Spatially integrated and socially segregated: The effects of mixed-income neighbourhoods on social well-being

Abstract

Chinese

Mixed-income development is the latest in a long line of policy interventions to improve outcomes in distressed urban neighbourhoods, particularly as an alternative to large scale public housing projects. Such developments are inherently integrationist, and have profound effects on the social lives and well-being of residents. After situating mixed-income developments within current residential demographic trends with regard to race and income, this article provides a comprehensive review of the 22 empirical studies addressing social integration in mixed-income developments in the United States, focusing on understanding the effects of spatial integration on social well-being. We discuss policy and practice implications to optimise the social well-being of residents, as well as strategies to improve scholarship in these settings.

Keywords

housing research literature review mixed-income housing residential segregation social well-being US housing policy

Introduction

Mixed-income development – the intentional design of neighbourhoods to include residents of diverse economic means – is the latest in a long line of policy interventions to improve outcomes for people living in distressed neighbourhoods. Such developments are explicitly integrationist with regard to income and, given that race and class remain highly correlated in the United States (Shapiro et al., 2010), also by race. Were mixed-income and mixed-race neighbourhoods the norm, such integrationist policies would not be noteworthy. Yet, 50 years after the Fair Housing Act attempted to prohibit residential racial discrimination, US neighbourhoods remain starkly segregated by both race (Lichter et al., 2015) and income (Pendall and Hedman, 2015). As such, mixed-income developments represent a deviation from the norm, engineering a spatial mix that is not, as of yet, naturally occurring. As noted by Sin and Krysan (2015), integration has a spatial dimension, related to the number of people of different backgrounds living within a particular area. Integration also has a social dimension, related to the quantity and quality of interactions among those people, and how they feel towards one another. Importantly, neighbourhoods may be spatially but not socially integrated, impacting the social well-being of residents.

There is growing attention to and understanding of the social dimensions of individual well-being. Increasingly, social isolation has been recognised as intimately connected to poor physical health (Hawkley and Cacioppo, 2007; Heinrich and Gullone, 2006), and the American Society of Aging concluded that ‘loneliness is the most powerful mortality predictor’ (Qualls, 2014: 6). Wide-ranging research has demonstrated how positive social connections function as a protective factor, promoting recovery from complex trauma (Van der Kolk, 2002), preventing the transmission of disease (Compare et al., 2013; Fraser et al., 2014) and preventing interpersonal violence (Mazerolle et al., 2010).

Clearly, many people access social connections outside of their immediate neighbourhoods. However, the fewer financial resources one has, the more important proximal relations are to well-being. Consequently, neighbourhood relations can provide a critical source of emotional support and other forms of mutual aid (Perkins et al., 2002). Indeed, studies of low-income communities find that residents often have strong social ties and rely on neighbouring relationships to meet everyday needs, from having someone to talk with, to watching one another’s children (Curley, 2009; Greenbaum et al., 2008; Laakso, 2013).

Additionally, feelings of connection to the people in our neighbourhood, or a sense of community (Perkins et al., 2002), is critical to neighbourhood health and well-being. Residents who feel a sense of belonging to a neighbourhood are more likely to be engaged in the civic life of their community and to take collective action (Mannariri and Fedi, 2009; Mihaylov and Perkins, 2014). Sense of community thus functions as a lever, driving neighbourhood engagement and stability.

Although there are now two decades of research on mixed-income housing in the United States, there has yet to be a comprehensive attention to the effects of these neighbourhoods on social well-being, including social relations and sense of community. Given the significance of the social to wellness for individuals and communities, it is critical to attend to this dimension of well-being. To situate this inquiry, we first review the emergence of mixed-income housing strategies, and consider the implications of mixed-income policies given larger patterns of residential segregation nationally. Honing in on social well-being, we then provide a systematic review of social integration outcomes within planned mixed-income neighbourhoods.

Literature review: The emergence of mixed-income housing

The turn towards mixed-income housing in the US began with the rapid decommission and transformation of public housing projects. After widespread concern about the level of disrepair in the nation’s public housing stock, the HOPE VI programme (a federal policy operating between 1993 and 2009) funded the demolition of more than 96,000 public housing units deemed distressed (Pendall and Hendley, 2013). Most sites were redeveloped as mixed-income neighbourhoods, though HOPE VI also reduced housing units for the poor by 40% (Popkin, 2004). Demolition of public housing in favour of mixed-income development has continued under the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, whose goal is to holistically improve distressed neighbourhoods through addressing educational, housing, health and human service needs (hud.gov). Most recently, Congress expanded the Rental Assistance Demonstration Project (RAD), which allows housing authorities to convert 185,000 units of public housing to place-based section eight housing (hud.gov). With this conversion, public housing authorities can redevelop these properties to include revenue-producing market-rate residential and commercial units. As a result, RAD will likely accelerate the transformation of public housing projects into mixed-income neighbourhoods.

Although the federal government was an early adopter of mixed-income strategies, and remains one of its most powerful advocates, mixed-income housing developments have also resulted from municipal policies, such as inclusionary housing policies. While inclusionary housing policies can vary widely by design and application, the basic premise is to link approvals for construction of market-rate housing to the creation of affordable homes for low- and moderate-income households (Hickey et al., 2014). Currently, there exist more than 500 inclusionary housing policies in 27 states and the District of Columbia, and the increasing use of this policy intervention is another reason to assume that mixed-income developments will continue to accelerate (Hickey et al., 2014).

Proponents of mixed-income redevelopments argue that the deconcentration of people in poverty is critical to reversing the negative effects of the failed policies of the past. Indeed, the nation’s urban planning policies produced spaces deeply segregated by race and income, with an unequal distribution of opportunities (such as quality schools, health care and transit), and favoured predominantly White and relatively wealthy areas (Austin, 2013; Davis and Welcher, 2013; Lipsitz, 2007). The deleterious outcomes for people living in opportunity-poor areas, on measures ranging from academic achievement to exposure to violence, and from physical health to employment, are well documented (Reece et al., 2013; Steil et al., 2015). The argument for mixed-income development suggests that deconcentrating poverty will bring more economic resources to depleted neighbourhoods, create new jobs and increase opportunities for poor people. As documented elsewhere, these projected economic gains did not materialise in HOPE VI redevelopments (Fraser et al., 2013a; Popkin, 2004). This led to more holistic neighbourhood development under the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which has yet to be substantively studied. Given that past mixed-income policies had a net effect of decreasing public housing stock while failing to provide economic benefit for low-income residents, critics argue that the deconcentrating agenda amounts to a state-sponsored removal of the poor from otherwise lucrative urban housing markets (Lees, 2008).

Despite suspicions regarding the political and economic drivers of mixed-income developments, little doubt remains that as long as the financing of key resources – such as schools, parks and transportation – remains linked to neighbourhood income levels, equalising the distribution of resources will require the economic integration of households (Friedman, 2008). This results in the conundrum of mixed-income housing: on the one hand, mixed-income housing strategies have the potential to play a critical redistributive function, repairing the past harms caused by racial segregation and economic disinvestment. But these same strategies have the potential to disrupt existing neighbourhood ties, causing new harms to the social well-being of individuals, families and communities. In order for mixed-income neighbourhoods to fulfill their redistributive promise, they must successfully engineer a particular set of neighbourhood conditions, both spatially and socially.

Spatial integration today

Assessing the degree and stability of naturally occurring economic and racial integration is not without difficulty. There are differences in how scholars calculate levels of segregation, the scales at which they study and the racial/ethnic populations studied. These differences in approach can produce divergent, and at times contradictory, findings. Nonetheless, three major implications for mixed-income policy and practice emerge.

First, there is little evidence to suggest that mixed-income and mixed-race neighbourhoods are naturally occurring. Economic segregation of neighbourhoods has steadily increased over the last 25 years, and grew by nearly 10% in the 2000s (Pendall and Hedman, 2015; Reardon et al., 2015). Stark racial segregation persists as well; in 2010, approximately 70% of metropolitan neighbourhoods were considered racially segregated (Ellen et al., 2012). Segregation remains most extreme between Black and White households (Lichter et al., 2015). Critically, Reardon, Fox and Townsend (2015) found that even among households with the same annual income, Black and Latino households are much more likely to live in high poverty neighbourhoods that their White counterparts. The strong correlation of race and income segregation produces stark racial disparities in accessing quality education, transit and health care. Emphasising the persistence of segregation is not intended to negate the existence of some racially and economically mixed neighbourhoods, only to make clear they are not the dominant trend (for discussion of existing mixed neighbourhoods, see Talen, 2012).

Second, although some evidence suggests that urban areas are becoming more racially integrated (Ellen et al., 2012; Friedman, 2008; Krysan, 2002; Sin and Krysan, 2015), integration is uneven across racial/ethnic groups, geographies and time. Demographic changes – such as the increase in mixed-race persons and households (Bennett, 2011; Clark and Maas, 2009; Ellis et al., 2012) – account for some of the apparent increase in integrated neighbourhoods. In addition, both Black and White households are more likely to live in neighbourhoods integrated with Latino and Asian households, rather than with one another (Wagmiller, 2013). Although some urban areas appear to be integrating at the level of the census tract, segregation is deepening between ‘places’ in many cities (such as between a suburban enclave and an inner ring neighbourhood) (Lichter et al., 2015). Further, studies of the stability of integrated neighbourhoods over time produce conflicting results (e.g. compare Ellen et al., 2012 and Friedman, 2008). In sum, while rates of racial segregation may be declining in some places and/or between some ethnic groups, there is insufficient data to conclude that segregation is declining across the board.

Third, racism – at both individual and institutional levels – plays a critical role in maintaining segregated neighbourhoods. A mixed-methods study of perceived neighbourhood desirability by Krysan (2002) concluded that White residents continue to prefer living in predominantly White neighbourhoods. While Black respondents demonstrate a similar, though lesser, preference for homophily, Black respondents’ linked their undesirability ratings of specific neighbourhoods to concerns of racial prejudice in areas with a history of segregation and hostility towards Blacks. In contrast, a significant portion of White respondents simply did not want to live around Black people. In other words, when choosing neighbourhoods, Whites prefer sameness and Blacks prefer safety. Racial biases and hostility remain a central barrier to residential integration, a conclusion echoed in other studies of housing discrimination (Gaddis and Ghoshal, 2015).

Taken together, these studies suggest that mixed-income housing policies go against the grain of naturally occurring housing patterns. As such, these projects may face resistance both in generating community support for the siting of developments, and in attracting and retaining a diverse mix of residents. The persistent White preference for racially segregated spaces also suggests that cultural changes – in particular the reduction in White racial biases – are a prerequisite for the achievement of lasting spatial changes. While stable, mixed-race and mixed-income neighbourhoods are not yet the norm, mixed-income neighbourhoods have been spatially engineered, particularly over the last 15 years.

Methodology

Mixed-income housing has been a subject of study for the last 20 years. Although many of these investigations included exploration of residents’ social experiences, much past study instrumentalises the social, focusing on the degree to which developments foster new social ties among residents that lead to job referrals, for example (Chaskin and Joseph, 2010, 2011; Kleit, 2005). Given the significance of the social to individual and collective well-being, our interest is in the social as an end in itself. We therefore conducted an exhaustive search for peer-reviewed articles that investigate social interactions in mixed-income and/or mixed-race communities in the United States.¹ This search yielded 22 articles published since 2000, which form the basis of this review (see Table 1). The purpose of a systematic review is to provide a comprehensive appraisal of a specific topic by reviewing all relevant studies and synthesising results in ways that can inform policy and practice (Weed, 2005). At the outset, we note the limitations of this analysis.

Table 1.

Summary of studies included in review.

Study	Short citation(s)	Study setting	Core constructs^a	Design/collection methods^b	Temporal design
1	Curley (2009, 2010)	Boston, MA	Social capital, social networks	Quantitative survey n = 199 (2010) Qualitative interviews n = 28 (2009)	Cohort (2009), Cross-sectional (2010)
2	Graves (2010, 2011)	Boston, MA	Social capital, social control, social networks, social policy	Qualitative interviews n = 52 (2010); n = 48 (2011) Ethnographic interviews and observations Document analysis	Cross-sectional
3	Tach (2009)	Boston, MA	Social networks, social exclusion, social control	Qualitative interviews & survey questions, n = 50 neighbourhood observations	Cross-sectional
4	Chaskin (2013); Chaskin and Joseph (2010, 2011, 2013);Chaskin et al. (2013); Joseph and Chaskin (2010); McCormick et al. (2012)	Chicago, IL	Social exclusion, stigma, social policy	Qualitative interviews n = 111 (Chaskin and Joseph, 2010); n = 65 (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011; Joseph and Chaskin, 2010); n = 225 (Chaskin and Joseph, 2013); n = 274 (Chaskin et al., 2013); n = 35 (McCormick et al., 2012) Focus groups (Chaskin et al., 2013) Structured observations (Chaskin and Joseph, 2010, 2011, 2013; McCormick et al., 2012)	Cohort (Chaskin and Joseph, 2013; Chaskin et al., 2013; Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; McCormick et al., 2012) Cross-sectional (Chaskin and Joseph, 2010, 2011)
5	Smrekar and Bentley (2011)	Nashville, TN	Social networks	Qualitative interviews, n = 38 families	Cross-sectional
6	Fraser et al. (2013b)	(unstated)	social exclusion	Qualitative interviews, n = 40 households	Cross-sectional
7	Fogel et al. (2008)	Tampa, FL	Satisfaction, social capital	Quantitative surveys, n = 85	Cross-sectional
8	Greenbaum et al. (2008)	Tampa, FL	Social capital, social networks	Qualitative interviews, n = 80 Quantitative analysis of social ties	Cross-sectional
9	Keller (2011); Keller et al. (2013); Laakso (2013)	Tacoma, WA	Social capital, social control, social networks	Qualitative interviews n = 60 (Keller et al., 2013); n = 52 (Laakso, 2013) Focus groups	Cohort (Keller et al., 2013; Laakso, 2013) Cross-sectional (Keller, 2011)
10	Kleit (2005); Kleit and Carnegie (2011)	Seattle, WA	Social networks	Quantitative surveys n = 105 (Kleit, 2005) n = 200 (Kleit and Carnegie, 2011) Focus groups (Kleit, 2005)	Cross-sectional (2005), cohort (2011)

Notes: ^aThe core constructs included in the table are limited to those related to social integration and well-being, though some studies incorporated other constructs as well.

For cohort studies the sample sizes noted in the table reflect the total number of participants from all data collection periods.

First, all but one study of social interaction in mixed-income neighbourhoods used case study (or comparative case study) methods, presenting difficulties for synthesis.² Case study provides superior depth of exploration than many survey methods allow. However, as this method typically involves relatively small samples and highly contextualised populations and settings, findings are rarely generalisable (Yin, 2003). The sample sizes of the reviewed studies ranged from two dozen to 200, and the populations and settings ranged from predominantly African American residents of large scale urban public housing redevelopments in a city of 9 million to predominantly immigrant and refugee residents of suburban housing redevelopments in a city of 200,000. Analysing across a number of case studies, with attention to similarities and differences in results, offers one way to build external validity. However, the 21 published case studies only represent 10 distinct data sets across seven cities (see Table 1), which is considerably less diversity than appears at first glance.

Cross-study analysis is also difficult given differences in study designs (14 qualitative, five mixed-methods and three quantitative), and differences in both choice and operationalisation of core constructs (see Table 1). Although the researchers share an interest in social interaction, the specific areas of inquiry varied, including social exclusion, social capital, social policy and social networks. Even when studying the same phenomenon, such as social networks, there were differences in how that phenomenon was operationalised and measured. For example, Kleit and Carnegie’s (2011) quantitative analysis of social networks evaluated the number, types and proximity of people in the residents’ social network pre- and post-redevelopment. In contrast, Curley (2009) used qualitative analysis of interviews with residents to theorise new typologies of social ties that better reflect the experiences of low-income women. Given differences in method and operationalisation, the respective social network data cannot be aggregated in the manner of a quantitative meta-analysis. As such, it is not possible to predict a numerical average in change of social networks. It is possible, however, to aggregate at the level of author analysis, findings and interpretations (Weed, 2005). For example, did networks generally increase, decrease or stay the same, and to what do the authors attribute that change (to the extent there is any)? It is in this vein – synthesising across study findings – that this review proceeds.

Findings

There are three major findings from this review. First, mixed-income developments, while spatially integrated, remain socially segregated. Second, the individual and institutional manifestations of persistent racial and class biases in mixed-income developments have negative effects on social well-being. Third, scholars have consistently called for changes to policy and practice to better attend to social well-being in mixed-income developments.

Spatially integrated and socially segregated

Overwhelmingly, research findings indicated that mixed-income developments have not fostered positive social interaction across group lines (Chaskin, 2013; Chaskin and Joseph, 2011, 2013; Chaskin et al., 2013; Curley, 2009; Fraser et al., 2013b; Graves, 2010, 2011; Greenbaum et al., 2008; Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; Keller et al., 2013; Kleit, 2005; Kleit and Carnegie, 2011; McCormick et al., 2012, Tach, 2009). One third of the studies suggested the lack of social integration results from stigma and bias from higher-income residents and/or property management directed towards low-income residents. This was often reflected by market-rate residents expressing fear or distrust of, and often disdain for, their lower-income neighbours (for examples, see Fraser et al., 2013b; Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; McCormick et al., 2012). Although biases may be multi-directional (residents of public housing units may carry assumptions about residents of market-rate units, for example), home-owners and market-rate renters often wield greater power to translate their internal perspectives into external behaviours. Various studies found that racial and class biases were reflected by property managers and law enforcement through disparities in rule enforcement and heightened surveillance of public housing residents (Keller, 2011; McCormick et al., 2012).

A third of the studies also noted that the built environment was a factor in the social segregation of mixed-income communities; housing units were often segregated by tenure (Chaskin, 2013; Graves, 2011; Greenbaum et al., 2008; Keller et al., 2013; Kleit, 2005). Market-rate units were clustered together, as were public housing and affordable units, diminishing opportunities for spontaneous interactions between neighbours of different class backgrounds. In addition, a number of studies noted that residents of different tenures utilise different services and amenities in the neighbourhood, and most had separate resident associations, further lessening the likelihood that connections would take place in the course of daily life (Chaskin and Joseph, 2013; Graves, 2011; Kleit, 2005; Tach, 2009). While there was some variation across studies, low-income residents of mixed-income housing were often more involved in and committed to neighbourhood-level activities than higher-income residents (Graves, 2011; Tach, 2009).

While these studies overwhelmingly reported the presence of stigma and lack of social integration, there were a number of exceptions. Some participants reflected an appreciation for, rather than apprehension of, the diversity of their neighbourhood (Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; Kleit, 2005). A number of studies also reported increased levels of social interaction among residents of mixed-income neighbourhoods (Fogel et al., 2008; Kleit, 2005; Smrekar and Bentley, 2011). However, the social interaction reported was most often along rather than across income-group lines. Given the rarity of naturally occurring spatially integrated neighbourhoods, it is perhaps unsurprising that spatially integrated neighbourhoods remain socially segregated. But what are the social consequences of mixed-income neighbourhoods on social well-being?

Negative effects on social well-being

While moving into mixed-income neighbourhoods has been associated with some psychological benefits for former residents of large public housing projects (such as an increased sense of safety) (Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; Tach, 2009), the studies reviewed suggested that there were concurrent negative effects on social well-being. Residents reported elevated social stress in mixed-income neighbourhoods, as compared to their previous neighbourhoods. Among public housing residents, this stress appeared to result from living in conditions of racial and class stigma, and heightened surveillance (Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; Keller, 2011). Stigma often manifests as micro-aggressions – daily incidents of being regarded as a suspect, a threat or simply as if you do not belong – manifested by receiving suspicious looks from a neighbour while walking in your neighbourhood. Studies of micro-aggression demonstrated that these everyday stressors can have compounding measurable physical and mental health effects (Sue, 2010). Market-rate residents also experienced stress, which appeared related to their perceptions that their neighbourhood and/or neighbours are unsafe (Smrekar and Bentley, 2011; Tach, 2009).

In addition to experiencing increased social stress, public housing residents relocated to mixed-income neighbourhoods reported a drop in social contacts, lost relationships and/or increased feelings of isolation (Curley, 2009; Greenbaum et al., 2008; Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; Keller, 2011; Kleit, 2005; Laakso, 2013). These losses have psycho-social as well as material effects. Curly (2009: 243) found that ‘Without their ties to people who provided emotional support, childcare, transportation, and food and money loans, women were not able to maintain steady employment or take other steps towards self-sufficiency’. Similar findings led Greenbaum et al. (2008: 222) to conclude: ‘uprooting people in public housing severs relationships and inflicts trauma. The presumed benefits for children were offset by the negative effects of changing schools, losing friends, and having to negotiate hostile new social territories’. These concerns have been echoed by other studies suggesting that boys from low-income families actually fare worse in terms of well-being when living alongside affluent neighbours (Odgers et al., 2015).

Acknowledging the negative social consequences of housing disruption does not diminish the fact that some residents experienced benefits from moving away from negative social environments (Curley, 2009). However, these studies suggested that the increase in social stress and loss in positive social ties outweighed any social gains. Furthermore, the negative social effects of these mixed-income developments impacted individuals, and resulted in strained social relations at the community level (Chaskin, 2013; Joseph and Gress, 2013; McCormick et al., 2012).

Despite these findings, we find it critical to underscore Keller’s (2011: 158) caution that ‘loss does not equate dysfunction. Successful coping with loss represents resiliency’. Thus, while it is necessary to understand the negative effects of social policy in order to minimise, if not eliminate, those effects, many residents are also adaptive and resilient in the face of disruption. That said, this body of scholars overwhelmingly concluded that changes are needed to improve social outcomes.

Changes needed to policy and practice

Synthesising findings across studies, three core recommendations to improve policy and practice emerge: 1) integrate interventions to reduce prejudice and foster intergroup understanding; 2) facilitate spaces of civic participation; and 3) attend to social well-being when designing the built environment.

First, there is an urgent need for intentional efforts to build community, reduce prejudice and resolve conflict within mixed-income developments (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011; Fogel, 2008; Joseph and Chaskin, 2010; Kleit and Carnegie, 2011; McCormick et al., 2012). In Joseph and Gress’ recent survey of 31 mixed-income developments across the US and Canada, site managers confirmed that ‘effectively managing the social relations is an important issue for the long-term future’ of their development, and few believed those social relations would ‘take care of themselves’ (Joseph and Gress, 2013: 24). In other words, mixed-income developments require intentional and proactive steps to facilitate social integration. This conclusion is echoed by Hyra (2013), who proposed interventions that facilitate meaningful social interaction and that tackle ethnic, racial, religious and other differences.

Interestingly, while we found no studies that evaluated interventions designed to facilitate social integration within neighbourhoods, such interventions appear to be occurring. A random sample of 141 mid-size cities found that 68 (48 percent) had implemented a community dialogue programme focused on intergroup relations (Walsh, 2006). The existence of community-building interventions offers scholars the opportunity to learn from the practice knowledge developing in the field, and – through programme evaluation and study – to help refine and improve efforts to reduce prejudice and foster intergroup understanding in mixed-income neighbourhoods.

Second, a number of scholars recommended building community capacity through integrating governance structures across housing tenures and strengthening community organisations (Chaskin and Joseph, 2013; Curley, 2010; Keller et al., 2013). Creating integrated spaces of civic participation may facilitate both relationship building and relational accountability, as residents come to understand one another’s shared and divergent perspectives, and to work together to achieve collective goals. Such governing structures might include resident associations, community organising groups and parent or youth advisory groups.

Finally, while we know that social integration does not inherently follow from spatial interventions, scholars believe that more can be done to attend to social well-being when making decisions about the built environment. This requires considering both the need to preserve existing relationships, and the need to promote the formation of new social ties. The former may be facilitated by relocating social networks together, and attending to the distinct and differentiated needs of particular groups (e.g. elders, immigrants and refugees) (Keller et al., 2013). The latter can occur by providing greater spatial integration of various housing types (Kleit, 2005), and creating shared public spaces (e.g. parks, libraries, greenways) (Chaskin and Joseph, 2013; Curley, 2010). For a substantive discussion of urban design strategies to facilitate diverse social spaces, see Talen (2012).

Discussion and conclusion

Although the primary purpose of this review is to synthesise findings across studies in order to inform mixed-income housing policy and practice, it also highlights the need for refinements in how these settings are studied. We identify three cross-cutting limitations in the extant published literature in this area: 1) a lack of intersectional analysis; 2) insufficient attention to time; and 3) a paucity of innovation and diversity in method. We offer the following recommendations.

Adopt an intersectional analysis

The political discourse of ‘mixed-income development’ obscures the function of racism and other forms of oppression in achieving social integration. Too few authors in these studies explicitly address these dynamics.³ The absence of an integrated race/income analysis is especially critical as most case studies explored mixed-income redevelopments of public housing. While public housing nationally is nearly evenly split between White heads of households and people of colour, in urban centres – where much of the research has been done – this demographic alters dramatically (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013).⁴ Accordingly, mixing the composition of incomes in an urban public housing neighbourhood will also necessitate mixing the racial composition. Further, given the preponderance of female heads of households in public housing, it is critical that researchers account for the intersectionality of gender, class, race and other identities that inform social interactions in mixed communities.

Attend to time

In considering social interaction within mixed-income neighbourhoods, time matters, both in regard to when (in the life of the development) the study takes place and for what length of time data is collected. Temporality is particularly salient in the context of changing neighbourhoods, where one would expect to see changes in interaction post-relocation. Absent from all studies was a theoretical or empirical framework for how much time is needed to build relationships across group lines (or to conclude definitively that such relationship-building will not occur). Yet, the majority of studies collected data from a single time period, relatively soon after residents moved into a mixed-income development. Of the 10 distinct sites of study, only four collected data at more than one point in time. While time is not the only factor in social interaction, as noted by Kleit and Carnegie (2011), the time frame of study may have been insufficient to understand social interaction and social cohesion, particularly within new communities.⁵

Diversify methods of inquiry

In this area of study, there is an overreliance on single-method case study. Overwhelmingly, the reviewed studies applied exclusively quantitative analyses to measure change or make predictions, or qualitative analysis to understand complex phenomenon. Yet in all cases, the researchers’ stated purposes suggested that they were interested in measuring behaviour as well as understanding and interpreting that behaviour, which would necessitate a mixed-method design. Only the five mixed method studies (Greenbaum et al., 2008; Keller, 2011; Keller et al., 2013; Kleit, 2005; Tach, 2009) optimally matched purpose and design.

In addition, a number of methods designed to capture neighbourhood conditions, such as multilevel modeling, GIS mapping, network analysis and cluster analysis (Luke, 2005), were applicable and yet underused in this body of research. While there were several examples of social network analysis (Curley, 2009; Kleit and Carnegie, 2011), the field is open for more innovation.

Methods that engage and build local agency are also noticeably absent from this review. The policies promoting mixed-income housing have been generated by experts with little to no engagement with those impacted by poverty to inform the spatial decisions about where they live, what their neighbourhoods look and feel like, who their neighbours are and what they want and need in a community. Too often, researchers replicate this exclusion and reinscribe relationships of inequality by failing to meaningfully engage residents as collaborators in the research process.

Action Research (AR) offers an alternative. While AR encompasses a diverse field of approaches to study, action researchers share a foundational belief that those directly affected by social problems ought to play a central role in framing, investigating and intervening in those problems (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). While AR is common in other fields of inquiry, it is noteworthy that the comprehensive search for studies undertaken for this review found no examples of resident-engaged research. Studies of mixed-income neighbourhoods would be strengthened by resident and academic researchers partnering in assessing the challenges in the community, interpreting and analysing emerging understandings and taking action to plan for, implement and evaluate change.

These recommendations for improving scholarship come at a time when more study is sorely needed. There is of yet little published scholarship on neighbourhoods revitalised through the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative or RAD (the federal policies that have followed HOPE VI), providing an important opening for future study.

This comprehensive review has shown that planned mixed-income neighbourhoods have not inherently fostered positive intergroup interaction, and may in fact deepen social stigma. In the context of public housing redevelopments, mixed-income policies disrupted existing social ties and increased social isolation. Possibilities for building new social relations between residents of different racial and class backgrounds were often hampered by bias, increased levels of social stress and the creation of neighbourhood fissures that threaten the sustainability and redistributive promise of mixed-income neighbourhoods. Given these findings, it is irresponsible to continue implementing mixed-income developments as if spatial integration alone will produce positive social outcomes. Spatial integration requires proactive investment in preserving existing positive social networks, while at the same time promoting social integration among residents of different backgrounds.

Despite our review, we believe in the potential for mixed-income neighbourhoods to become spatially as well as socially integrated. Indeed, achieving stable integrated neighbourhoods offers a key strategy to reset the uneven spatial distribution of opportunities, and to improve the functioning of our democracy. As stated by geographer Don Mitchell (2003: 18), it is ‘encounters with difference’ that activate democratic life. Mixed-income neighbourhoods offer one way to build understanding across race and class lines and provide the types of intergroup understanding necessary in a functioning democracy. That this outcome is as of yet unrealised does not diminish its potential; it only highlights the shortcomings of the current policy approach. Greater attention to social well-being will lead mixed-income policies closer to fulfilling their redistributive and democratic promise.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge James Fraser and the article reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Austin

(2013) The unfinished march. Economic Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.epi.org/publication/unfinished-march-overview.

Bennett

(2011) The social position of multiracial groups in the United States: Evidence from residential segregation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(4): 707–729.

Chaskin

(2013) Integration and exclusion urban poverty, public housing reform, and the dynamics of neighborhood restructuring. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 647(1): 237–267.

Chaskin

Joseph

(2010) Building ‘community’ in mixed-income developments: Assumptions, approaches, and early experiences. Urban Affairs Review 45(3): 299–335.

Chaskin

Joseph

(2011) Social interaction in mixed-income developments: Relational expectations and emerging reality. Journal of Urban Affairs 33(2): 209–237.

Chaskin

Joseph

(2013) ‘Positive’ gentrification, social control and the ‘right to the city’ in mixed-income communities: Uses and expectations of space and place. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(2): 480–502.

Chaskin

Sichling

Joseph

(2013) Youth in mixed-income communities replacing public housing complexes: Context, dynamics and response. Cities 35: 423–431.

Clark

WAV

Maas

(2009) The geography of a mixed-race society. Growth and Change 40(4): 565–593.

Compare

Zarbo

Manzoni

. (2013) Social support, depression, and heart disease: A ten year literature review. Frontiers in Psychology 4: Article 384, 1–7.

10.

Curley

(2009) Draining or gaining? The social networks of public housing movers in Boston. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(2–3): 227–247.

11.

Curley

(2010) Relocating the poor: Social capital and neighborhood resources. Journal of Urban Affairs 32(1): 79–103.

12.

Davis

Welcher

(2013) School quality and the vulnerability of the Black middle class: The continuing significance of race as a predictor of disparate schooling environments. Sociological Perspectives 56(4): 467–493.

13.

Ellen

Horn

O’Regan

(2012) Pathways to integration: Examining changes in the prevalence of racially integrated neighborhoods. Cityscape 14(3): 33–53.

14.

Ellis

Holloway

Wright

. (2012) Agents of change: Mixed-race households and the dynamics of neighborhood segregation in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(3): 549–570.

15.

Fogel

Smith

Williamson

(2008) Creating new patterns of social and economic activity through planned housing environments. Journal of Community Practice 15(4): 97–115.

16.

Fraser

Chaskin

Bazuin

(2013a) Making mixed-income neighborhoods work for low-income households. Cityscape 15(2): 83–100.

17.

Fraser

Burns

Bazuin

. (2013b) HOPE VI, colonization, and the production of difference. Urban Affairs Review 49(4): 525–556.

18.

Fraser

Treloar

Bryant

. (2014) Hepatitis C prevention education needs to be grounded in social relationships. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 21(1): 88–92.

19.

Friedman

(2008) Do declines in residential segregation mean stable neighborhood racial integration in metropolitan America? A research note. Social Science Research 37(3): 920–933.

20.

Gaddis

Ghoshal

(2015) Arab American housing discrimination, ethnic competition, and the contact hypothesis. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 660(1): 282–299.

21.

Graves

(2010) The structuring of urban life in a mixed-income housing ‘community’. City and Community 9(1): 109–131.

22.

Graves

(2011) Mixed outcome developments: Comparing policy goals to resident outcomes in mixed-income housing. Journal of the American Planning Association 77(2): 143–153.

23.

Greenbaum

Hathaway

Rodriguez

. (2008) Deconcentration and social capital: Contradictions of a poverty alleviation policy. Journal of Poverty 12(2): 201–228.

24.

Hawkley

Cacioppo

(2007) Aging and loneliness downhill quickly? Current Directions in Psychological Science 16(4): 187–191.

25.

Heinrich

Gullone

(2006) The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology Review 26(6): 695–718.

26.

Hickey

Sturtevant

Thaden

(2014) Achieving Lasting Affordability through Inclusionary Housing. Lincoln, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

27.

Hyra

(2013) Mixed-income housing: Where have we been and where do we go from here? Cityscape 15(2): 123–134.

28.

Joseph

Chaskin

(2010) Living in a mixed-income development: Resident perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of two developments in Chicago. Urban Studies 47(11): 2347–2366.

29.

Joseph

Gress

(2013) State of the Field Scan #1: National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.

30.

Keller

(2011) Experiences of public housing residents following relocation: Explorations of ambiguous loss, resiliency, and cross-generational perspectives. Journal of Poverty 15(2): 141–163.

31.

Keller

Laakso

Stevens

. (2013) Ethnically diverse HOPE VI redevelopments: A community case study from the Pacific Northwest. Cityscape 15(2): 29–46.

32.

Kleit

(2005) HOPE VI new communities: Neighborhood relationships in mixed-income housing. Environment and Planning A 37: 1412–1441.

33.

Kleit

Carnegie

(2011) Integrated or isolated? The impact of public housing redevelopment on social network homophily. Social Networks 33(2): 152–165.

34.

Krysan

(2002) Community undesirability in Black and White: Examining racial residential preferences through community perceptions. Social Problems 49(4): 521–543.

35.

Laakso

(2013) Flawed policy assumptions and HOPE VI. Journal of Poverty 17(1): 29–46.

36.

Lees

(2008) Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies 45(12): 2449–2470.

37.

Lichter

Parisi

Taquino

(2015) Toward a new macro-segregation? Decomposing segregation within and between metropolitan cities and suburbs. American Sociological Review 80(4): 843–873.

38.

Lipsitz

(2007) The racialization of space and the spatialization of race: Theorizing the hidden architecture of landscape. Landscape Journal 26(1): 10–23.

39.

Luke

(2005) Getting the big picture in community science: Methods that capture context. American Journal of Community Psychology 35(4/5): 185–200.

40.

McCormick

Joseph

Chaskin

(2012) The new stigma of relocated public housing residents: Challenges to social identity in mixed-income developments. City and Community 11(3): 285–308.

41.

Mannarini

Fedi

(2009) Multiple senses of community: The experience and meaning of community. Journal of Community Psychology 37(2): 211–227.

42.

Mazerolle

Wickes

McBroom

(2010) Community variations in violence: The role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(1): 3–30.

43.

Mihaylov

Perkins

(2014) Community place attachment and its role in social capital development in response to environmental disruption. In: Manzo

Devine-Wright

(eds) Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Research. London: Routledge, pp. 61–74.

44.

Mitchell

(2003) The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.

45.

Odgers

Donley

Caspi

. (2015) Living alongside more affluent neighbors predicts greater involvement in antisocial behavior among low-income boys. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 56(10): 1055–1064.

46.

Pendall

Hedman

(2015) Worlds Apart: Inequality Between America’s Most and Least Affluent Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

47.

Pendall

Hendey

(2013) A Brief Look at the Early Implementation of Choice Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

48.

Perkins

Hughey

Speer

(2002) Community psychology perspectives on social capital theory and community development practice. Community Development 33(1): 33–52.

49.

Popkin

(2004) A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.

50.

Qualls

(2014) Yes, health and social relationships are inextricably linked. Generations 38(1): 6–7.

51.

Reardon

Fox

Townsend

(2015) Neighborhood income composition by household race and income, 1990–2009. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 660(1): 78–97.

52.

Reason

Bradbury

(eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

53.

Reece

Norris

Oliger

. (2013) Place Matters: Using Mapping to Plan for Opportunity, Equity, and Sustainability. Columbus, OH: Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.

54.

Shapiro

Meschede

Sullivan

(2010) The Racial Wealth Gap Increases Fourfold. Waltham, MA: Institute on Assets and Social Policy, Brandeis University.

55.

Sin

Krysan

(2015) What is racial residential integration? A research synthesis, 1950–2013. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(4): 467–474.

56.

Smrekar

Bentley

(2011) HOPE VI neighborhoods and neighborhood schools: Understanding how revitalized neighborhoods influence school environments. Peabody Journal of Education 86(4): 416–435.

57.

Steil

Roca

Ellen

(2015) Desvinculado y desigual: Is segregation harmful to Latinos? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 660(1): 57–76.

58.

Sue

(ed) (2010) Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

59.

Tach

(2009) More than bricks and mortar: Neighborhood frames, social processes, and the mixed-income redevelopment of a public housing project. City and Community 8(3): 269–299.

60.

Talen

(2012) Design for Diversity. Oxford: Elsevier.

61.

United States Census Bureau (2013) Chicago quickfacts. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html (accessed 22 June 2015).

62.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (2013) Resident characteristic report. Available at: https://pic.hud.gov/pic/RCRPublic/rcrcity.asp (accessed 22 June 2015).

63.

Van der Kolk

(2002) The assessment and treatment of complex PTSD. In: Yehuda

(ed.) Treating Trauma Survivors with PTSD. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., pp. 127–156.

64.

Wagmiller

(2013) Blacks’ and Whites’ experiences of neighborhood racial and ethnic diversity: Intercohort variation in neighborhood diversity and integration in early and early middle adulthood. Urban Affairs Review 49(1): 32–70.

65.

Walsh

(2006) Communities, race, and talk: An analysis of the occurrence of civic intergroup dialogue programs. Journal of Politics 68(1): 22–33.

66.

Weed

(2005) ‘Meta interpretation’: A method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(1): 1–16.

67.

Yin

(2003) Applications of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.