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.