnings impacts of the EBMC customized and occupational skills program are also comparable with a national study of the impact of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which found a $3,136 increase in annual earnings from WIA intensive/training services.5
The simple leveraging analysis prepared above provides a reasonable estimate of the benefit-cost ratio of the program. However, this analysis has several limitations. On one level, it overestimates the benefits of the EBMC workforce development program because it looks at the impact for employed residents only. Only 61% of workforce development program participants were employed in 2003, ranging from a high of 74% for customized and occupational skills training program participants to a low of 56% for the intake-only group. On another level, it underestimates the benefits of EBMC workforce development program because in only includes the first year change in earnings, while the benefits of training or a new job can be expected to last over the entire employment period of a program participant.
3.3 Other Baltimore Evaluation Report Findings
In addition to tracking the employment status and earnings of EZ residents that participate in workforce development programs, EBMC commissioned several studies or evaluations of several major workforce development programs or efforts. The results of the major available studies are described below.
In 2003 and with a 2004 follow-up study, EBMC commissioned the Evaluation of the Johns Hopkins Hospital Retention and Advancement Program report to analyze the impacts of the Johns Hopkins Hospital Retention and Advancement Program (JHRA) which targets entry-level hospital employees to get on a career path/receive education or training to advance to new careers within the hospital. The initial study found “overwhelmingly positive” responses on the value of the program for employee participants, non-participants, and supervisors. Program attendance was high, participants would recommend the program to co-workers, and program participation was found to improve motivation for education and career advancement. Both program participants and non-participants reported a strong positive opinion that the program would lead to improved opportunities for career advancement. Managers and supervisors reported that employees who completed the program became more productive workers.
However, the initially “overwhelmingly positive” perceptions of the program may have been influenced by the fact that the program had only been in place for a short time. The August, 2004 Johns Hopkins Hospital Retention and Advancement Program – 1st Follow-up study found continued, but less strongly, positive perceptions of the program. This report found that “While employee participants and department supervisors alike generally enjoyed the sessions and were satisfied with the program, overall, few of the long term objectives of the program have yet to be realized.” Fewer program participants reported in the follow-up research that their chances for advancement were better after completing the program (72% in the original research versus 22% in the follow-up), and only one employee is known to have advanced and maintained employment in a different position. The supervisors interviewed, however, remained positive on the program.
5
In 2003, EBMC commissioned the Empower Baltimore Management Corporation’s Surgical Technician Skills Training Program report to analyze the impact and lessons learned from the EBMC customized training program for surgical technicians. This training program was implemented in cooperation with Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) and the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) with training provided by the Community College of Baltimore County and the Baltimore City Community College. This study found that for the 52 EZ residents enrolled in the first three surgical technician training classes, 71% completed the program. This completion rate was found to be reasonable for a ten-month training program, however there was substantial variation between the two hospital’s programs – with UMMS having a 96% completion rate and JHH having a 44% completion rate. The primary factor considered to explain the different outcomes between the two hospital’s programs was that the UMMS program served existing employees who were zone residents and these employees continued to receive salaries during training while the JHH program served Zone residents not employed by the hospital who were expected to generate their own income in addition to the $100 per week stipend offered by the program. Of the total number of 37 program graduates, the JFI tracked the employment and earnings status of 34 of the graduates. Of these, 30 graduates (88%) were employed as of the second quarter of 2002 and 25 graduates experienced continuous employment after graduation. This report found that employed program graduates experienced significant improvements in employment, employment stability (continuous employment), and increased earnings. Only 10% of employed program graduates earned less than the full-time equivalent minimum wage and the median increase in quarterly earnings was $2,723. A cost benefit analysis of the program found that the program costs are nearly recouped in the form of increased participant earnings in the first year and comparing the five year increase in earnings to program costs yielded a return of 498%. This report concluded, “The surgical training program is a success” and that it “is a win-win for every involved and resulted in the extra benefit of stimulating the development of a similar program at the State level that can serve individuals throughout Maryland.”
In 1998, the Abell Foundation commissioned the Village Career Centers in the Baltimore Empowerment Zone: Who is Doing What and How Well report that evaluated the workforce development programs of the four Village Center Career Centers then in operation. This report found that:
• The four operating Village Center Career Centers were on track to meet their job placement goals but were not focusing on job retention or wage goals.
• Village Center Career Centers will need to develop programs to overcome the multiple barriers faced by many of the EZ’s low-income residents and work to overcome employer perceptions of the low level of job readiness among the EZ’s low-income residents and dissatisfaction with their experience of hiring from other publicly funded workforce programs.
• The three newer Village Center Career Centers need to focus on client assessment, work readiness training, and job matching (the fourth, the GATE, predates the EZ and has more developed programs and capacity).
• Most Village Center Career Centers have focused on a “go it alone” strategy and work outside of the existing City workforce development training system.
• The report made several recommendations for EBMC. Several, such as providing technical assistance to the Career Centers, focusing on job retention, strengthening basic and job readiness were implemented.
3.4 National Evaluation Materials
The national Interim Assessment of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities (EZ/EC) Program: A Progress Report (2001) by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development assessment of the EZ/EC initiative analyzed the implementation and impact of the EZ/EC program in 18 locations. This report found that 16 of the 18 study sites included workforce development programs in their implementation strategies and 15 of 18 sites implemented workforce development programs. Workforce development programs were implemented in numerous areas ranging including adult education, basic and occupational skills training, transportation programs, and job placement. In this report, Baltimore is cited as having successfully targeted the multiple barriers to employment facing residents through the locally driven, coordinated delivery of linked social service (basic education, substance abuse
counseling), training and placement. This report finds “While these comprehensive services are treating real problems and providing valuable skills that zone residents lack, it may take months for a program to complete pre-training services, job training, and be placed in a job. This can make it difficult to both attract and retain people in the program.”
4.0 Community Capacity
The Baltimore Empowerment Zone differed from other federal Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities through the significant emphasis it placed on the creation of
neighborhood-level community capacity. The implementation of the federal Empowerment Zone in Baltimore was based on a two-tiered system with an independent (from city government) oversight organization (EBMC) and the creation of six independent community-based
organizations (Village Centers) to control Empowerment Zone planning and service delivery in each of the targeted communities. Each Village Center was to be made up of residents,
businesses, community associations, religious organizations, and institutions. Village Centers were formal organizations, all having been required to obtain 501(c)3 status, with a professional staff and overseen by a board of directors representing neighborhood residents, organizations, businesses, and institutions. The mission for each Village Center was to oversee the
implementation of core Empowerment Zone activities in each neighborhood and serve as the link between community residents and the Empowerment Zone’s programs.
The guidelines for forming a Village Center were released by EBMC in March of 1995. The first three Village Centers – the Historic East Baltimore Community Action Coalition (HEBCAC), Self-Motivated Community People’s Village Center (SMCPVC), and Washington Village/Pigtown Neighborhood Planning Council (WPNPC) were approved in September of 1995 with the remaining three Village Centers – East Harbor Village Center (EHVC), Village Center of Poppleton (VCP) and Harlem Park/Lafayette Square (HPLSVC) approved in February 1996. The EBMC board approved the administrative funding formula for the Village Centers in March of 1996, and entered into administrative funding agreements with the Village Centers starting in 1996 and into 1997. From its creation in 1994 through October 31, 2004, the Baltimore Empowerment Zone spent $8.3 million on community capacity development, accounting for just fewer than 9% of total expenditures. The overwhelming majority of these
funds were spent to support Village Center operations ($6.1 million), technical assistance and training ($1.0 million), and transitional assistance to promote sustainability ($0.6 million).
This report summarizes the results of two major research and evaluation efforts. A high level analysis of the overall community capacity impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone was conducted by the Jacob France Intitute as was a series of focus groups and interviews designed to identify the lessons learned from the Baltimore Empowerment Zone’s community capacity building efforts. EBMC also contracted with the national community development firm Nonprofit Organization Management and Governance Interventions Corporation, Inc.
(NOMAGIC) to conduct individual assessments of the sustainability options for each of the five currently operating Village Centers.
4.1 Overall Analysis
The Baltimore Empowerment Zone achieved its goal of creating six Village Centers, with four Village Centers becoming operational in 1996 – WPNPC (3/96), EHVC (5/96), HEBCAC (5/96), and SMCPVC (6/96) and two becoming operational in 1997 – HPLSVC (8/97) and VCP (9/97). The Village Centers received administrative funding and transitional assistance funding through 2003 and into 2004. After EBMC terminated its administrative funding with SMCPVC in 2001, five Village Centers continued to operate throughout the operational period of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone. However, administrative funding of HPLSVC, was suspended in late 2004 and is now under review. The EBMC 2002 Status report found that “After many starts and stops, Village Centers are finally meeting their organizational goals and objectives. EBMC continues to concentrate its efforts on stabilizing Village Center during times of change through partnerships and resources in an effort to ensure continued development and growth towards sustainability.” EBMC reported that the technical assistance provided to the Village Centers was of critical importance in promoting organizational development.
In 2003, EBMC commissioned the Community Development Capacity Building Impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone report to analyze the impact of the Baltimore
Empowerment Zone’s community capacity building efforts. This report found that the
community capacity building efforts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone have been successful in terms of building community capacity - defined as creating functioning community
organizations that have engaged the community to design and implement key strategic goals through a core set of programs. All of the five then operating Village Centers have achieved this basic level of capacity. However, the issue of the sustainability of these efforts is less clear. Sustainability requires both a high level of community engagement and access to sufficient resources to fund Village Center operations. Two Village Centers – East Harbor and
Washington Village – appear to be well on their way towards sustainability in both measures. Two other Village Centers – HEBCAC and Poppleton – are in the process of facilitating ongoing neighborhood redevelopment efforts as a means of representing the needs of their respective communities. These two Village Centers can become sustainable to the extent that they can provide the services needed to support these redevelopment efforts. In 2003, the fifth Village Center, Harlem Park/Lafayette Square, achieved programmatic success and established a functioning organization. However, the area served by the Village Center is small, lacks an economic driver or an institutional partner, and has competing service delivery organizations. The optimal strategy for promoting the continuation of EBMC programs in that area may be merger or partnership with another organization. However, since the publication of that report, the HP/LSVC has been closed.
In 2004, EBMC commissioned the Lessons Learned from the Community Capacity Building Efforts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone Village Centers report to identify the core lessons that have been learned from the community capacity building efforts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone. In assessing the community capacity building efforts, this analysis found that EBMC’s technical assistance and community oriented strategic planning efforts were of critical importance, but the capacity building efforts could have benefited from additional start-up time and an expanded communication effort in order to: better mobilize the community; identify, support and build community leadership; build the networks of linkages necessary to promote redevelopment; and address the history of failed redevelopment attempts in these communities.
In addition to the high level analysis of the community capacity building impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone conducted by the Jacob France Institute, the national Interim Assessment of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Program: A Progress Report the November 2001 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development assessment of the EZ/EC initiative reviewed the community building impact of the federal EZ/EC program in 18 locations. This report found that Baltimore, along with Atlanta, were the only two of the six full federal empowerment zones that focused on building community institutions to promote sustainable community development in their applications and that only Baltimore continued to strongly emphasize this goal in EZ implementation. The Interim
Assessment report found that the Baltimore Empowerment Zone has invested “considerable time and effort in capacity building by offering technical assistance to the Village Centers,” but that Baltimore was unable to achieve its goal to “sunset” after five years because most of the Village Centers “are not yet strong enough to be self-sustaining.” This report concluded “At this point in time [2001], they [the Village Centers] continue to vary considerably in capacity, illustrating the time and effort required to foster strong community institutions.”
4.2 Village Center Level Analysis
In addition to the high level analysis conducted by the JFI on the overall capacity building impacts of and the lessons that can be learned from the community capacity building impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone, EBMC commissioned detailed individual
capacity and sustainability assessments for each of the five then operating Village Centers. These reports were prepared by NOMAGIC, Inc. in 2003 and 2004. The major findings of these
capacity and sustainability assessments are described for each Village Center below.
East Harbor Village Center
The July 2004 NOMAGIC assessment of the East Harbor Village Center (EHVC) found that the Village Center has benefited from the substantial redevelopment occurring in the community and, in partnership with its affiliated East Harbor Community Development
Corporation (EHCDC), has strong opportunities for sustainability. The Village Center has been highly successful in leveraging EBMC funding with substantial additional public and private funding. EHVC/EHCDC’s sustainability are linked to the development of the community services building being developed as part of the old Flag House Court public housing complex redevelopment. EHVC benefits from a strong staff drawn from the community, all of whom have been involved with the Village Center since it began operations. The Village Center, however, has experienced difficulties with attendance and participation by its board of directors, with major strategic and operational decisions being made by staff.
Harlem Park/Lafayette Square Village Center
The September 2003 NOMAGIC assessment of HPLSVC found that the Village Center had strong ties to the community, has successfully implemented core EBMC programs, and has met or exceeded its goals. The organization has low staff turnover and a strong rapport with the community. However, the Village Center has a fragmented vision at the board level, which has resulted in a lack of coherent leadership by staff. HPLSVC is highly reliant on EBMC for funding, and thus, would benefit from a partnership with a complementary organization, possibly Harlem Park Revitalization Corporation.
Historic East Baltimore Community Action Coalition
The April 2003 NOMAGIC assessment of HEBCAC found that the Village Center has undergone significant changes in administration but continued to implement core services to the community’s residents. HEBCAC is viewed as an organization with a role to play, especially in the human services and community organizing areas. The NOMAGIC assessment found
HEBCAC to be a sustainable organization; however, the Village Center needs to adjust its structure, management, and governance to play a role in the East Side’s redevelopment.
The Village Center of Poppleton
The February 2004 NOMAGIC assessment of the Village Center of Poppleton (VCP) found that the Village Center has significantly improved its performance in meeting its
performance goals, especially in its Career Center/Family Support program. This success was attributed to changes in staff leadership and to the Village Center’s strong ties to the community. The main challenge to the sustainability of the Village Center is its ongoing reliance on EBMC as its major source of funding support. The Village Center was also seen as highly reliant on the leadership of one core founding board member, which may lead to problems in leadership succession. The NOMAGIC report finds that VCP may need to explore additional partnerships to ensure sustainability, and indeed, VCP has formed partnerships with its own affiliated Poppleton Village Community Development Corporation and with the University of Maryland, Baltimore on the development of the UMB Research Park.
Washington Village/Pigtown Neighborhood Planning Council
The April 2004 NOMAGIC assessment of the Washington Village/Pigtown
Neighborhood Planning Council (WVPNPC) found that the organization is sustainable but needs to further diversify its funding base. The Village Center benefits from a strong professional staff, but was seen as highly reliant on its executive director. The Village Center was also seen as benefiting from a strong board of directors, who “have been quite instrumental in sheparding the growth and development of the Village Center.”
4.3 Summary and Leveraging
As described above, four of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone’s six village centers are currently in operation. Thus, the Baltimore Empowerment Zone has achieved its goal of
facilitating the creation of new organizations to both represent and provide needed services to the residents of the targeted communities. As described in the Lessons Learned from the Community
Capacity Building Efforts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone Village Centers report, many of
these communities either lacked community organizations to promote development or provide services or felt poorly served by existing umbrella or community organizations. Thus, the creation of new organizations created an opportunity for the residents of these communities to
become more involved in efforts to promote neighborhood revitalization. As described in the
Community Development Capacity Building Impacts of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone report
and individual village center sustainability assessments, two Village Centers – EHVC and WVPNPC – are well on their way towards long-term sustainability and two others – HEBCAC and VCP – are in the process of developing a sustainable niche by supporting ongoing major redevelopment projects within their communities. Thus, the Baltimore Empowerment Zone appears to have been successful in creating community capacity in the form of new Village Center organizations that will continue to both represent residents and provide services into the future in at least two of the six communities targeted, and potentially in four of six target communities.
It is not possible to compute the leveraging effects of the Baltimore Empowerment Zone’s community capacity building efforts. The two Village Centers considered to be well on their way towards long term sustainability – EHVC and WVPNPC – having both leveraged EBMC administrative and program with significant external resources. EHVC alone has raised more than $1 million in outside funding. HEBCAC has also leveraged core EZ funding with substantial commitments from its core institutional partner – Johns Hopkins Hospital – and in the early days of the EZ, HEBCAC also obtained significant government and foundation funding as well. Thus, the community capacity building efforts have leveraged federal Title XX funding with significant amounts of additional public and private support.
5.0 Quality of Life
Building “communities of choice” through improvements in neighborhoods is one of the four critical areas of EBMC’s strategic focus. Quality of life programs accounted for 12% of the federal EZ funds budgeted. Looking at these programs by the total federal and other EZ funds spent, quality of life programs accounted for 11% of funding spent. Efforts and programs were designed to improve the quality of life of EZ residents in improving the physical and emotional environment that includes land use, public safety, and home ownership.
Public safety programs are intended to create safer environments for persons to live and to work. It was believed that by establishing a stronger police presence some of the criminal activity would be abated. Programs established within the EZ included Enhanced Community Policing, Mobile Police Outreach Stations, Safe Neighborhood Design, and Block-by-Block. There have been no evaluations for the Baltimore Empowerment Zone regarding the crime reduction and prevention programs. In this report, we discuss the crime statistics provided by the Baltimore City Police Department and provide a description of the programs that have been implemented by EBMC within the Village Centers, as well as, provide information regarding crime reduction strategies through interviews that were held with three Village Centers.
This section of the report will focus on these programs and efforts designed to reduce and prevent crime and to improve the housing of Empowerment Zone residents and the outcomes of these efforts and programs. There were three evaluations that were made of EBMC housing programs. This section of the report will also provide a summary of the housing plans, housing market, and evaluations of housing programs within the EZ.
5.1 Crime Reduction and Prevention
In Baltimore City and especially within the Empowerment Zone, criminal activity was a major quality of life constraint. A key to improving the living and work conditions with the
