Finance Baseline Analysis and TII Evaluation National evaluation is addressing outcomes from TII financing strategy Baseline analysis is needed to determine community development finance system change outcomes: – How have the CDFI partner’s capacity, resources and activities in the local city changed? – Have changes occurred in other community development financing institutions involved in funding TII projects? – What changes have occurred in the overall local community development financing “system” during the first three years of TII?

Finance Baseline Process Developed baseline data needs and format – Two components: CDFI and local finance system CDFI component – Culled data from CDFI financial reports and Catalyst Fund underwriting analysis – Customized data request and interview with CDFIs Local finance system component – Secondary data collection – Interviews with local finance actors Integrate interview results and complete forms

Initial CDFI Capacity & Activity Baltimore and Detroit CDFIs began with little local capacity, lending and relationships but large total organization wide assets and staff Cleveland’s CDFI is the smallest by assets, operating budget and staff but more local relationships than TRF and NCB Capital Impact Collectively, the Twin Cities CDFIs have the most resources and a large network of local relationships, but mixed lending experience

BaltimoreClevelandDetroitTwin Cities Total assets 259,075,32769,834,333167,589,085469,376,089 Total new loans 40,421,06370,611,08486,542,83546,384,418 Total Staff Operating budget 12,811,9728,641,19412,260,24854,006,071 Staff: TII site New Loans: TII site 01,897,00010,000,00015,492,538 Portfolio: TII Site 4,426,65828,997,24742,000,00089,455,277 No of local partners or funders 19238

Local Finance Systems: Actors Four sites vary in the type and range of community development finance actors – Baltimore has few CDFIs and non-bank small business lenders but several active banks – In Cleveland, foundations, city and county government play strong roles along with several banks and regional chamber but lacks a strong local or regional CDFI – Detroit has strong foundation participation and several civic- based lenders but lacks private bank lending, consistent city government financing and a strong CDFI – Twin Cities has a dense system with active public sector and regional financing entities, many non-profit small business lenders, and a strong bank and philanthropic participation

Local Finance Systems: Coordination Local ecosystems and lenders are stressed by recent recession and financial crisis – Impact appears greatest in Cleveland and Detroit – Limited supply of private bank financing – Replicable financing roles and structures harder to achieve Some level of coordination exists in all sites with Twin Cities strongest and Baltimore weak – Twin Cities has a “super RFP” process and Interagency Stabilization Committee to finance affordable housing – Baltimore has city and state coordination on housing but little interaction between the public and private finance entities – Cleveland has history of coordinated funding for CDCs; multiple parties meet to coordinate some funding priorities and to structure project capital stacks

Potential System Change Agendas Baltimore – Communication and collaboration between private and public sectors – Invest in small business development and lending capacity Cleveland – Strengthen CDFI capacity and resources – Re-establish strong coordination and private sector lending Detroit – Establish private banking confidence to lend – System to deliver subsidies for catalytic projects to rebuild market Twin Cities – Stronger system for commercial and mixed use real estate – Strengthening local CDFI capacity & intermediary role