Characteristics of effective CBAs
Ineffective CBAs have co-opted low-income communities and misled the public, by generating support for development projects without delivering real community benefits. Through bad drafting or weak enforcement provisions, notes this the Partnership for Working Families, they've also misled community organizations into believing the benefits are real when they aren't. The fallout from ineffective CBAs has even undermined their legitimacy as a platform for change.
In Effective CBAs…
Communities have sufficient power, including strong coalition infrastructure, deep, active connections across community most threatened by project impacts, aligned networks experienced with CBAs, and no conflicts of interest with elected officials, developers, or others in the project.
The process is transparent, inclusive, and accessible, including a regular coalition meeting, for news and information, opportunities to provide feedback and input, and open processes for decision making.
Benefits deliver what community says they need. It's clear who is responsible, for what, when, and how.
Means to hold developers accountable are clear, including a monitoring and compliance vehicle, avenues for community enforcement, and there are consequences for failure.
Signs of Ineffective Processes
Community representatives were selected by politicians or the developers themselves.
There is little real community participation.
There is no coalition presence at all, or the coalition lacks the broad based representation of the array of community interests affected by the development.
The negotiation process is secretive and exclusive: a small group is involved in the process with little or no communication with local residents and organizations.
There are vague commitments, with unclear timeframes or measurements.
There is a “buy out” provision under which developers can pay for their obligations instead of actually providing community benefits.
