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.  

Labeled Criminal: The Limits of Integration for Ex-offenders

Photo Credit: Oak View Law Group

As an intern at a neighborhood based employment center I have the opportunity to engage with a range of residents and hear about their experiences in the city.  I recently assisted a woman who was completing a job application which asked anyone who indicated they had a criminal background to state the charges and conviction. The woman was at a loss for what to include, because nothing within the limited space seemed sufficient. She was adamant about explaining the circumstances that surrounded her arrest, and earnest in believing that the one transgression should not be the defining characteristic of her ability to successfully fulfill the duties of the job.  But she had been struggling to find a job for a year, and while the current economic times have made finding employment a difficult task for many Americans, the ex-offender population is acutely aware of the tallies they have against them.

The ability for ex-offenders to enter communities and become successful, contributing members is hampered by the weight of their criminal label.  Struggles are not limited to just finding jobs, but are also experienced in the ability to secure housing, the development and re-engagement of relationships, and the stabilization of a personal identity.  The experiences of these men and women not only influence them personally, but have an impact on the vitality of communities.  A 2011 study conducted by the Pew Center found that 43 percent of those released from prison in 2004 were returned by 2007.  That is hundreds of thousands of people who are serving prison terms instead of contributing to society, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on prison costs (the Pew Center Study found that 10 states could save $470 million dollars in one year if they could reduce their recidivism rates by 10 percent). There has been extensive debate around the cause of these outcomes, with some attributing recidivism to the offenders themselves and others suggesting the statistics reflect the structure and failings of a criminal justice system that is focused on retribution rather than rehabilitation.  However, while so much debate exists around why ex-offenders are returning to prison, I find a compelling discussion actually lies in what these men and women are experiencing when trying to gain entrance into communities. 

Those with a criminal background provide an interesting lens through which we can examine the limits of integration within our communities.  While the fact they have been released from prison indicates they have served their time, the label of offender remains…even if they get to stick an “ex” in front of it.  This means a past transgression remains attached to them—an  identifying marker of their character, which influences how they are perceived and the menu of options they are afforded.  Stigmatization that brands them as strangers in their communities.

Photo Credit: Lane DeGregory

The limits of integration for ex-offenders were exemplified in Florida, where many city regulations pertaining to sex-offenders stipulated that they could not live within 2,500 feet of any establishment where children assemble.  This posed a significant dilemma in Miami where the statute resulted in a tent city developing under the Julia Tuttle Causeway; the only location that met the terms of the law.  As such, sex-offenders were corralled into depleted living conditions surround by 60-200 other persons with convictions.  Similar issues arose around Ft. Lauderdale, where once one neighborhood was identified as fitting the parameters of the law, the number of registered sex-offenders living in it to rose from 4 in 2007, to 106 in 2009.  Such experience shows the extent to which ex-offenders can be ostracized from communities, literally  forced outside the boundaries.  

However, many would argue that sex-offenders are a particular subset of criminal and the weight of those crimes carry heavier than others.  Furthermore, sexual offenses can be categorized as results of disease/illness which cannot be cured, so such offenders should been restricted in their interactions for the safety of others.  Considering that true, there still exists a general perspective that gives meaning to the label of “ex-offender” without concern for the circumstances of the label, or the other attributes of the person.  In one research study conducted by Christopher Uggen, Jeff Manza and Angela Behrens, interviews were conducted with 33 convicted felons in Minnesota, and their experiences depict the range of implications of a criminal label. Returning to the issues faced by many ex-offenders in seeking employment, one woman told the researchers:

What is it, the fourth question of every job interview? ‘Have you ever been convicted of a crime?’ They ask you that before they ask you for your prior work history or your education. All that’s on the second page, so they read ‘felon’ before they ever read that side.

The researchers went on to gather other stories which painted a picture in which ex-offenders are not able to separate their criminal label from their identities.  One inmate explained “there’s too many sanctions against me for me to be an active part of the community.” Such interaction not only influences how these men and women understand the community, but also how they view themselves and their roles in the community, often developing a self-lens that is dominated by the criminal label. 

Together, the experiences of offenders show how the stigma associated with a criminal record limits social participation and integration. This ostracization hinders the ability for many ex-offenders to successfully engage in their environment as community members. This gap in integration has implications for the community, as the existence of people who are so systematically denoted as “the other” or “strangers” indicates the existence of social strife.  Such people are less apt to provide support in the protection, well-being, or growth of the community because their segregation from the social fabric disengages them from buy-in. 

The all-consuming quality of the criminal label indicates there exists a belief that "once a criminal, always a criminal, and if you're a criminal, that is everything you are." This thinking predicates a deficiencies perspective that John McKnight would term as seeing ex-offenders as "half empty." If, instead, a strengths-based perspective were employed, these men and women could be viewed by the gifts they possess, and potentially their abilities could be utilized for the betterment of themselves and their communities.   

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

• Miami sex offenders limited to life under a bridge: Article from the Tampa Bay Times which discusses the life of those living under the Causeway in Miami.  
• Hard Time: Ex-Offenders Returning Home After Prison: This research explores the characteristics of persons released from prison, and examines the situations, needs, and risks they face in returning to communities.
• Bureau of Justice Statics: Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statics has a range of statistical information around the issue of recidivism, including  how many offenders are returning to prison, and who those offenders are.