Integrating the Inner City through Mixed-Income Development Mark Joseph, Ph.D. Taryn Gress, MSSA Emily Miller, MSSA National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities Center for Policy Studies Public Affairs Seminar Co-Sponsors: Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences Schubert Center for Child Studies, Cleveland Neighborhood Progress November 20, 2015 nimc.case.edu
Presentation Outline 1) Policy context: mixed-income development 2) Organizational context: our mixed-income center 3) Research projects and findings – New book findings and implications – Research on youth 4) Research to Action Partnerships! 5) Q and A
Social Change Imperative: “Ending the Segregation of the Poor” • How can we decrease concentrated poverty? • How can we promote and sustain economically and racially diverse communities ?
Policy Context: Failure of Large-Scale Public Housing in the U.S. Pruitt-Igoe Homes St. Louis, 1972
Cedar Extensions Cleveland, Ohio Demolished 2014
U.S. Mixed-Income Development History • Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency • 1970s • Montgomery County, Maryland • 1980s • Mixed-Income New Communities Program • 1990-1992 • HOPE VI Program • 1992-2010 • Atlanta Public Housing Transformation • 1994-2010 • Chicago Plan for Transformation • 1999-present • HOPE SF – San Francisco Public Housing Transformation • 2006-present • Choice Neighborhoods Initiative • 2010-present
The Mixed-Income Development “Intervention” Public-private partnerships, market-driven Demolition, relocation and resident “choice” New urbanist , “mixed - income”, mixed -tenure design Stringent tenant screening, vigilant property management Some pre- and post-occupancy social services Varying approaches to governance, community-building Goals, priorities and philosophies vary
Defining “Success” in Mixed-Income Developments 1) Promoting and sustaining mixed-occupancy 2) Increased quality of life: physical environment 3) Building community/“Effective neighboring” 4) Promoting individual social/economic mobility 5) Neighborhood impact: revitalization without displacement
National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities nimc.case.edu Roles and Services Research and Evaluation Networking/Convening • • Research studies Mixed-income network (LinkedIn Group) • Evaluation projects • Learning Exchanges • Scans of the field Consultation Information Provision • Project design and execution • Resource website • Operating culture shift • Mixed-income database • Community engagement • Mixed-income library • Data management @MixedIncome #IntegratingTheInnerCity
Taryn Gress Mark Joseph Emily Miller April Urban Miyoung Yoon Biwen Liu Who is NIMC? Mark Chupp Melissa Van Jessie Rudolph Francisca Richter Cyleste Collins Johnathan Duffie Elizabeth Anthony Robert Fischer Seungjong Cho Claudia Coulton Chad Biggers Michael Gearhart
Mixed-Income Research • Chicago Plan for Transformation with University of Chicago • HOPESF, San Francisco led by Learning for Action • Cascade Village, Akron, Ohio • Choice Neighborhoods National Evaluation led by Urban Institute • State of the Field Scans - Social Dynamics (31 sites) - Resident Services (60 sites) • New York City Inclusionary Housing with the Furman Center, NYU
Mixed-Income Consultation • New Communities Initiative with Dept. of Planning and Economic Development, Washington D.C. • Cleveland Choice Neighborhood with the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority • Mixed-income development in Pittsburgh with Trek Development • East Baltimore Redevelopment Initiative with the Annie E. Casey Foundation • Data management strategies with Urban Strategies, McCormack Baron • Community Life Model with The Community Builders
Mixed-Income Development Database Cities Represented http://neocando.case.edu/nimc/
National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities Cities with Current Projects
Research: Data and Methods • In-depth interviews • Document review • Household surveys • Administrative data • Focus groups with residents analysis • Field observations of meetings • Resident journals • Staff journals and community activities
New Book! Integrating the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing Transformation Robert Chaskin & Mark Joseph November 2015 University of Chicago Press
Research Findings: Areas of high success Increased quality of life: physical environment High quality design of buildings and grounds Increased safety and security Neighborhood impact Decreased crime Increased private and public investment
Research Findings: Areas of mixed success Promoting and sustaining mixed-occupancy Generally strong demand for market-rate rental For-sale demand dependent on market conditions Low rates of return of public housing residents Substantial turnover in market-rate rental Changes in intended mix: rental conversions, vouchers
Research Findings: Areas of low success Building community/“Effective neighboring” “Us versus them” dynamics Social isolation, exclusion and stigma Challenges re: public space, norms, governance Promoting individual social/economic mobility No evidence of general improvements Limited resources for sustained social supports
“Incorporated Exclusion” Physical integration reproduces marginality and leads to withdrawal and alienation rather than engagement and inclusion. Chaskin and Joseph (2015)
Youth in Mixed-Income Developments: Unexpected Challenges High expectations Youth as beneficiaries of social mixing Youth as social bridges Low youth interaction Differential parent management Different ages, schools, activities Low-income black youth as flashpoints Perceived loitering and delinquency Social control and rules rather than engagement
Implications for Policy and Practice: Mitigating “incorporated exclusion” Marketing diverse, urban places Intentional vs. “organic” community -building Proactive mixed-income property management Inclusive decision-making: towards shared norms
Implications for Policy and Practice: Changing social and economic trajectories Post-occupancy supports and services Deep case management where needed From services to capacity/network-building Changing capacities, resources and mindsets A strategic focus on youth Proactive and broad outreach Youth as leaders and designers
COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION Physical, Economic and Social Revitalization The Triple Aim Framework for Mixed-Income Development Co- Investment Operating Culture INDIVIDUAL OPERATING TRANSFORMATION EFFICIENCY Social and Economic Increased property Advancement of All revenue and property Residents reduced costs A Joint Venture of Trusted Space Partners and National Initiative on Mixed Income Communities
Research into Action! Trek Development: New Communities Initiative: Pittsburgh, PA Washington, D.C. • Allegheny Dwellings and • Park Morton, Barry Farm, Dinwiddie Street Housing Northwest One, Lincoln Heights
New Partnership: Mixed-Income Strategic Alliance Strategy: Form a Learning Network among 6-8 mixed-income developments • Technical Assistance • Learning Agenda • Policy Influence • Results-Based Accountability
Research into Action! Southeast Ferguson: Promoting Resident Success and Community Transformation • Outreach and Information gathering • Data collection and analysis • Community asset mapping and service system scan • Reporting and planning
Promoting “Effective Neighboring” in Cleveland A New Collaborative Project Among: National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities The Center for Population Dynamics, Cleveland State University Neighborhood Connections Cleveland Neighborhood Progress
We thank our funders • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation • Annie E. Casey Foundation • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority • Campaign for HOPESF • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation • The American City Coalition • Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing nimc.case.edu
EXTRA SLIDES
Mixed-Income Development in the U.S. An illustration of “income mix” 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Market-rate 50% Affordable Public housing 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051
From Larry Vale, MIT: Income mix in 260 HOPE VI developments compared with income mix in the 51 developments in the NIMC Scan of the Field
Recommend
More recommend
