Category Archives: Poverty & income gap

The Power of Faith-Based Ministry

Pastor Ken Barbour mentors the men enrolled in Kingdom Life Ministries. A former drug abuser himself, he has worked in jails for 13 years."Some of them have just given up," he says. "We help them believe they can achieve." Photo credit: Style Weekly, Scott Elmquist.

Pastor Ken Barbour mentors the men enrolled in Kingdom Life Ministries. A former drug abuser himself, he has worked in jails for 13 years.”Some of them have just given up,” he says. “We help them believe they can achieve.” Photo credit: Style Weekly, Scott Elmquist.

by James A. Bacon

In my previous post replicating an article published in Style Weekly, I put a human face on the ongoing battle to reduce recidivism, save taxpayer dollars and turn criminals into productive, contributing members of society. It is so easy for policy wonks like me to dwell in the abstract realm of tables, graphs and position papers. That article reminds us that we are talking about real flesh-and-blood people.

Karl Green, the former drug addict and street enforcer profiled in the article, grew up in Wickham Court, one of Richmond’s more notorious housing projects. He described to me how he had to fight to survive from a very tender age. Literally, fight to survive. When he was seven or eight years old, older kids would snatch him up along with other children and make them fight little kids from other neighborhoods. The older guys would lay bets on who would emerge the winner. Green learned early on that only the strong — and the canny — survive.

For a man who has led a thuggish life, Green has a keen native intelligence. He actually made it through 11th grade and maintained a B average, he says. In prison, he became an avid reader of thrillers by Robert Ludlum, Dean Koontz and others. He has a natural gift for story telling and a knack for the vivid metaphor. But the life of the street — the drugs, the women, the partying, the violence, the macho posturing and in his case, the challenge of psychologically manipulating those around him — proved too powerful an allure. As he is the first to admit, he made bad choices. He dropped out of high school, became addicted to drugs and, except for a few years early on, never had a steady job. He had few possessions and rarely had his own place to live. He made money by selling drugs, robbing stores and beating up people.

How does a man like Green turn his life around? Getting old is part of the story. The drugs and violence wore him down. He bears scars on his arm from being stabbed on one occasion and sliced with a broken jar on another. He had a toe amputated from a gunshot wound. (His life is an amazing story; one day I hope to tell it.) At 49 he got tired of it all. He realized how empty and directionless his life was. That’s where Kingdom Life Ministries (KLM), a faith-based ministry operating in the Richmond City Jail, came in. While respectable society fears and ostracizes men like Green, KLM preached that God forgives all men, and that all men are equal in his sight. KLM provides structure, discipline and a peer-based support network as an alternative to the street, and it provides convicts with an avenue to achieve respect in the community as “men of God.”

As long-time readers know, I am an atheist. But I am not one of those atheists who is hostile to religion and wants to see it expunged from the public sphere. Religion can be a powerful force for good. For men like Karl Green, Christianity  can fill the void with purpose and meaning. I may be an atheist, but I marvel at the power of faith-based ministries, be they Christian, Muslim or any other, because I’m interested in what works. And there is little question that some of these programs work. The trick is developing metrics that allow us to distinguish between the successes, the duds and the also-rans. And that’s another reason I like KLM — the organization keeps careful track of what happens to alumni from its program. All programs that aim to rehabilitate need to do the same.

The Commonwealth of Virginia spends $1 billion a year on the state corrections system, and local governments probably spend an equal amount. For too long, jails and prisons have been revolving doors, as inmates go in and out, in and out. Lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key does do one thing: It keeps criminals off the street. But it’s also incredibly expensive, and the system has done too little to equip inmates with the skills to enter productive society, which makes it doubly expensive.

Convinced that it has a winning formula, KLM is gearing up for expansion. Its transition house in north Richmond has room for only nine men. Many, many participants of KLM’s prison program have to be turned away. The organization has set a goal of setting up 15 or so houses around the state. The beauty of its  “business model” is that it costs so little. KLM rents a house for eight or nine men. The men are required to find a job within a month or two and contribute $300 a month to cover food and rent. There is an initial start-up cost for rental deposit, utilities and furnishing the house but each house is largely self-sustaining.

Supporting a mostly volunteer organization like KLM is not something that government does well. But it’s something the community does do well. I urge you to join me in supporting KLM financially. Here is KLM’s Facebook page. If you are so inclined, mail a check to:

 

 

Kingdom Life Ministry, Inc.
P.O. Box 71059
Richmond, Virginia  23255

Saving Grace

Karl Green,a former heroin addict and street enforcer in Richmond's inner city has found a new life. Photo credit: Scott Elmquist, Style Weekly.

Karl Green,a former heroin addict and street enforcer in Richmond’s inner city has found a new life. Photo credit: Scott Elmquist, Style Weekly.

From the toughest tier at the city jail to new jobs and a fresh start, Kingdom Life Ministries gives inmates a second chance.

by James A. Bacon

Karl Green recalls committing his last act of violence as if it were yesterday. Three years ago he was serving time in the Richmond City Jail. A veteran of Virginia’s correctional system, he had a simple survival strategy: Don’t take nothing off nobody. “I was like a beast in the jungle,” Green says. “I had to become wild to survive.”

When he wanted to watch something on TV, he changed the channel. If someone didn’t like it, he threw the TV on the floor. He used the phone whenever he wanted. If someone objected, he yanked the phone out of the wall. Kindergarten rules don’t apply in jail, he says: “There are wolves snapping at you!”

Prison authorities had stuck Green in a small, high-security tier for beating up a man in a poker game. The street enforcer, now 52, quickly established his dominance over the younger men; they called him “uncle,” a term of respect given to older inmates. Then a new guy showed up. This dude was big and strong, and he acted like he ran the show. Picking fights, he intimidated the younger guys. “He thinks he’s tough,” Green told himself. “I’ll show him who the real five-star general is.”

One day the new guy was watching television. Green turned the knob to a different channel.

“He said, ‘Man, what you doing?’ I said, ‘Nigger, I don’t want to look at that.’”

He changed the channel. Green changed it back. “I said, ‘I know you’re a talker now. We don’t have to do the dance with the TV. I’m challenging you. I’m going to beat your ass to submission.’”

Half a lifetime of heroin addiction had sapped some of Green’s natural strength, but he still had quick hands and lots of street-fighting experience. After some more posturing and trash-talking, the two men grappled. The younger man tried to grab him in a bear hug. Green hit him with an upper cut and again in the cheek. He slammed his head into the prison bars and, as the fight rolled around the tier, into the commode.

“He started crying, started pleading to the little dudes to pull me off him. I was stomping him on the back. He rolled under the bed. ‘Uncle, I don’t want no more. You’re the best.’”

One of the younger men in the cell asked Green to stop. And he did. He sat down on a table. “I started to cool off,” Green says. “The blood-red veil came off from my eyes like a curtain lifting.”

That night he lay in his bed. “I prayed that Jesus would come into my life and I would never have to do another violent act,” he says. He was getting bone-tired of dealing drugs, beating people up, floating from place to place and having few true friends. He stayed up that night reading the Bible. The next morning, the guards said, “Pack your bags.” They were moving him to a different tier, the so-called McCovery tier.

The McCovery tier was a section of the jail where outsiders put on self-improvement programs, including Narcotics Anonymous, anger management, Bible study and preparing for life on the outside. Green fell into a circle of men involved in a program that later would be called Kingdom Life Ministries.

“I got serious about reading the Bible,” he says. “The more I did, the more I saw my life becoming free, clear, with more promise, more hope and more purpose.” He says he started shedding his aggressive behavior “like a snakeskin.”

After a while, the authorities moved Green to the state prison system. He missed the fellowship of the inmates on the McCovery tier, and worried what would happen when he was released. If he moved in with family or friends, as he’d done before, Green feared he would drift back to the streets. He wanted to reconnect with the men on the program tier. As luck would have it, when his sentence was up, Kingdom Life Ministries had an empty slot at its transition house near Virginia Union University.

Moving in, Green committed to remain there a year and promised to live by the strict house rules: no drugs, no alcohol, no women. He studied the Bible and went to church. He found a job, went to work every day and paid his share of the rent. After his year was up, he found his own place.

Does Green ever fear he’ll slip back into his old ways? “That doesn’t even cross my mind. I won’t go back,” he says. “I’m three years clean, and I’m not going to give that up. I want to stay in God’s grace until he calls me home.” Continue reading.

This article was first published in Style Weekly. Click here to see the original layout with all of Scott Elmquist’s great photography.

The War on the Middle Class: Virginia Tech Edition

Virginia Tech has joined the University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University and other universities in giving the ol’ raspberry to Governor Bob McDonnell’s request to hold down tuition increases to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index.

Virginia undergraduates will pay 4.9% more in tuition next school year, while out-of-staters will pay 5.0% more. The inflation rate is running around 2% annually.

A special “funds for the future” program will defray some of the increase for lower-income students, reports the Roanoke Times. But if a household with two working parents is making $100,000 or more, the family is out of luck.

Much of the Board of Visitor’s discussion revolved around whether the university has the pricing power to stick it more aggressively to out-of-state students. Suzanne Obenshain, wife of Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, argued that the board should ease up on rate increases for in-state students and shift more of the cost to out-of-staters. Tech officials argued that out-of-state enrollment dropped when significant tuition increases were instituted.

Tech enrolls about 6,400 out-of-state students a year. Under Sunday’s increases,  out-of-state students will pay about 156 percent of what it costs to educate them, in effect subsidizing in-state students, reports the Roanoke Times. Resident students pay 61 percent of the cost of their education. In a “compromise,” Tech officials agreed to bump up the out-of-state increase from 4.9% to 5.0%.

The board also discussed “differential pricing” — charging more for degrees like engineering and architecture that require more expensive infrastructure, more expensive faculty and/or lead to more remunerative careers. Vice Rector George Nolen, a retired Siemens Corp. executive, contended that a Tech degree in engineering is under-priced from a market standpoint. Engineering students can afford to take out bigger loans because they’ll have higher-paying jobs when they graduate.

Judging from the Roanoke Times, one topic not up for discussion was how to hold down costs. The entire debate revolved around how to squeeze more blood from a turnip. Under today’s higher-ed mantra, the poor get financial aid, the rich don’t need it, and the middle-class just has to bend over and take it.

– JAB

From Tiny Seeds, Mighty Collard Greens Grow

Saleh Murshed, whose family runs the Clay Street Market, stocks the shop’s new refrigerator with fresh greens.

 by James A. Bacon

To grasp the challenge that faces the reformers who want to introduce wholesome fruits and vegetables into the food desert of Richmond’s inner city, go visit the Clay Street Market in Church Hill. Step through the front door and glance around. To the left, you’ll see Shawn Algahein or one of his relatives behind the cash register ringing up sales of cigarettes, lottery tickets, food and other convenience items. Sweeping your gaze to the right, you’ll view shelf after shelf of food so unhealthy that just looking at it hardens the arteries. Near the door is an array of candy: Twix, Skittles, Hershey chocolate bars and dozens of other brands. Nearby, racks groan under six-packs of Miller beer and big plastic bottles of Coca-Cola. Counters display an endless assortment of snack foods: Dorito’s, Lays Potato Chips and varieties of pork rinds you’ll never find in a suburban store. Toward the rear, you’ll spot shelf space devoted to real if not especially nutritious food, like rice, potatoes, ketchup, canned peas and and canned spaghetti.

Amidst the cornucopia of salt, sugar and fat, set just behind a case loaded with ice cream bars, stands a small refrigerator, a little bigger than one you might find in a college dorm room. Through the glass case you can see a dozen or so bundles of locally grown collard greens and salad greens.

Sales of fresh vegetables are a little slow, says Algahein. He hopes they will pick up in the beginning of the month when many of his customers get their food stamps. “When people see [the fresh food], they say it’s good we have it,” he says. “People are excited that we have it.”

In the past when he tried fresh fruit and vegetables, he lost money. He stocked green peppers, bananas, apples and oranges, he says, but “we threw a lot of stuff away.” Eventually, he gave up. But this time is different. He is taking no financial risk. Tricycle Gardens, a non-profit urban farm, provided the refrigerator at no expense, and it promises to reimburse Alghahein for any produce that goes bad. Give it time, he says, and the vegetables could catch on. “People are looking for stuff that is healthier.”

The Clay Street Market is one of two convenience stores — a Valero market in the Fulton area is the other — participating in a pilot project that Tricycle Gardens and its partners launched this month. The short-term goal is to sell enough fresh fruit and veggies to justify taking up permanent shelf space in the two convenience stores. A longer-term goal is to replicate the project elsewhere. The ultimate goal is to obliterate food deserts, where fresh food is inaccessible to anyone without a car, across the commonwealth.

Sally Schwitters, executive director of Tricycle Gardens, is under no illusions that the task will be easy but she is optimistic. The launch has met expectations. “Within the first week,” she says, “we sold out of collard greens.”

The Healthy Corners initiative arose from conversations involving Tricycle Gardens, the City of Richmond, the state health department, Virginia Community Capital and the Bon Secours of Richmond Health System. City Councilwoman Cynthia Newbill chaired a series of meetings beginning in December 2012. All parties shared a concern that poor nutrition was a root cause of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and other maladies afflicting the poor.

“Everyone saw the need and said, ‘Yes, let’s do this,” recalls Teri Lovelace, vice president-corporate development for Virginia Community Capital, a community development financial institution. What she found remarkable, she adds, is the speed with which things came together. People started talking in December and food was placed in two markets by April.

Inspired by the experience of Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., in distributing fresh food through inner-city grocery stores, the Richmond participants put their own spin on the idea. For starters, they had less money so they decided to start with a pilot project rather than a city-wide roll-out. On the other hand, Tricycle Gardens already had built a strong network of relationships in the East End, so it held a series of community meetings to test the waters. Read more.

Smart Tree Huggery vs. Impatient Tree Huggery

Everybody loves trees, right? I mean everybody. It just makes so much sense. Trees are aesthetically pleasing. They provide shade and their respiration helps cool their surroundings. They reduce storm water runoff, filter air pollution and provide habitat for wildlife. Indeed, some writers suggest that humans are hard-wired for “biophilia,” a concept that encompasses the love of trees. As Adam Winston sums up that theory (which he does not entirely agree with):

Psycho-evolutionary theory is based on the notion that millions of years of evolution have left modern humans with a partly genetic predisposition to respond positively to nature and prefer landscapes that favor their own survival. …

Humans have evolved in a largely unmodified natural environment, with only a tiny fraction of our evolutionary history having been spent in artificially constructed urban environments. Because of this, it is suggested, our physical and mental well being is still highly dependent on contact with the natural environment, and this is why trees and forests in and around urban places can provide places that improve our mental and physical health.

There are many tree lovers in the Richmond region, and for the most part I count myself among them (although I do confess to a hatred of a particular tree in my back yard that spews gumballs by the thousands).

But the love of trees is not universal, as the Washington Post points out in an article about the travails of environmentalists trying to plant trees in less affluent sections of Washington, D.C. An article this morning quotes a certain Doris Gudger, who was less than gratified when a city crew started planting trees in front of her rowhouse in Southeast D.C. The pollen would aggravate her allergies, she said. Raking leaves would be a pain. Drug dealers would use the trees for shade. Gentrifiers were sure to follow, raising property values, and she would have to pay higher taxes.

Casey Trees, a D.C.-based organization that has provided guidance to the urban-canopy movement in Richmond, has learned that it does no good to plant trees if there is no community support for them. No one waters them, and they wither and die. Now the group plants trees only when a homeowner association or community group asks for health.

But even that can be an obstacle. People in lower-income neighborhoods often perceive young environmentalists as outsiders — the latest in a parade of do-gooders who parachute in, indulge their latest enthusiasm, and then depart. The same probably can be said of other causes peddled by the affluent, white ministering class in poor neighborhoods for such causes as urban gardening and wholesome foods (causes, incidentally, that I support).

Bottom line: The altruistically inclined should never assume that people they aim to help actually want that help. They may have very different priorities and may look at the world in very different ways. Outsiders must invest the time to network with the people whose lives they seek to better, build relationships of trust and gain their buy-in. Such foundation-building efforts will be richly rewarded.

– JAB

First They Came for Our Tax-Subsidized Sodas, then They Came for our Tax-Subsidized Snack Foods

Graphic credit: The Onion (Click for more legible image)

by James A. Bacon

I had occasion the other day to visit an inner city convenience store in Richmond while working on an article I hope to post to the blog shortly.  I am not exactly Mr. Health Food Guy — I won’t touch tofu, cauliflower or fish oil — but even I was appalled by the wares on display.

Entire shelves in this shoebox establishment were given over to beer, soda, candy, pork rinds, potato chips and sugar-drenched cereals. The healthiest (or should I say “least unhealthy”) foods were ordinary starches like rice and potatoes whose sole nutritional virtue is that they were not drenched in sugar, fat and salt. If there is any correlation between the percentage of shelf space stocked with junk food and the nutritional intake of neighborhood residents, there should be no mystery whatsoever why Richmond’s inner-city population is suffering an epidemic of obesity, diabetes and hypertension.

I totally subscribe to the doctrine that people should be held accountable for their behavior. We should not make excuses for poor people who blow their slender resources on cigarettes, lottery tickets, a six-pack of beer and a bag of Tom’s Bacon Cheddar Fries. But I also acknowledge that the story is much bigger than the irresponsible lifestyle choices of the poor. Rent-seeking corporations and a spineless federal government bear their share of the blame.

Yesterday, Coca-Cola held its annual meeting. If all went according to schedule, David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research, was planning to criticize the company for lobbying to keep soft drinks eligible for food stamps. Currently, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) forbids only the purchase of alcohol and tobacco. Through SNAP, American taxpayers subsidize the purchase of about $4 billion worth of soda products yearly.

My thinking on the subject coincides exactly with Almasi’s sentiments:

I’m all for freedom of choice and respecting peoples’ personal decisions, but Coke lobbying for its share of food stamp money is above and beyond altruism. While publicly promoting so-called ‘sustainability’ by hyping good nutrition and active lifestyles, Coca-Cola lobbyists are quietly seeking to ensure that American taxpayers subsidize the company’s high-calorie, sugary beverages. Both political parties carp about cutting the budget and fixing the deficit. How about stopping this virtual river of soda being paid for with our tax dollars?

I also agree with Justin Danhof, director of the National Center Free Enterprise Project:

In a free marketplace, folks should be able to purchase what they want. That is why Coca-Cola was right to fight New York City Mayor Michael Bloombeg’s efforts to ban large beverages, but wrong when it fought his efforts to limit SNAP funds to healthier items. SNAP does not operate in a free market. It is taken from folks’ paychecks. It is reasonable to limit how those benefits are administered and for what items.

Actually, I would go a step further. I would apply the same logic to snack foods as well. If hunger is still a problem in the inner city, as many say is the case, public funds should be limited to products that meet basic nutritional guidelines. Surely, this is an area where do-gooder liberals and skin-flint conservatives can join forces to create better public policy and improve the health of the poor.

McAuliffe: Can a Schmoozer Transform?

By Peter Galuszka

On Easter Sunday, I was driving in a cold rain to Charlottesville for a family event. My cell phone started beeping with messages from Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe.

He said he was on his way to his own family brunch but wanted to tap me for $5. I got similar messages from two other staffers.

Why bother me at Easter? Political analyst Larry Sabato wondered the same thing. In a tweet that day he complained about finding “11 obnoxious messages for $$$. Now I know the answer to the age old Q; Is nothing sacred?”

And that may be McAuliffe’s biggest problem as he faces arch-conservative Ken Cuccinelli in the off-year governor’s race. In my profile of him in Style Weekly, I note that McAuliffe is trying to rein in an expansive personality that has made him a top political schmoozer and fundraiser for Democrats from Jimmy Carter to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

A decades’ long political operative who has never been in elected office, he can be bombastic and smooth, as his recent dealings with GreenTech Automotive shows. He flirted with Virginia for a hybrid  car plant before going to Mississippi. He has been accused of somehow using the car plant to win special visas for foreign workers and maybe misleading the Virginia Economic Development Partnership about his intentions in the Old Dominion.

Meanwhile, he must overcome some of his misunderstandings of traditional Virginia thinking. However, it’s probably a good thing that he’s going to skip the Shad Planking in Wakefield tonight with its Confederate flags where Cuccinelli will be keynote speaker.

While polls are about 50-50 in the race, McAuliffe’s fundraising prowess has shown brightly. In the first quarter, he raised more than $5 million — more than double the take of Cuccinelli, who has hamstrung by not being allowed raise money during the General Assembly session because of his position as Attorney General. Read on…

(Also, here as a Q&A with McAuliffe)

Hens and Self Sufficiency

Sheena and Valerie, activists with the Chickunz urban-chicken movement. Photo credit: Chickunz RVa Facebook page.

In a victory for urban chicken lovers everywhere, Richmond City Council adopted yesterday the final set of regulations that will make it permissible to own up to four hens in residential areas. In a setback for gender equality, however, the ban on roosters still applies. (See the Times-Dispatch article.)

Just kidding about the gender-equality thing. Roosters are a nuisance. Nobody wants to be woken at daybreak by a cock crowing next door. In all seriousness, lifting the ban on urban chickens marks a big step forward for the locally grown food movement, which is gaining momentum across Virginia.

There are a couple of layers to the issue worth examining. The first is the matter of individual rights. Why shouldn’t people be allowed to raise chickens in their back yards if it doesn’t pose a nuisance or health hazard to neighbors? What business is it of local government to restrict the practice? The City of Richmond will charge a $60-a-year permit to offset the cost of subjecting chicken coop owners to inspections by the Department of Animal Control and Care. That’s a reasonable concession to ensure that sanitary conditions are maintained.

The second issue is aiding and expediting the growth of the locally grown food movement. If Virginians increasingly have a taste for chicken and/or eggs that aren’t raised under the conditions of industrial agriculture, with all the hormones that are fed to the chickens and all the chicken waste that is produced, then public policy should encourage them to raise their own hens.

Furthermore, in a time of chronic economic hardship, when thousands of Virginians are short on cash and long on spare time, food self-sufficiency strikes me as a good thing. Poor people, in particular, should be coaxed into supplementing their food stamps with eggs, chicken and garden produce they raise themselves. We all know the old saying, “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.” Substitute “chicken” for “fish.” Self-sufficiency — now, that’s real social change!

– JAB

The Dish on Mission Investing

by James A. Bacon

For many years, Richmond’s Cabell Foundation conducted business much as it had since its formation in 1957. Investing the endowment for income, the board took out 5% per year to distribute in grants to worthy causes. In 2011, that amounted to roughly $4.3 million directly for some two to three dozen non-profits around Richmond and Virginia.

More recently, the board began thinking about how to get more bang for the buck, Charles L. Cabell, immediate past president of the foundation, told a gathering of mostly Virginia foundations and non-profits at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. The board tried giving matching grants and last-dollar grants, and it organized a Richmond funders’ group to keep major philanthropists appraised of each others’ activities.

A few years ago, the board also became acquainted with the concept of “mission” investments, also referred to as “social” investments or “impact” investments. As an alternative to putting the entire portfolio in stocks, bonds and other typical instruments, the idea was to invest in non-profit enterprises in order to leverage the impact of the funds.

“In typical Richmond fashion,” said Cabell, a Richmond attorney, “we chewed on it for two or three years.” Finally, he says, the Cabell Foundation found the right partner — Virginia Community Capital (VCC), a non-profit, community development financial institution and bank. By purchasing $1 million of preferred stock in VCC’s banking business, the foundation generated a modest yet respectable 4% annual payout. But the bank was able to leverage that million dollars into $8 million in capital that could be lent to create affordable housing, finance small businesses or underwrite Main Street renovations in communities around the state.

“We believe this is something that other foundations might look at,” Cabell told the assembled foundation executive and non-profit managers Wednesday. “It’s exciting for us. If it works for us, I think it will work for you.”

Mission investing has taken off in the United States since the 2007-2008  recession, as foundations have sought ways to offset the impact of their shrinking portfolios and diminished giving capabilities. While foundations made an estimated $46 billion in grants in 2010, they held assets totaling more than $600 billion that could be doing more. Of the U.S. foundations participating in mission investments, one of four have committed more than 50% of their assets to mission-related investments. But half have barely dipped their toes, risking less than five percent.

Many non-profits are not set up to benefit from mission investing, but VCC is. The organization was set up in the early 2000s when Governor Mark Warner consolidated and privatized two state loan funds with $15 million in assets. Today, by applying for federal grants, accepting foundation investors and reinvesting income, VCC has grown its asset base to $85 million, said President Jane Henderson.

VCC has more than 122 loans outstanding, totaling $60.5 million, that underwrite projects relating to affordable housing, health care, food insecurity and small business that typically would have difficulty getting financing from conventional sources. VCC also provides technical assistance to communities and non-profits seeking to secure government grants and private capital.

VCC finds solutions by blending government money, foundation money and private capital. “We don’t make grants,” said Henderson. “We’re lenders. We’re advisors.”

The Jessie Ball duPont Fund, which concentrates its lending in Delaware, Virginia and Florida, invested $1.5 million with VCC, said executive Mark Constantine. Before diving in to mission investing, the foundation had to address a number of legal, investing and accounting issues. It also had to give some thought about how to its investments with its grant-making mission and how to monitor the investment’s economic and social impact.

The decision to move into mission investing is not one to make lightly, said Tracy Kartye, who runs the $100 million social investing program for the Annie E. Casey Foundation. “The investments are complex, they have legal fees and transaction costs, and they require skill sets that foundations do not have.” But the foundation’s track record has been “quite good.”

Surprise! Latinos Not a Monolithic Bloc!

Virginia Latinos — a diverse group

A week ago, I asked whether the high concentration of Latinos in certain Northern Virginia neighborhoods was best described as “segregation” or “self separation.” Are Latinos the victims of residential discrimination, or do they voluntarily cluster together for reasons of income (they can afford to live only in certain neighborhoods) or culture (they like being around others like themselves)? Predictably, a visitor to the blog suggested that my post “verged on racism,” presumably for suggesting that racism and discrimination did not fully explain Latino residential patterns.

I based last week’s observations on research sponsored by the Civil Rights Project. Now comes a new study, “Hispanics in the United States: Not Only Mexicans,” which finds that residential segregation varies widely among Hispanic sub-groups.

The original study does not appear to be available online, but Brown University wrote this article and the Wall Street Journal extracted some of the report’s key findings. Cubans, Puerto Ricans and South Americans have much higher levels of education and income than Mexicans and Central Americans, for instance. The level of residential segregation has declined for all Hispanic groups since 1990 — except for Mexicans, who comprise more than half of all Hispanics. (Interestingly, the study does not discuss Hispanics of American origin, whose ancestors settled in territories before they were acquired by the United States.)

The boundaries between smaller immigrant groups and larger American society also appear to be breaking down more rapidly than the boundary between Mexicans and mainstream society, even though members of the smaller groups have lived in the U.S. for shorter periods of time. The assimilation trend applies even to less affluent Hispanics from Central America who have comparable income and education levels to Mexicans. Perhaps the ability of Mexicans to coalesce in larger communities explains their ability to maintain ethnic boundaries longer.

What a breakthrough — recognizing that Latinos/Hispanics are not a monolithic group! Immigrants from different nations come to the United States under different circumstances, they are imbued with different types of social capital, and they behave differently when they get here. Culture matters. Circumstances matter. There are many factors at work beyond the default explanation of racism and discrimination so routinely invoked to account for differences between racial and ethnic groups.

— JAB