Community Assignment: Comparing the Perspectives and Approaches of Three Organizations

Over the course of the semester it has become clear that there are a multitude of perspectives and approaches used when engaging in community development.  While organizations and efforts aimed at community development or revitalization may not explicitly state a position or the framework from which they are operating, it is often possible to use the descriptors presented to understand the perspective employed.  Examining and comparing the websites of three Pittsburgh organizations provides an opportunity to more critically consider how varying perspectives on community development are expressed and put into practice.  While this analysis will not evaluate if the organizations are working in accordance to the perspective they are espousing, it will explore how the perspectives manifest by examining the organizations’ missions, structures, and programs/services. 

The three organizations whose websites are being explored are Oakland Planning and Development Corporation (OPDC),   Hosanna House, and Thomas Merton Center (TMC).  An initial point of information for gaining understanding of an organization's perspective is to examine its mission.  Mission statements provide a concise explanation of the organization's purpose and specify the area(s) of focus, indicating where the organization thinks attention must be given and where they have the ability to create change.  The text to the right provides and mission statement for each of the three organizations.  While each mission statement denotes importance around engaging people, they do so is different ways.  OPDC and Hosanna House both have reference to service delivery, either by acknowledging specific services, such as “job placement services”, or by saying “providing opportunities.” However, OPDC refers to Oakland (the neighborhood it serves) as a collective community, where as Hosanna House focuses on empowerment at a more individual level (families and individuals).  Looking further upstream, the mission statement of TMC is much more systemically focused.  There is importance paid to bringing people together, but it is done so at the level of fostering structural awareness and change.  The comparisons perceived among the organizations' mission statements are further seen when examining other aspects of the websites, as discussed further below.

Each organization is structured in a similar way, however the differences that do exist, as well as the differences in the way the information is presented can provide important insight into the approach of the organizations.  Each organization is governed by a Board of Directors, however only OPDC provides any information on their Board members beyond indicating the member's position (e.g., President).  What OPDC does is indicate the members’ affiliations while also highlighting which members are Oakland residents, or residents of nearby neighborhoods.  In so doing, OPDC builds on the image of being community focused—an image that is again fostered by how OPDC presents its staff and partners.  Whereas TMC lists their four staff members and job titles, and Hosanna House provides a personnel blurb for their Executive Director (heavily focused on business success and personal accolades), OPDC provides personnel bios which not only describe the staff members’ expertise, but also incorporate their connections with the community as well as experiences with community development.  For example, the Executive Director’s bio references her previous experiences while also including descriptors like “Passionate about Oakland not only as a residential neighborhood but as the economic driver and cultural hub of our region.” Including such language builds a focus on Oakland as a community, and the organization viewing itself as an engaged element within that community.  Similar conclusions can be gleaned from an exploration of the organizations’ partners, however it is useful to first examine the programs and services that the organizations highlight on their websites.

The TMC is most unique in their programming among the three organizations analyzed, because they are so structurally focused.  Engaged in three main areas (Peace and Nonviolence; Economic Justice; Environmental Justice), the TMC works to fulfill its mission by bringing people together to consider and respond to systemic issues using a nonviolence ethos.  As such, the TMC views change as a product of creating awareness of system issues and injustices and mobilizing a voice against those issues.  The programs and services organized by OPDC and Hosanna House are more micro focused than those of the TMC, with heavier emphasis on behavioral implications.  Hosanna House is almost entirely behaviorally focused in its programming, focusing on the delivery of such services as: Youth leadership training and mentoring; Addiction recovery programs; Job placement services for the disabled; Pregnancy care services; and Health and fitness programs.  What is seen here is a scope of resources that serve individuals and families.  Even the organization’s community development efforts have an individualistic leaning, with efforts to educate and support potential homeowners about housing options.  OPDC has a number of programs comparable to those of Hosanna House, such as employment support services and education/training programs to prepare students for employment, however they also have more community level emphasis than Hosanna House.  For example, OPDC is engaged in community development planning (Oakland 2025) and transportation initiatives, bringing in a structural perspective to supplement the behavioral approach used in much of their programming. 

After reviewing the programs these organizations administer, it is interesting to return to a discussion of their structures and consider their partnerships as well as their use of volunteers.  In first examining their partnerships, the TMC does not provide any information on their partners, reflecting their approach through mobilization rather than funding driven programming.  Similarly, they do not seek to attract volunteers, as they want people to engage at the issue level and serve as advocates for the system level changes.  Hosanna House’s use of partners and volunteers is quite different.  Their partners are heavily aligned with specific programs, for example, one partner is Women’s Choice Network, and the descriptor states “our network of medical and ministry centers offers free and confidential resources to women and men who have questions about pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases and related issues.” With all of Hosanna House’s partners being described in this way, one can see an emphasis on service delivery to support individuals.  Adding to this assessment is the organization’s use of volunteers—while the volunteers page states that volunteers are an integral part of Hosanna House’s success, the use of volunteers is not mentioned throughout the site, nor is the page a primary destination within the site (in contrast, there is a direct link to donating on the main page). 

OPDC shows quite a bit of divergence from the above discussed approaches to partnerships and volunteers.  First, OPDC emphasizes volunteering, citing it as a pillar of community unity and development, in both its mission statement and its programming.  It further builds on this emphasis through the website, by careful branding, such as using the main tag line “Community Improvement through Involvement”  and heading areas with titles like “I am Oakland” and “Your Oakland”.  This perspective of broad community emphasis is also seen in OPDC’s partnerships, which show horizontal links to the community with a range of partnering organizations—from for profits to nonprofits to government, OPDC is linked to key leadership throughout the city (e.g. UPMC, Councilmen and Representatives, City of Pittsburgh, PPS,  and foundations [Heinz Endowments, Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development]).

By comparing OPDC, Hosanna House, and the TMC, we can begin to see the myriad of perspectives and approaches used to support and positively impact communities.  While these organizations may not represent the full scope, we are able to see important similarities and differences that teach us about the practical application of community development theories and perspectives.  The TMC embodies a structural approach, seeking to engage people in deepening awareness and working for systemic injustices.  While Hosanna House also cares about bringing people together, it does so as a means of supporting individuals, so they have the skills and resources to be successful.  OPDC has a similar behavioral perspective, providing services that support individual skill development and opportunity realization, however they incorporate a community dynamic which seeks to improve the community systems and engage community members in the efforts of change.  Each organization seeks to bring people together for the bettermnt of lives, however the perspective they use and the approach they take to fulfill the goal of improvement are quite different, and these differences can be seen by exploring the information they present and their manner of presenting it.  

Urban Blight and Collective Consciousness: Responding to the Image of "Other"

Bedford Park Avenue Station, Bronx, NY
Photo Credit: Adam Moriera/City Limits

In class we have had a number of discussions around the impact the image of the city has on its vitality.  Thinking both within the United States, and in a larger global context, these discussions have often focused on the image of cities in terms of crime, diversity, and resources.  For example, in a post by a fellow classmate, Biqing Huang, a lens is used to explore how people often have dichotomous images of cities, seeing on one hand a cultural and economic hub that promotes innovation and growth, while on the other hand envisioning poverty and crime—fearing areas that are “labeled by color and are considered as dangerous.” Building on these discussions I find to interesting to consider the impacts these images have on responses to urban issues, most specifically how the perspective used when considering urban blight has distorted, if not eradicated, the issue from the public consciousness. 

In his 1991 article, As Urban Blight Worsens, Victims Find Their Isolation Is Deepening, Peter Applebome examines the intensifying segregation felt by residents of impoverished areas of cities.  However, what really caught my attention of Applebome’s assessment was his identification of a disconnect between the American public and the urban poor, noting that insulation from the problems of poverty is the norm in America (poverty is considered the problem of other individuals, rather than recognized as a societal issue concerning us all).  Applebome notes that many Americans not only separate themselves from poverty in a theoretical manner, but also quite literally:

Reston Town Center
Photo Credit: Global Village Encyclopedia

The effect of moving residents as well as jobs out of cities is a new kind of community. "If you go to a place like Reston Town Center outside Washington," Mr. Lockwood said, "they've created a downtown without crime, without graffiti, without poor people. It's not only white flight, it's total abandonment of the center city."

What Applebome describes is a public discourse which assumes the urban poor are “the other” and the issues of urban blight is a concern for “them.” The pervasiveness of this perspective is further examined in Gregory Mantsios’ excerpt Media Magic: Making Class Invisible.  In this piece, Mantsios explores that image of the poor perpetuated by media, explaining the inequalities are predominately hidden from public view, and if they are portrayed they “are provided with messages that obscure the nature of class realities and blame the victims of class dominated society for their own plight.”

I believe the disconnect between the general public and the experiences of poor areas and residents is a significant issue, because it influences the response to communities’ and individuals’ needs.  As a means of countering this disconnect I think there needs to exist an effort for improved social integration.  Fostering engagement among the American public would support a more collective consciousness, hopefully detaching the label of “the other” from the poor.  For example, by better integrating people from low socioeconomic statuses into community systems and processes (e.g., encouraging representation from low-income residents in community groups and city discussion bodies), these residents would not only build their personal assets and capacities but would also develop relationships that would make them less distant from the more economically secure residents. 

One way of fostering the public’s engagement in issues of urban blight would be to enrich the understanding of the importance of cities.  In the video below, Edward Glaesaer provides insights into the critical functions of cities, explaining their role in creating change and breading knowledge and progress.  Glaesaer, a Professor of Economics at Harvard, states that “human kinds greatest hits…are made in cities.”  He goes on to note the significance of human capital in promoting the ability for cities to function to their potential.  This point is of particular merit because it emphasizes the need to support both cities and their residents as means for general growth (not just individual city prosperity). 

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• Urban America: US cities in the global economy. In this 2012 report, the McKinsey Global Institute (the business and economics research arm of a large market consulting firm) provides data supporting the claim that “the strength of the U.S. economy rests on a broad base of large cities.” While the report does not provide recommendations for how to foster city success, it does address the importance of city vitality. 
• The Economic Strength of Cities.  Video of Richard Florida’s talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival provides his perspective of the role of cities in cultivating intellectual and cultural development, while also being a vehicle of economic growth.   
• Engaging with the urban poor and their organizations for poverty reduction and urban governance.  United Nations Development Programme, which focuses its work in four main areas (poverty reduction, democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery, and environment and sustainable development), released this 2011 report, which explores the impact of organizations developed and managed by the urban poor and how these organization's engage with government.  This document provides interesting insight on the success that can materialize out of engaging rather than isolating the urban poor. 

A Comprehensive Response to Urban Poverty

Photo Credit: City of Henderson, NV

As a macro-level social work student the issue of community development and revitalization is at the forefront of many discussions. While these discussions have often involved the review and assessment of programs used at local, state, and federal levels to combat urban blight, I had not previously considered categorizing the programs into approach schema and exploring the assumptions and outcomes of the approaches generally. Nicholas Lemann’s 1994 article, The Myth of Community Development, caused me to reframe the way I understand community development efforts.

The crux of Lemann’s argument is that government revitalization efforts have been a continuous rebranding of the same approach—an approach that has been ineffective and has, in the long run, hindered the case of providing social support to the disadvantaged. Lemann explains that for decades the government has taken an approach based on economic investment, which is aimed at integrating enterprise into areas so community members have the opportunity to work themselves up. Citing programs under Johnson (Model Cities), Reagan and Bush (Enterprise Zones), and Clinton (Empowerment Zones), Lemann identified a reoccurring approach which framed community revitalization around economic investment; a framing that is an easier political sell because of public discourse connecting welfare to handouts.

Lemann goes on to suggest that the ineffectiveness of these government programs break down the case for government aid in blighted communities as they cause the general public to see government efforts as futile—the perception becomes that government support is the problem, not economic revitalization as the approach. As such, approaches that have shown success in supporting the needs and growth of urban areas are often masked as economic development, rather than social support. For example, Community Development Corporations, which support communities through the provision of housing, safety, education and job services have been effective in garnering improvements because they address the multifaceted needs of a community. Based on this success, Lemann calls for a new perspective on community development, focusing on comprehensive support rather than economic revitalization.

Following Lemann’s article, Robert O. Zdenek, a Senior Program Associate for The Annie E. Casey Foundation, published a response suggesting that the distinction Lemann makes between economic revitalization and community development is not appropriate. Zdenek states, “Economic development impacts and is impacted by key social and political factors in a community ranging from access to quality education and social services to the availability of decent and affordable housing.” Here, I believe Lemann makes a stronger case for delineating between economic revitalization efforts and the work of Community Development Corporations, because of the policy development process described by Lemann. By emphasizing a distinction between the two there is an opportunity to understand the shortcomings of the common siloed approaches to development. Furthermore, the distinction enables a recognition that failed economic reinvestment initiatives do not represent a need to disengage government from community support (rather, they represent the shortcomings of the approach itself).

Where I do think Zdenek makes important points is in his assessment of the failures of economic revitalization efforts by the government, as well as his valuation for integrating approaches to community development. He contends that economic revitalization is not useless, rather it has been insufficiently implemented, either becomes of poor funding, incomplete policy, or because it was not coordinated with other development efforts. I believe that by integrating the approaches suggested by Lemann and Zdenek, there is an opportunity to develop a more comprehensive response to urban poverty. Supports typical to Community Development Corporations would provide the spectrum of services that, when coordinated, can help improve the standing of community members. These services, including housing, job training, education, health care, and safety, provide a system where the needs of people are recognized holistically, rather than in isolation. In addition, the economic revitalization approach would provide a foundation of opportunity for the community members. The Community Development Corporation supports would provide the skills and assets, and an economically strong environment would provide the context for those skills and assets to be exercised.

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• Comprehensive Approaches to Urban Development: Gentrification, Community, and Business in Harlem, New York. In this 2006 paper from Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, the authors explore if neighborhood development should place based or people based. The paper provides an interesting breakdown of the gentrification process, and raises good questions about the considerations to make about new businesses and existing residents when engaging in community development. 
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Comprehensive Approaches Address Multiple Needs but Are Challenging to Implement. The U.S. General Accounting Office produce this 1995 report to advise Congress on why multifaceted approaches are touted by community development experts, the challenges of implementing such approaches, and what role government can take to support these approaches. 
• Works in Progress: Comprehensive Approaches to Community Development. This 2006 bulletin provides information on the development and implementation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives; initiatives that build on Community Development Corporations by adding additional responses to community needs, such as “building community leadership and cohesion, improving education opportunities, building wealth, increasing civic participation, and repairing the physical conditions and infrastructure of a neighborhood.” The piece provides examples of such efforts and explores the outcomes. 

Perspectives for Understanding the Urban Economic Divide

Photo Credit: http://liu.english.ucsb.edu/wiki1/images/2/2b/Sign.jpg

In a previous post I referred to a series of recent articles examining the growing inequality gap proliferating from the division of the labor force into professionalized and low-skilled jobs.  Within that post I explored the topic from a position of leadership development, considering how leaders could be fostered from within the struggling, low-skilled labor clusters, as a means of creating community assets and igniting growth.  However, in reviewing the re-emergence of the culture of poverty school of thought, I have found myself examining the labor force divide with new questions. 

First, I think it is worthwhile to explain that I see a distinction between many of the current culture of poverty scholars and Charles Murray, who I believe continues a stance of inherent deficiency.  Taking readings such as Richard Thompson Ford’s “Why the Poor Stay Poor”, Patricia Cohen’s “Culture of Poverty Makes a Comeback”, and Small, Harding & Lamont’s “Reconsidering Culture and Poverty”, you can see an exploration of the influences of culture, which also takes into account structural forces.  In some ways I see the discussions of many culture of poverty scholars as comparable to a discussion of social capital, rather than deficiency. For example, Small, Harding & Lamont reference work by Annette Lareau which suggests “poor children may do worse over their lifetimes in part because their parents are more committed to “natural growth” than “concerted cultivation” as their cultural model for child-rearing.” While the culture of poverty model contends that the cultural forces at play, the child-rearing strategy, influence outcomes, it does not proclaim the culture is in and of itself lacking. Rather, one can say that the skills learned through concerted cultivation, such as independent thinking and comfort expressing ideas to authority figures, are skills touted in the dominant society. Furthermore, the cultural aspects discussed by these scholars are not considered stagnate and unwavering, they are instead understood in a broader context, influenced by the history and experiences of people within a larger society.

Murray, in contrast, extorts a position which connects character deficiency to poverty.  While moving away from race discussions, Murray continued this perspective in his 2010 book, “Coming Apart”, by connecting IQ scores to the behavioral aspects that keep poor people poor.  This perspective downplays external forces and influences, and emphasizes qualities within individuals (Murray does move slightly away from describing IQ in terms of “innate” ability, to that of “intractable” but the distinction seems superficial in my opinion, as Murray’s perspective of the “deficiencies” seems steadfast in being independent from any social, political, or economic influence).

What was of interest to me in reading reviews of Murray’s work was the perspective it brings to the current economic geography of the country, with division between the professionalized and low-skilled labor markets. In a series entitled “Class-Divided Cities”, Richard Florida examines the segregation of the creative and service classes in America’s cities, as can be seen in the mapping of DC to the right.  The areas that are predominately service class are also the poorest in the city, specifically the Southeast quadrant, which has a reputation of poverty and crime.  Murray’s perspective would postulate that those living in Southeast D.C. are lacking the IQ to make the appropriate choices, fulfill the requirements of higher sector jobs, and improve their standing in the labor force. 

Countering such claims from Murray and his supporters, a more structuralist perspective may contend that the divide is a reflection of the opportunities available to the labor force; opportunities in both employment and education/training.  In the video below, Florida discusses the need to transform service jobs into creative jobs, taking the stance that the American economy does not need to return to a manufacturing foundation, but rather needs to adjust to the current landscape and make the jobs that are available better.  Very much counter to many of Murray’s notions of people, Florida states that every person should be considered a creative person, and viewed as a creator.  He goes on to explain that the education system could be changed to better foster exploration (rather than continuing down the rigid, formal testing experience currently in place), and that the government has a role in upgrading the jobs that exist, so that service jobs are better jobs. 

http://www.creativeclass.com/richard_florida/multimedia_showcase?media=MSNBC-The_Dylan_Ratigan_Show-Quantity_plus_Quality_Creating_High-Paying_Jobs&play=true

This contrast between Murray and Florida shows how the same social phenomena can be understood very differently, and how the understanding of the issue influences the approach suggested for responding to it.

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• The Devastating Disconnect Between Rich and Poor.  This post from SALTLAW blog (“a community of progressive law teachers working for justice, diversity and academic excellence”) provides an analysis of the perspective postulated by Murray in “Coming Apart.”  The author explores Murray’s examination of the class divide in America, but moves away from other critiques I have seen by focusing in part on the disconnect between the classes, specifically the distance the rich place between themselves and the poor.
• Reconsidering the ‘Culture of Poverty.’ Within days of publishing her article “Culture of Poverty Makes a Comeback” Patricia Cohen appeared on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation”, speaking with host Neal Cohan, as well as Columbia University Professor Sudhir Venkatesh.  The conversation not only presents Cohen’s arguments from her New York Times piece, but also further explores the factors contributing to poverty, that questions social scientists must grapple with when trying to combat poverty, and the variations in experiences of poverty—hearing from callers about their personal experiences and perspectives. 
• Where the Skills Are.  This 2011 Florida article, which appeared in The Atlantic, provides an thought-provoking analysis of the labor market in cities, eliciting both structural and behavioral perspectives.  Florida not only explores the geographic clustering of job sectors, but also discusses the skills required for individual success within the sectors, and how innovation and knowledge is fostered in high density cities.  It is interesting to compare the arguments made by Florida in this piece, to the points he highlights in the video presented above.  

Perceptions, Norms, and Social Integration: Dynamics of Community Safety

Photo Credit: Gazette.net

While working at my last organization, I was tasked with identifying programs that had demonstrated effectiveness in curbing violence. The marquee program selected was an effort by the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society called the Philadelphia LandCare Program, which greens and maintains vacant lots in an effort to encourage neighborhood development and stimulate a healthier and safer community. The theoretical backing of this type of initiative links directly to the propositions put forth by Kelling and Wilson in their 1982 article Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety; with the program description stating “Blighted lots detract from the look and feel of neighborhoods and attract criminal activity...”  The program put into practice the idea that order maintenance, through such activities as greening disarrayed lots, can impact the well-being of the community, with program evaluation results indicating a decrease in gun violence as well as improvements in health indicators among residents (e.g., descreased stress, increased exercise). 

While the above example demonstrates the aspect of Broken Windows that most people focus on, Kelling and Wilson’s analysis went much further in exploring the topic of safety in communities.  In the article, the authors examine the role of police, and how a change in their role (“from order-maintenance to law enforcement”) has negatively influenced the ability to uphold safety in neighborhoods.  In considering Kelling and Wilson’s ideas around tending to order as a means of thwarting the proliferation of more serious crime I believe the authors open the door to deeper discussion in three areas: the influence of perception, the development and regulation of norms, and the facets of social integration.

Photo Credit: occupydenver.org

Perception has an important and influential role in community identity.  The public perception of an area can be the driving force of how that area is understood, even if the perception is “untrue.”  Kelling and Wilson acknowledge the power of perception early in their article by giving credence to the fact that while using foot-patrols in Newark, NJ did not decrease real crime, it did make residents feel safer.  As such, what people believe about a community dictates the character of that community.  What is also important about perception is that is can be built on exceptions, rather than norms.  David Kennedy, Director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College Of Criminal Justice, noted in a practice brief that even in areas characterized by violence and crime, such actions are not as rampant as believed, citing numbers for Los Angeles indicating that 141 gang homicides means there are 64,859 gang members “not killing anybody.”  Similarly, as Kelling and Wilson explain, an area can be perceived as unsafe based on markers that are not criminal acts in and of themselves; e.g., panhandlers and vacant lots. This all shows that perception is a multifaceted factor which has influence over the understanding of an area and what changes are needed.

Norms are another important component of community safety, and a component Killing and Wilson considered when they asked: “Should police activity on the street be shaped, in important ways, by the standards of the neighborhood rather than by the rules of the state?”  While the authors are seeking to consider who should dictate what constitutes order in a community, the community itself or a larger regulatory body, I think a relevant discussion exists at the level of community control.  Assuming the community is able to determine what will and will not be tolerated, the formation and acceptance of these norms is an important aspect of community cohesion.  The community is delineating the boundaries of acceptable behavior, and determining what constitutes safety.  As such, there must exist a social contract between community members, recognizing the agreed upon limits, which community members choose to follow or not. 

The recognition of the influence of both perception and norms leads to a discussion of social integration and stigmatization within communities.  How people feel about a community dictates their characterization of that community, even when perceptions are based on indirect beliefs.  This may mean that community members, or even strangers, become ostracized because of the perceptions they are connected to.  Furthermore, social integration and stigmatization are effected by and affect the creation and maintenance of norms.  Sociologist and Political Scientists, including Robert Putnam, often consider social norms a form of social capital, enabling those who control or fall within the norms to build on their connections and collaborative abilities and direct what constitutes appropriate and meaningful interaction.  As such, residents who are more integrated into the social fabric of the community are positioned to set the norms of the community, and therefore create a system of order that supports themselves and their actions while potentially ostracizing and disengaging others. 

By further considering perception, norms, and social integration, we can see that Kelling and Wilson's ideas went far beyond the upkeep of windows.  The areas they explore in Broken Windows provide a perspective for understanding some of the dynamics of a community that influence safety and well-being, and implore us to think critically about the interplay of these factors when approaching responses to community issues.  

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space.  This 2011 piece, from the American Journal of Epidemiology, provides the results from a decade-long analysis of the impact of greening vacant lots in Philadelphia. 
• Norms as Social Capital.  In this chapter, from the 1987 book “Economic imperialism: The economic approach applied outside the field of economics”, sociologist James S. Coleman describes what social norms are, their role in social control, why they are internalized, and how they relate to social capital. 
• Principals of Good Policing.  This 2003 report from the U.S. Department of Justice provides a more recent perspective on policing.  Building on Kelling and Wilson’s ideas about the role of police, readers may enjoy reviewing the section on Police-Community Partnership—for example, beginning on page 42, the report provides strengths and outcomes of good police and community relations, discussing the impacts of effective collaboration between the two in reducing crime and the fear of crime.

Developing Leaders From Within

Photo Credit: Youth UpRising

I have grappled with the question of who is best positioned to ignite change in deprived communities—community members or professionals?  This question tends to lead me to thinking that the most ideal situation would actually involve a professional from the community.  Such a person would have the tools and skills that community organizers or developers possess, while also having knowledge of the community and a true stake in its success.  However, a growing body of literature suggests that such an approach is getting ever more unlikely, as the areas that need skilled professionals are not producing them, and when they do, those professionals are drawn away.  Such a phenomenon made me consider the implications of the segmented labor force on community development, and how communities can seek to engender growth.

A number of recent articles have examined the widening inequality gap that has resulted from the concentration of professional, high earning jobs in specific metropolitan areas.  Through this “clustering,” areas with a professionalized labor force have seen a growth in their skills and economic standing, while areas that were mostly low-earning and blue collar jobs have remained disadvantaged and have lacked growth.  Richard Florida’s article, “More Losers Than Winners in America's New Economic Geography,” noted that such segregation not only perpetuates income inequality, but also significantly advantages the amenities to which people within the professionalized clusters have access to.  What this means is that the current segmentation of the labor market is propagating a gap that is leaving many American cities, and their residents, behind.

Furthermore, the divide between professionalized and low-skilled/blue-collar areas creates a talent pull that impedes the ability for weakened communities to renew.  In a recent New York Times Op-Ed piece, David Brooks examined the abundance of meritocracy and how it not only advantages the areas that are already highly concentrated with skill, but also draws expertise away from the communities that might benefit most from those skills.  As a poignant example, Brooks refers to the Obama administration, which has engaged in substantial discourse on combating inequalities and fostering community growth, but carries out this platform from the Capital, through professionals with high standing merits.  Brooks writes:

…the income disparities are a downstream effect of the human capital and geographic disparities. Pumping a few dollars into San Joaquin, Calif., where 2.9 percent of the residents have bachelor’s degrees and 20.6 percent have high school degrees, may ease suffering, but it won’t alter the dynamic…in an effort to reduce the economic concentration of power, the administration is concentrating political power in Washington. If the problem is that talent is fleeing blighted localities, it’s hard to see how you make that better if decision-making and resources are concentrated faraway in the nation’s capital. [italics added for emphasis]

These closing observations by Brooks succinctly identify a tremendous issue for those seeking to encourage urban renewal.  There is not only a systems level component that is concentrating growth, but also an individual level factor that is thinning the availability of expertise. 

One potential response to the clustering is to develop leaders from within communities.  Such an effort would embolden residents with skills and experiences that they can utilize to strengthen themselves and their communities.  For example, the organization Youth UpRising works to advance community well-being in Oakland (CA) through the development of youth leadership.  By providing support that facilitates consciousness raising, personal transformation, and the development of leadership and hard skills, Youth UpRising seeks to help youth reach their potential and be the change agents of the community. The video below shares the voices of some of Youth UpRising’s staff and members, who explain how the organization is deepening participants’ commitment to the community while providing them the skills they need to act on that commitment.

The potential effect of developing leaders and building experts from within communities is multifaceted.  First, it deepens the individual talent that resides in communities, enabling community members to gain skills that make them more competitive in the national market.  This fostering of talent in turns strengthens the community, uncovering an essential resource for renewal.  A community member with skills and knowledge is not only positioned to drive change, but can do so from the perspective of an insider who understands the needs and strengths of the community.  Such efforts empower people, building on the strength evoked from people who have real stake in the situation, as well as knowledge of the community. However, the final component to successfully utilizing this approach is the ability to keep these experts within their communities.  By focusing the skill development efforts within a community perspective, such efforts may encourage members to understand their own growth within the context of their community and inspire them to see the positive change that can be created.

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• Native National Rebuilders: The Bush Foundation is a Board governed organization that is focused on fostering leadership that supports community vitality.  One program of the Foundation is “Native National Rebuilders,” which provides training and resources to tribal community members so they can effectively support community well-being efforts.
• Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning: This piece, from the Journal of Planning Literature, explores the importance of place attachment in community development.  Bridging place attachment and community planning literature, the authors explore how the experiences and meanings people associated with their communities influence their participation and can be used as assets in rebuilding.
• The Power of Transformative Youth Leadership:  This 2012 report, prepared for the Heinz Endowments' Education Program, reports findings from an assessment of the Pittsburgh area's "capacity to engage in youth organizing strategies that strengthen the city's education system."  In addition, the report identifies a number of positive outcomes that can result from youth engagement and leadership efforts, including personal growth, improving community capacity, and increased civic engagement.

Spectrum of Diversity: Can a Community Be Diverse Without Integration?

Photo Credit: Forbes.com

A recent class discussion spurred the question “what constitutes a diverse community?” In particular, the question focused on the necessity of integration for an area to truly be considered diverse.  Put another way, does just the existence of different people count, or does interaction have to occur for a locale to actually be diverse. I found the question interesting because it made me reconsider my perspective on diversity, broadening the context in which I have always understood it.  Growing up in an area where people of different racial, ethnic, religious, and economic backgrounds were constantly in contact and engaging made me view diversity with a lens that ignored de facto segregation.  So while I had never considered the scenario of diversity without integration, the point instantly resonated with me as significant.

The traditional/popular discourse around diversity falls to pure demographics, focusing on the existence of different types of people.  We typically see this in locations being described as racially diverse based on the proportions of various racial groups within the population.  For example, a 2012 Huffington Post article provided results from a study by Brown University, identifying the U.S.’s most and least diverse cities.  For this ranking, cities were scored “by how evenly each city’s population is spread across the five racial groups: Non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics of any race, African-Americans, Asians and an “other” category comprised of Native Americans, Alaska Natives and people of two or more races.” 

In the Brown study, the New York City area (New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island) was identified as the fifth most diverse city, with the following demographic characteristics: 48.9 percent White, 22.9 percent Hispanic, 16.1percent Black, 9.9 percent Asian, and 2.3 percent Other.  However, the question posed from the class discussion would be “but what does this ‘diversity’ actually look like?”, and the question is not without merit.  In a 2012 New York Times piece, Daniel Slotnik explores the question of integration, and cites findings that while New York City is understood to be a diverse population, there actually exists a high level of segregation.  One indicator of the lack of integration is the composition of the public schools—even though the demographics indicate racial diversity, the schools themselves are highly segregated by race, with nearly 40 percent of the schools having student populations that are 70 percent a single race.  Such findings provide precedent for considering diversity at a deeper level than population distributions.  As such, many have taken to developing diversity indices, which not only account for the existence of other groups of people, but also the probability of interacting with people from those groups.

Taking the stance that an integration of various groups makes an area “more diverse” than an area with existing, but segregated groups, it then seems pragmatic for those in community organizing to consider how integration occurs.  During the class discussion which prompted my interest in this topic, one person noted the immense social separation that can exist between the ethnic areas of a city—and I was again brought back to my personal experience, and the social integration I have witnessed in D.C.’s Chinatown.  So what makes Chinatown in D.C. succeed in integrating people across racial, ethnic, and economic lines, where other Chinatown’s stand isolated?  The answer seems to lie in the economic and cultural infrastructure that has been infused into the neighborhood. As part of the introduction to a panel discussion exploring the impact Chinatown has had on D.C., the Urban Land Institute noted:

Fifteen years ago, Chinatown was a completely different place. It wasn’t until the DC government approved its first ever tax-increment finance district in 1999 that development and revitalization came to this neighborhood. And boy, did it come.

Chinese New Year Parade, Chinatown, Washington, D.C.
Photo Credit: Brian Lempin

Surrounding the government’s actions, which encouraged real estate development and the residential draw of the neighborhood, Chinatown boasts significant attractions (including the Verizon Center, National Portrait Gallery, Shakespeare Theatre, and a wide array of restaurants), which enhance its ability to pull visitors and residents from a range of groups.  While the influence of these actions and attractions are significant, it is also important to note the Chinese identity that has remained in the neighborhood.  Having a strong and engaged Chinese community has enabled Chinatown to maintain the heritage that makes it Chinatown, while bringing together a diverse array of citizens.

Even after exploring how integration can further the diversity of a community, as well as one mechanism for enhancing the level of integration, I am still left wondering about the definition of diversity—knowing what makes “diversity” really count.  For example, is the existence of different groups, even if they are clearly segregated, better than a completely homogeneous community? On one side you could argue that the mere existence requires people to at least consider that there are other types of people.  On the other side, you could argue that the segregation may foster misconceptions that are not corrected without interaction, and there is potential for the perpetuation of stereotypes.  Now looking at the other end of what I am dubbing “the diversity spectrum,” does too much integration lead to assimilation or acculturation, potentially enabling the loss of what makes groups different?  There is a lot that could be said about these questions, but I will leave that to another post. 

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• San Diego's Population: Diversity and Interactions: This article provides an example of what it looks like to use diversity indices.  The authors refer to both an isolation index, which indicates the likelihood that people of one race will meet others of the same race within their neighborhood, and an interaction index, which indicates the likelihood of meeting someone of another race within their neighborhood. 
• Ethnic Integration Leads to Community Development: The organization Partners for Demographic Change provide a case from Bulgaria that exemplified the position that the mere existence of other groups does not equate to diversity if there is segregation and stereotypes, while also providing information on the organizations reaction to the segregation.
• Defining Diversity: Creating Community: Directed by Tony Papa, this film explores diversity and its meaning in the context of Powell River, a community in British Columbia, Canada.  The story pulls from community members own narratives and seeks to explore how different people have come to Powell River and what their experiences of integration have been. 

Where Growth Comes From: A Debate of Methods for Urban Revitalization

Garfield Neighborhood of Pittsburgh (vacant homes)

A central component of social work in urban environments is the notion of community revitalization.  Even flourishing cities experience fluctuations in prosperity or contain areas of decay, and it is the focus of many community organizers to consider how to best foster urban renewal.  An often utilized approach to community revitalization is gentrification; a process in which affluent people are injected into weakening areas.  While gentrification is a common approach, the term has become a dirty word in many community organization arenas since it was first coined in the 1960s. The prominent criticism of gentrification is that it is a system in which the minority poor are pushed out and replaced with affluent whites.  As such, many argue that instead of building a community up, gentrification actually replaces depleted communities with new ones, forcing existing residents to remain poor, just somewhere else. 

Garfield Neighborhood of Pittsburgh (new building

However, many recent studies have begun to argue against the popular opinion that gentrification is a racist and classist mechanism for urban development.  A 2008 Times article provides results from a studying examining Census data from more than 15,000 neighborhoods across the U.S., and cites a number of significant statistics that contradict the popular view of gentrification (the below points are quoted directly from the Times article):

•  Low-income non-white households did not      disproportionately leave gentrifying areas
• Though college-educated whites accounted for 20% of the total income gain in gentrifying neighborhoods, black householders with high school degrees contributed even more (33%)
• Black residents who never finished high school…weren't moving out of their neighborhoods at a disproportionately higher rate than from similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify
• While gentrification did not necessarily push out original residents, it did create neighborhoods that middle-class minorities moved to
• The only group that was less likely to move to a gentrifying area was high school–educated whites aged 20 to 40 with kids

These findings depict a system of urban renewal that builds on the influx of more economically prosperous residents, rather than the outflow of low-income residents.  But even if gentrification does not expel existing residents, its foundation is a revitalization philosophy that focuses on the injection of new economic vitality into an area.  Such an approach is at odds with the methods espoused by Jane Jacobs and John McKnight.  Both Jacobs and McKnight have promoted stances that urban renewal can come from within the communities, with Jacobs encouraging the organic regeneration of communities, and McKnight advocating that abundant communities are a product of the identification, utilization, and association of the “gifts” of community members.  McKnight makes the case for the strengthening of communities through the fostering of members’ skills in the below video, in which he explains the community develop is predicated by the recognition and utilization of skills, where as "community busting" occurs when outsiders enter a community and characterize that community by its deficiencies.

The approach elected for community revitalization may reflect the perspective one holds around the influence of social integration.  Gentrification postures on the assumption that existing gaps cannot be filled from within the community.  Instead of seeing the process of making connections among existing residents as a method for growth, this approach is founded on the assumption that something which is lacking must be added—something is missing from the community, rather than something that already exists is just not being utilized.  Conversely, the positions proposed by Jacobs and McKnight suggest that social integration can foster community development because it allows the skills, experiences, and diversity of a community to be nurtured and shared—when a person is integrated they are provided the capacity to contribute their strengths to the well-being of the community. 

In addition to the resources included within the blog, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• The Real Problem with Gentrification: A phenomenon that revived cities can also make them monotonous: Philadelphia architect Inga Saffron contemplates how gentrification has created homogeneous urban communities.  Incorporating Jane Jacobs’ theories to urban renewal, in which physical diversity can spawn growth organically, Saffron suggests that gentrification efforts diminish social diversity.
• Betting wrong on gentrification in Chicago: This 2013 discussion demonstrates one outcome of gentrification efforts do not materialize.  Looking into the experience of one Chicago resident, we see that sometimes renewal requires more than affluent residents investing in weakening areas. 
• Jane Jacobs: Project for Public Spaces, a nonprofit focused on “sustaining public spaces that build stronger communities,” provides a synopsis of Jacobs’ perspective, as well as a short biography and quotes.