Most cities and regions have communities in need of investment—neighborhoods characterized by concentrated poverty and a lack of basic amenities such as affordable housing, high-quality jobs, or access to health care or other services. With major new funding streams for localities available through legislation such as the American Rescue Plan Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, many of these communities are receiving unprecedented levels of funding for projects that could meet these pressing needs.

But on its own, increasing investment doesn’t guarantee positive or equitable outcomes. Communities are shaped by not only what resources they have access to but how those resources are distributed. Historically, public policy has kept investment concentrated in some communities at the expense of others—creating patterns of disinvestment affecting communities today. In many cases, current federal spending perpetuates historic trends.

For local decisionmakers, it can be difficult to measure how investments could remediate or perpetuate inequities and to assess how investments align with community needs. To help these decisionmakers, we created the Capital for Communities Scorecard (C4C Scorecard), which gives local stakeholders a tool to gather and compare more data on proposed projects and their potential social impacts.

The C4C Scorecard assesses the potential social, economic, and environmental effects of mixed-use development, real estate development, or operating business investments. State and local public officials in particular can use the C4C Scorecard to decide how to distribute public dollars by identifying projects that are in line with community priorities and projected to benefit residents and flagging elements that may harm the surrounding community.

How localities are using the C4C Scorecard to distribute project funding

Recently, San Francisco’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) used the scorecard when awarding funding for projects focused on nonprofit business development. The OEWD team was looking for ways to incorporate a social and racial equity lens into its funding decisions and added the C4C scorecard as an application input in two requests for proposals (RFPs) to identify awardees with the most potential for social impact.

These RFPs included total awards of $6.8 million and $21 million in economic recovery funds, with the money going toward a variety of programs focused on business development, community economic development, economic recovery (particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic), and workforce development. The business development funding, in particular, hoped to target support toward nonprofit businesses that were expanding services, pursuing a specific business opportunity, or pursuing commercial real estate projects. Applicants for business development funding were required to attach completed C4C Scorecard results for their proposals to be considered.

The OEWD team used the C4C Scorecard to capture predicted social impacts so proposed projects were easily comparable. The applicants’ C4C score (out of 100) accounted for 30 percent of their application’s points, with the OEWD team also incorporating its own context-specific questions to capture other dimensions of grantee proposals. The tool acted as a screen to help prioritize funding—applicants with scores above 70 were given priority for awards, though lower scores weren’t disqualified.

Overall, the OEWD team reported they found the C4C Scorecard to be a relatively seamless and straightforward decisionmaking tool. Scorecard responses helped clarify the purpose and intended beneficiaries of proposed projects, and the information gathered through the scorecard supplemented the questions asked in other sections of the application.

Making the most of C4C Scorecard to leverage local investments

OEWD’s experience is just one example of how the C4C Scorecard can help local public officials make investment decisions that align with community priorities and spur positive—and minimize negative—social, economic, and environmental impacts. Washington, DC’s Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development has also leveraged the C4C Scorecard, offering it as a way proposed projects can qualify for tax incentives through the Opportunity Zone program. Submitted proposals must score a minimum of 75 out of 100 points in the scorecard to qualify as an eligible investment.

With more and new funding opportunities available, public officials and other community stakeholders, such as mission-driven investors, developers, and community-based organizations need reliable and transparent information about proposed projects and a way to compare potential impacts systematically. These groups can learn from San Francisco and DC to determine whether the C4C Scorecard may be the right tool for their community and funding priorities.