Community Revitalization

While policies focused on individuals (e.g., the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit) help lift families out of poverty, they do not address community-level challenges where there has been a longstanding lack of investment in basic needs. A number of federal policies and tax credits have been filling this gap by providing neighborhood-level investments totaling nearly $20 billion yearly through a variety of programs including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC), the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), and the Choice Neighborhoods program.

Perhaps unexpectedly, the largest source of funding for neighborhood revitalization comes from for-profit banks. Since 1977, banks across the country have been mandated to invest in low-income neighborhoods by a federal law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was written to address the cumulative negative effects of redlining, the discriminatory practice of banks taking deposits from residents of low-income communities of color and then refusing to lend back to those very same neighborhoods. This widespread disinvestment led to a massive loss of wealth generation for minority communities by failing to support home ownership or business development. In recent years, the CRA has incentivized banks to provide over $300 billion dollars annually in mortgages, small business loans, and investments to support the construction of affordable housing, clinics, childcare centers, and other community infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods.

Expertise in early childhood development is rarely at the table when decisions are made that determine how to allocate resources for community revitalization and evaluate its impacts. Yet advances in our understanding of how neighborhood conditions affect the development of young children could help drive community investments—as well as early childhood programs—to higher levels of impact. Ultimately, when the foundations of child development and health are strengthened, communities do better, and when communities do better, children do better.

Beyond the critically important impacts of caregiver-child relationships on early childhood development, the places where people live affect what they are exposed to, which then affects the brain and other maturing biological systems—positively or negatively. When these systems develop in a healthy way, they support a lifetime of effective learning, sound physical and mental health, and the ability to contribute positively to society. When the stresses of poverty, racism, and structural disadvantages disrupt healthy development, the personal burdens and societal costs—in special education services, healthcare, criminal justice, and lost revenues from productive employment—are enormous.

Recent advances in the science of early childhood development (what we call ECD 2.0) provide a framework for maximizing the combined impacts of both community-focused investments and direct services for young children and families facing adversity. This framework calls for:

1. understanding the impacts of early experiences and environmental exposures—starting prenatally—on both educational achievement and lifelong physical and mental health;
2. going beyond direct services for children and families to address a range of community-based influences more effectively; and
3. designing for, measuring, and responding to variation in the effects of policies and programs on child outcomes. (For more information, see Child Development 2.0)

These three concepts offer a blueprint for leaders of both early childhood services and neighborhood revitalization efforts to think differently about their work—and their relationship to each other. How might this knowledge lead us to focus our investments in neighborhoods more strategically and measure their impact more precisely? For example, because concept #3 teaches us to expect programs to have a wide range of impacts on children, we should be recruiting and supporting program staff who have the training and skills needed to address that variation, and going beyond average effects when measuring their impact. Such changes are likely to produce improved outcomes for all children, with the largest gains achieved for those who currently benefit the least.

Connecting community revitalization partners to knowledge and expertise in early childhood development is not just about advocating for new money; it’s also about guiding existing spending to maximize its positive impact on the current lives and future prospects of young children. Many community development organizations have already begun to adopt a “healthy neighborhood” approach by partnering with healthcare providers and, in a few locations, with early childhood programs. For example, the Healthy Neighborhoods Equity Fund based in Boston has targeted $64 million in private investor dollars toward “the building blocks of healthy communities.” The Healthy Futures Fund, launched by one of the largest national CDFIs, uses $200 million to accelerate improvements in neighborhood health through co-investments in affordable housing enriched by health programs and community clinics. Creating more of these types of financing vehicles—which target existing funds toward a more intentional focus on early childhood—could meaningfully increase the positive impact of neighborhood change for families with young children now and catalyze greater long-term, cross-generational reductions in poverty into the future.

Stated simply, the community development field is ripe for collaboration around enhancing early childhood development. Not only is healthy childhood a key building block of thriving communities, but strengthening the foundations of early development sets the stage for sustainable adult prosperity and lifelong health. Investments in housing renewal that intentionally co-locate high-quality childcare centers, healthcare facilities, and community centers where families can come together for shared experiences should be an essential dimension of all revitalization plans in low- and mixed-income communities in order to maximize both the near-term and intergenerational returns on these investments.

Partnering with experts in both health and development on the design and ultimate use of these facilities can maximize their impact on the well-being of young children and the adults who care for them. Neighborhood leaders and developers who can make a science-informed case for greater positive impacts on families with young children as well as the neighborhood as a whole will be better positioned to secure competitively awarded grants and tax credits. Moreover, because these initial funds often serve as seed money to draw in and leverage additional investments from philanthropy and CRA-motivated banks, their impact can be substantially multiplied.

A growing number of community revitalization leaders asked explicitly how the science of ECD 2.0 and enhanced measurement capacity could inform more effective strategies to confront their community’s disparities in healthy development. Exploratory conversations about potential collaboration with a wide range of change-makers have been highly engaging, including ongoing discussions with the national leadership of Purpose Built Communities. As these explorations continue, we are moving forward in developing formal partnerships in Atlanta, GA, and Spartanburg, SC.

In order to maximize the game-changing opportunities presented by this growing interest in working together, we are investing significant time and effort to learn about each community’s specific goals, challenges, assets, and needs. Central to these evolving relationships is our commitment to co-develop action plans driven by each community’s determination of how our contributions might help advance their priorities. With this goal firmly planted in our minds, we are listening to and learning from local stakeholders to ensure that our participation is tailored to their vision for their community. In short, the leaders of Connecting Science + Community view ourselves as playing a consulting and supportive role in advancing the change that community revitalization organizations are trying to make. We understand that our success in this role must be grounded in trust, and we welcome the opportunity to earn that trust.

The core motivation guiding our work together in the community revitalization space is the vision of an expanded early childhood ecosystem that achieves significantly larger impacts for more children through investments in both community-focused initiatives and direct services for children and families facing adversity. Our aim is to help strengthen the foundations of healthy development and reduce later disparities in life outcomes, beginning with the prenatal period and first 2-3 years after birth, when developing biological systems are most sensitive to the influences of both positive and negative experiences and exposures.

Please stay tuned to this space for more information as our partnerships evolve.

Connecting Science + Community is committed to engaging with innovators across sectors and sharing stories of what they are learning. If you know of a striking example where community revitalization efforts and early childhood development experts are collaborating, please share it with us at cscinfo_developingchild@harvard.edu