Community-Level Engagement in Public Housing Redevelopment

Abstract

Community-level engagement of public housing residents and their neighbors may help prepare them for the redevelopment of their neighborhood. The mixed-methods design included a resident survey (n = 386) and in-depth resident interviews (n = 25). Readiness for transit-oriented mixed-income redevelopment (TOMIR) was predicted by neighbor cohesion, organizational collective efficacy, and possessing a transition and/or relocation plan. Resident involvement in local neighborhood organizations was predicted by awareness of neighborhood problems and involvement in activism. As involvement in neighborhood organizations goes up, readiness for TOMIR also goes up. The study structural equation model had adequate model fit (comparative fit index [CFI] = .90, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .02, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .90). The study developed three new measures that can be used in TOMIR contexts with existing community engagement measures. The study adds to the evidence base for community-level interventions preparing public housing residents for the redevelopment.

Keywords

community change housing transit planning process

Neighborhoods with a concentration of public housing often experience problems such as disorder, violence, drug use/sales, gangs, and racial/economic segregation (Obama 2009; Popkin et al. 2004). Neighbor cohesion, involvement in problem solving, and the public and private investment in the neighborhood are often low, which has culminated in the distress of both the people and the place (Joseph 2008; Popkin et al. 2004). Public housing residents’ experience of poverty and historic neighborhood redevelopment processes have historically restricted their ability to influence their choices and rights via participation in decision-making processes that have an impact on their lives (Lingham 2013). In contrast, more recent redevelopment planning, policy (such as Choice Neighborhoods), and community practice emphasize a broader focus on collaboration across public and private systems seeking to strengthen and transform neighborhoods with a concentration of public housing into mixed-income communities (Bellantoni 2009; Housing and Urban Development [HUD] 2009; Lingham 2013; Obama 2009). Mixed-income redevelopment (MIR) builds a mix of publicly subsidized, affordable, and market rate housing where a concentration of public housing currently exists (Joseph 2008). The collaborative approach to sustainable redevelopment of public housing seeks to balance economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity/justice/opportunity for current residents (Agyeman and Evans 2003; Garde 2004; Jacobson and Forsyth 2008; Saha and Paterson 2008).

Community interventions are opportunities to build the capacity and empowerment of individuals, groups, communities, and institutions in a manner that includes their voices in the neighborhood redevelopment process. Social cohesion is a, “critical component of economic development” (Lingham 2013, p. 206), which can be fostered through community development and organizing. Community development emphasizes partnerships that share power and build consensus by working together across multiple systems with common interest in civic engagement (Ohmer and Brooks 2013). Community organizing emphasizes identifying and solving problems such as public housing resident transition and relocation planning, neighborhood crime, and traffic safety (Ohmer and Brooks 2013). Social planning that is community based builds consensus in a manner that is transparent, creates freedom from neighborhood problems like crime, maintains and protects social capital, and creates opportunities for economic and political engagement (Lingham 2013). Many community engagement models are often in place within neighborhoods with a concentration of public housing. Community engagement models are often a blend of traditional community intervention models such as development/planning interventions like Resident Advisory Councils (Rothman 2007).

Study Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this community-based research study is to build a statistical model of traditional and blended models of engagement for sustainable transit-oriented mixed-income redevelopment (TOMIR) (see Figure 1). TOMIR developments build dense residential, retail, and service uses on the land within a half-mile of transit stops (such as subways, light rail, and streetcars) (Jacobson and Forsyth 2008; Saha and Paterson 2008). The TOMIR approach of this study is used internationally as a catalyst to spur public, private, and resident investment near public transportation and publicly subsidized housing (Obama 2009). TOMIR is influenced by new urbanist concepts that seek to build walkable neighborhoods with public transportation connections to services (Joseph 2006). The statistical model of this study assumes that the TOMIR of the neighborhoods will occur and builds on previous literature focused on community readiness, development, and organizing as a sustainable means of engaging residents in preparing for change (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007). Resident participants in this community-based study requested an emphasis on the social and the local community intervention components of their experiences of the TOMIR of their neighborhoods as large-scale change initiatives.

Figure 1.

Readiness for the TOMIR framework.

The specific research question of this study is as follows:

Research Question 1: Can readiness for TOMIR be predicted by established measures in the neighborhood activism literature (neighbor cohesion, neighborhood problems, organizational collective efficacy, and activism) and new measures of transition and/or relocation planning and involvement in specific local neighborhood organizations?

The hypothesis is that residents are more ready for TOMIR when they are engaged socially within their neighborhood, are aware of neighborhood problems, and involved in neighborhood organizations/activism. The study results may be of interest to urban scholars, international planners (in countries like Australia and South Africa), developers, and race scholars who have an interest in engaging public housing residents and their neighbors in an empowering manner during redevelopment planning stages (Agyeman and Evans 2003; Bohl 2000; Garde 2004; Jacobson and Forsyth 2008; Kamruzzaman et al. 2014; Ogra and Onatu 2013). The study results are particularly relevant to broader audiences as the decrease in public subsidies of low-income housing requires increased private investment in the transformation of public housing communities (Agyeman and Evans 2003; Garde 2004; Jacobson and Forsyth 2008; Saha and Paterson 2008).

A community readiness framework that aligns closely with the Choice Neighborhoods policy places greater emphasis on problem solving and collaboration across multiple systems that build the capacities of residents, local organizations, as well as public and private investors (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007; HUD 2009). The transition and/or relocation planning processes of public housing residents are key components of the readiness for TOMIR model because the participants in this study were aware of the unintended consequences of previous redevelopment relocation practices. For example, most public housing residents were relocated away from the new mixed-income communities and many experienced increased social isolation and economic hardship (Cisneros and Engdahl 2009; Popkin et al. 2004). Older, African-American, female public housing residents with existing health problems also experienced twice the rate of deaths after redevelopment-related relocation, which may be the result of moving-related stress and the disruption of health care routines (Cisneros and Engdahl 2009). Previous research on community readiness and community engagement interventions inform the framework of this article focused on public housing resident readiness for neighborhood redevelopment.

Previous Research on Readiness

The Chicago Family Case Management Demonstration program used a motivational interviewing approach to working with residents via intensive household case management (Theodos et al. 2010). Motivational interviewing utilizes a change framework that assesses household psychological readiness and motivation for change within a relational process that helps prepare residents for change at the household level (Theodos et al. 2010). Theodos et al. (2010) identified three groups of public housing residents in Chicago neighborhoods facing redevelopment-related relocation that include

a striving group (40%) that has residents who are younger, have better mental and physical health, and benefit from meeting with a case manager once or twice a month;

an aging and distressed group (20%) that has residents who are older, disconnected, experience serious health, substance use, or mental health problems; and

a group that is at high risk of becoming aging and distressed (40%) has residents who experience physical and mental health challenges and benefit from frequent meetings with a case manager.

Similarly, community readiness frameworks assess how prepared a group is for a large-scale change initiative (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007). Community readiness in the neighborhood context is related to resident perceptions of hope for the future, neighbor cohesion/ties, sense of control, and neighborhood leadership (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999). Community readiness stages include community tolerance, denial or resistance; vague awareness or preplanning; preparation or mobilization; initiation or action; and community ownership and stabilization of changes via institutionalization, confirmation, expansion, and professionalization (Kumpfer, et al. 1997; Nakkula, et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2005). If a community is in the early stages of readiness, then the investments of a change initiative may not produce the intended results even when implementing evidence-based practices (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007; Parker,Alcaraz, and Payne 2011). In contrast, engaged communities have (1) strong relationships in the community, (2) collectively identify specific issues, (3) increase community investment and capacity to identify or create evidence-based practices to address problems, (4) develop consensus between subsystems, and (5) implement interventions with a focus on sustaining change (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007; Kieffer 1981; Kumpfer, et al. 1997; McKnight 1996; Obst, Smith, and Zinkiewicz 2002; Ohmer and Beck 2006; Perkins et al. 1990; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Speer and Hughey 1995).

Readiness for TOMIR is a new concept developed in this study, which focuses on how ready residents are for general neighborhood change (open to, want, and will help the neighborhood change), as well as readiness for specific demographic (race, income, culture, and language of neighbors) and readiness for structural changes (via improved pedestrian and transportation connections) (Agyeman and Evans 2003; Garde 2004). The community readiness model emphasizes community-level engagement and therefore does not account for individual-level change interventions (such as household-level case management). Developing readiness for TOMIR as a concept has the potential to develop the evidence base for the capacity building of organizational collaborators at the community level. Developing readiness for TOMIR as a concept in the context of community development and organizing concepts can document the investments by public and private systems to gain stakeholder buy-in, maintain ethnic diversity, improve income diversity, improve safety, and maintain neighborhood cohesion and social interaction. The study is unique in the inclusion of both engagement through formal means (like participating in planning that legitimized the process through a subordinate position via the housing authority local resident council [LRC]) and more grassroots engagement (including community organizing that sought to resist and influence redevelopment).

Previous Research on Community Development and Organizing

Power and conflict and social collectivist theories focus on the role of the government and citizens in working together to solve problems. Participation in political change is an act of agency, where individuals and groups exercise power to reconstruct organizations, rewrite the dominant narrative, and create different categorical rewards with aims and objectives that benefit them (Tilly 1998). Community development and organizing are interventions that focus on building the capacity of citizens to work together to solve neighborhood problems (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007). Common measures of community development and organizing interventions within neighborhood contexts include

neighbor cohesion (informal and formal forms of neighboring such as greeting one another, exchanging favors) (Obst, Smith, and Zinkiewicz 2002),

organizational collective efficacy (belief that residents can collectively influence decision makers and collaborate to implement solutions) (Ohmer and Beck 2006),

awareness of neighborhood problems (such as crime or traffic safety) (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007),

activism (resident willingness to act either individually or collectively to address neighborhood issues) (Speer and Hughey 1995), and

involvement in neighborhood organizations (participation in neighborhood civic, development, or organizing focused activities within organizational contexts) (Ohmer and Beck 2006).

Previous research established that neighbor cohesion and resident involvement in decision making predict organizational collective efficacy and activism (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007; Ohmer and Beck 2006; Speer and Hughey 1995). Awareness of neighborhood problems also predicts involvement in activism (Foster-Fishman et al. 2009). The focus of this research can better inform HUD, local housing authorities, and private investors of current resident experiences of TOMIR planning. The focus of this study helps build the evidence base for community-level interventions during TOMIR planning processes, which supports the Choice Neighborhoods policy approach. The methods of this research are empowerment focused and community based, given the community intervention focus of this study.

Method

Research Design

The Institutional Review Board at University of Denver approved this study. The study used transformative emancipatory design (research participants create knowledge) (Clark and Creswell 2007) and community-based research methods (partnership between academically trained researchers and grassroots participants and practitioners) (Strand et al. 2003). The researcher partnered with residents and organizational leaders to (1) identify research questions, (2) select and create quantitative measures, (3) collect quantitative surveys, (4) design the qualitative semistructured interview guide, and (5) provide insights into the interpretation of quantitative findings through the qualitative interview design. In the early stages of the research, the author gathered existing research measures focused on resident participation and community redevelopment evaluations and brought them to existing residents in the form of a pilot test survey. After completing the lengthy pilot survey, resident participants focused on topics of interest to them, which included existing relationships with neighbors, involvement in neighborhood organizations, and readiness for redevelopment. Pilot study participants expressed less interest in many of the variables commonly used to evaluate previous Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere VI (HOPE VI) redevelopments that focused on neighborhood and household-level outcomes such as employment readiness, economic outcomes, and children’s outcomes.

With the support of resident and organizational leaders, a sequential exploratory design was used to analyze quantitative results with qualitative interviews that enabled residents to elaborate on and create meaning for quantitative findings in four steps (Clark and Creswell 2007). The pilot test was collected in the spring of 2009 to establish the relevance and reliability of the study scales in the context of TOMIR. The quantitative surveys were collected in the spring and summer of 2009 to establish the reliability and validity of the study scales and to test the a priori path models that are based on theoretical models of direct relationships between the independent variables and readiness for TOMIR. The qualitative interviews were conducted in the winter of 2010–2011 to enable residents to elaborate on and create meaning for quantitative findings, as well as suggest additional paths for the final structural equation model. Each step of the research was given equal weight in the process.

Neighborhood Characteristics

The study includes two Denver neighborhoods with a large portion of public housing. Site 1 is in the La Alma/Lincoln Park neighborhood with the previously redeveloped North Lincoln Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere VI site, the $22 million United States (US) dollars South Lincoln Choice Neighborhoods implementation grant funding that began in 2012, and the houses on one block to the east that is adjacent to the two developments. Site 2 is the Sun Valley neighborhood that includes the Sun Valley Homes, Decatur Place (Project-Based Section 8 site that is privately managed), and less than 30 privately owned houses. Sun Valley was awarded a $500,000 US dollars Choice Neighborhoods planning grant beginning in 2013. The neighborhoods are south of downtown Denver, adjacent to one another, and have existing light rail stops that spurred interest from multiple systems for collaborative neighborhood-level changes (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Map of study neighborhoods.

The two neighborhoods of this study are located close to an urban central city district, are on new regional transit lines, and contain public housing developments that were in planning phases of redevelopment at the time of data collection. Each neighborhood will likely be redeveloped under the umbrella of the Choice Neighborhoods policy, which is a comprehensive approach and strategy that invests in low-income communities with a core of public housing (HUD 2009; Obama 2009; White 2009). The goals of this policy include creating mixed-income communities in strategic places that enhance residential and business opportunities by rebuilding and strengthening current concentrated poverty communities (Obama 2009). In the city of this study, a mass transit build out is in process. The hope is that the new transit-oriented development (dense communities with housing, businesses, and services within a half-mile of public transit stops) and mixed-income communities will, if done well, attract developers, businesses, and residents with increased incomes, as well as increase neighborhood problem solving and investment (Bellantoni 2009). The community characteristics of the two neighborhoods studied are important to describe to provide the context of the study. Both study sites had consistent involvement in the housing authority resident councils, planning processes, and neighborhood-based community organizing before and throughout the study.

The La Alma/Lincoln Park neighborhood now has a mix of single-family homes, one public housing site redeveloped in the 1990s, and one public housing site in a redevelopment process with American Reinvestment and Recovery Funds and a HUD awarded Choice Neighborhoods grant. Some of the resident leaders residing at the redeveloping site lived through the previous neighborhood redevelopment and relocation process.

The Sun Valley neighborhood is located at the midway point of many new light rail stops that opened in 2013 and are on a line that runs from downtown to the western suburbs. The neighborhood leaders frequently state that they feel isolated, under-resourced, and unheard in political processes. A local community organizing coalition consists of residents of both public and private housing, and staff members involved in the local neighborhood association, youth center, and church. The organization used community organizing techniques to influence improvements to crime and pedestrian safety, parent engagement in schools, and meeting resident needs in planning processes. The Sun Valley neighborhood includes under 30 single-family homes and a majority of households live in either the public housing site or a nearby multifamily apartment complex for single parents and their children. Over half of the residents are children (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

The sampling frame for the pilot test and quantitative survey included 1,036 residents of the traditional public housing, nearby redeveloped or renovated low-income housing, and the surrounding privately owned houses in two neighborhoods facing the TOMIR of their neighborhood. The two neighborhoods were comprised of very different amounts of public and private housing and therefore different sampling frames were used within the two neighborhoods to ensure that limited resources were spent surveying predominantly public housing residents. At the first site, the sampling frame included only the residents of both types of public housing and residents of houses along the neighboring block because the neighborhood includes 33.5% public housing (Piton Foundation 2008). All residents of the second site were included in the sampling frame because 93.9% of residents live in publicly subsidized housing (Piton Foundation 2008).

Sample

Pilot survey

A flyer was distributed to all addresses within the sample frame in both study neighborhoods, which resulted in engaging study participants who represented various neighborhood organizations and all types of housing in the neighborhood in the pilot testing process. The residents who participated in the pilot test represented uninvolved residents and those who serve as leaders within specific neighborhood organizations. The pilot survey process provided a place for residents to complete a possible study survey that included (1) existing measures typically used in HOPE VI evaluations, (2) potential measures evaluating neighborhood-based community organizing, and (3) potential new measures focused on theoretical assumptions regarding MIR. Participants (n = 30) provided feedback on important study concepts and they suggested revisions to the survey on a feedback form.

Quantitative survey

Recruitment techniques for the quantitative surveys included delivering flyers, door knocking each household three times per door, and providing a $10 US dollar gift card incentive for participants. Surveyors interviewed residents at the participant’s location of choice, which typically occurred either at the front door, sitting at the kitchen table, or in the participant’s living room. Door knocking continued in each neighborhood until surveyors reached a 35% or higher sampling rate on 20 different sample sheets that included all study addresses. In all, 37% of the entire sampling frame participated in the survey. The survey sample rate was lower than ideal. Others conducted previous research processes in the neighborhood, and community-based organizational partners made the decision not to risk overburdening residents, especially given that the Foster-Fishman et al. (2007) study focused on readiness in similar neighborhoods had a 30% response rate. Therefore, the study results will only be generalized to those who participated in the survey rather than to the study population as a whole if interpreting with caution. In total, 56% of study participants were housed in either Choice Neighborhoods implementation or planning grant focused sites during the planning phases (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Study Participants Living in Choice Neighborhoods Implementation and Planning Funded Developments.

Demographic	%
Public housing
Choice Neighborhoods implementation	24.5
Choice Neighborhoods planning	31.6
Previous Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere VI implementation	20.5
Private publicly subsidized transitional housing	11.4
Privately owned houses	11.9

In-depth qualitative interviews

Interviewers conducted the 25 qualitative in-depth interviews at the first site only because residents were facing an immediate redevelopment and relocation process, which meant that residents were most likely to be thinking about the redevelopment and correlated transition and/or relocation process. The author used representative sampling for qualitative interviews to ensure that the experiences of various demographics were represented. The various participant perspectives provided a range of explanations of the various problems to be solved by relocated residents. The author determined sample size based on a general sense that 25 interviews could provide an adequate amount of data to reach saturation, which also fit within project budgeting constraints. Interviewers approached all residents at the first site via door knocking in a random order, and tracked contacts on sampling sheets. If residents were interested in participating in the interview, then they completed a one-page screening sheet to determine if the resident represented a perspective not yet included in the interview sample. The screening criteria included variability in the following factors: involvement or noninvolvement in neighborhood organizations, household factors (number of bedrooms in the unit, length of time in the neighborhood, commitment to staying in the neighborhood), socioeconomic and demographic factors (employment and benefits, education, race/ethnicity, age, gender), and criminal history. If residents represented a demographic not yet included in the interviews, researchers invited them to participate and offered a $10 US dollar gift card incentive. As the total number of interviews approached 25, the interviewers consulted with the principal investigator to select cases that represented missing perspectives. The sample included participants who represented the presence and absence of each of the factors listed above. The survey and qualitative interview respondent demographics for both study neighborhoods closely match the sampling frame (see Table 2). Therefore, quantitative study findings may be able to generalize to the study population with less caution.

Table 2.

Neighborhood Population Demographics Compared with the Survey and Qualitative Interview Sample.

Demographic	Sun Valley (Sample)	La Alma (Sample)
Publicly subsidized housing^a	93.9 (94.3)	33.5 (82.9, 100)
Annual income in United States dollars^b	12,434 (85% < 12,500)	38,480 (68.9% < 12,500)
Hispanic^b	46.4 (46.4)	52.5 (40.8, 44)
African-American^b	17.3 (22.7)	7.2 (20.9, 24)
White^b	10.9 (7.3)	32.4 (18.4, 16)
Other race^b	25.4 (22.8)	7.9 (19.9, 16)

Piton Foundation (2008).

U.S. Census Bureau (2000).

Quantitative Measures and Qualitative Interview Guide

The author used existing scales to measure (1) neighbor cohesion, (2) organizational collective efficacy, (3) neighborhood problems, and (4) activism (see Table 3). The author created three new scales including (1) involvement in neighborhood organizations (six items representing specific local organizations focused on organizing and social change efforts), (2) possessing a transition and/or relocation plan (four items identified during a previous planning process representing both concrete aspects of neighborhood-level transitional and/or relocation planning such as providing financial and logistical assistance and more abstract aspects such as considering the need to maintain social connections), and (3) readiness for TOMIR. The readiness for TOMIR scale had three subscales: (1) Readiness for New Urbanism (two items focused on the importance of having bus/light rail connections to services and designing the neighborhood with walking in mind), (2) Readiness for Mixed Income (five items focused on their comfort living near people of other incomes, races, and languages in a mixed-income and multicultural neighborhood), and (3) Readiness for Change (three items focused on their openness to the neighborhood changing, their wanting the neighborhood to change, and their willingness to help the neighborhood change). All items for the new scales were developed from the key focus areas for change that were identified within the transit stop focused city planning in the study neighborhoods.

Table 3.

Concept and Measurement Descriptions.

Factor	Definition
Neighbor cohesion^a	Social cohesion, ties, trust, and shared values among neighbors (such as visiting with neighbors, exchanging favors, and asking advice)
Organizational collective efficacy^b	Likelihood that a neighborhood association could accomplish tasks such as reduce crime, improve physical conditions, or develop and implement solutions to neighborhood problems
Neighborhood problems^c	Degree to which neighborhood experiences problems with housing problems and crime
Activism^d
Individual activism	If anyone in the household took action alone in the last two months to address a neighborhood problem (such as write a letter or talk to someone causing a problem)
Collective activism	If anyone in the household attended neighborhood meetings in the last two months
Participation level: Attend	Citizen participation in organizations in the last year
Transition and/or relocation plan	Level of agreement that taking into account social, financial, and logistical concerns is important when planning for relocation
Readiness for transit-oriented mixed-income redevelop-ment	Level of agreement regarding their readiness for neighborhood change in general, as well as mixed-income and new urbanist development
Involvement in community organizations	Whether anyone in their household participated in several specific grassroots community organizing or community development focused organizations (including housing authority resident councils)

A 29-item scale from Obst, Smith, and Zinkiewicz (2002; α = .85).

An 8-item scale from Ohmer and Beck (2006; α = .99).

A 31-item scale from National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago (2000; α = .77–.92).

Three subscales with 7 items focused on individual activism, 10 items focused on collective activism, and 1 item focused on participation from Speer and Peterson (2000) and Parsons (1999).

The primary investigator trained interviewers to door knock, invite residents to the study, gain informed consent according to Institutional Review Board guidelines, and then interview and notate replies of residents. Written surveys were available in English and Spanish. One trained interviewer per language provided verbal translation for the languages: Somali, Vietnamese, and Cambodian, as needed because participants who spoke these languages were either preliterate or participated in small enough numbers that written translation expenses were not justified.

Housing authority management that oversaw case management for relocation as well as redevelopment planning were involved in designing the qualitative interview guide in a manner that allowed resident participants to define their experience of study concepts prior to asking for resident input on the meaning of quantitative results. Elected LRC leaders were then engaged in designing the qualitative interview process. LRC leader feedback emphasized designing a sampling approach that engaged various different resident experiences. Qualitative interviewers asked participants about study concepts (i.e., relationships with neighbors, involvement in neighborhood organizations and activism, readiness for change, etc.), then provided an explanation of initial quantitative results, and asked follow-up questions. Interviewers generally asked in-depth interview participants about specific concepts found to predict readiness for TOMIR in the quantitative model and then asked participants’ interpretation of the quantitative findings. Questions included participants’ knowledge of neighborhood changes, their readiness for the changes, their existing relationships with neighbors, their beliefs regarding the ability of neighborhood organizations to get things done on their behalf, what their relationships in the community had to do with their involvement or noninvolvement in the neighborhood, and the transition and/or relocation supports they would need if they moved to various locations. Then interviewers asked residents for their interpretation of the initial quantitative findings. For example, interviewers asked interview participants: “How do your existing relationships with neighbors have an impact on your readiness for the redevelopment?” As much as possible, interviewers matched the previous language of participants. For example, the interviewer said, “You stated that you talk to your neighbors about the redevelopment when you see them outside, how do you think talking to your neighbors has an influence on how ready you are for the redevelopment?”

Data Analysis

The author built a structural equation model predicting resident readiness for TOMIR in an exploratory process. The study research question was answered in five iterative steps including

study measures were developed and tested for reliability and validity,

structural equation modeling (SEM) to predict readiness for TOMIR,

SEM to predict involvement in neighborhood organizations,

qualitative analysis, and

building a final model synthesizing the readiness for TOMIR and involvement SEM models utilizing previous literature, qualitative data, and SEM modification indices.

The study measurement development included a split-half exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 193) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 193) was conducted with all measures prior to completing a structural equation model. EFA was conducted with principal components analysis with item loadings of .32 or above. The CFA measurement model building process and structural equation model building process used a robust weighted least squares mean and variance (WLSMV) adjusted analysis with missing data imputed (Muthén, du Toit, and Spisic 1997). Model fit cutoffs were as follows: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .08, comparative fit index (CFI) > .95 is good; .9 > is acceptable), and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) > .90) (Kenny, Kaniskan, and McCoach 2014). The CFA process for study measures and structural equation models that met the model fit cutoffs were described as having adequate model fit.

The individual items were represented in the factor loadings of the CFA for the transition and/or relocation planning and readiness for TOMIR scales (see Table 4). The scales were organized so that the items with higher factor loadings were listed first for each scale to present items with the best fit for the scale first. The scales were tested for reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha score as a measure of the intercorrelation of the individual items representing the latent construct (Gliem and Gliem 2003). The author checked all scales to ensure the data were normally distributed within the limits of WLSMV within the Mplus software. The author also triangulated measurement model building and structural equation model building analysis processes with qualitative interviews to create reliable and valid conceptualizations from both data types.

Table 4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for New Redevelopment- and Relocation-Related Scales.

Scale and Items	Item Loading
Transition and/or relocation planning
Provide financial assistance if residents moved from the neighborhood	.911***
Provide logistical assistance if residents moved from the neighborhood	.903***
Recognize the residents’ need to maintain social connections if moved from the neighborhood	.815***
Identify a relocation plan if residents moved from the neighborhood	.731***
Readiness for transit-oriented mixed-income redevelopment
Readiness for mixed-income redevelopment	.428***
I am comfortable living near people who speak other languages	.886***
I am comfortable living near people of other races	.865***
I am comfortable living in a multicultural neighborhood	.761***
I am comfortable living near people of other incomes	.712***
I am willing to live in a neighborhood that is mixed income	.712***
Readiness for new urbanism	.721***
It is important to have bus/light rail connections to services	.876***
It is important to design the neighborhood with walking in mind	.828***
Readiness for change	.345***
I want my neighborhood to change	.824***
I will help my neighborhood change	.800***
I am open to my neighborhood changing	.689***

***

p < .001.

The author analyzed qualitative interviews thematically to elaborate on quantitative findings. Qualitative analysis included a constant comparative method in six steps that included the following: (1) identified codes in participant’s language (Spencer, Ritchie, and O’Conner 2003), (2) compared codes across interviews and identified themes (Spencer, Ritchie, and O’Conner 2003), (3) consulted and determined interrater reliability that ensured valid and reliable themes (91.7% initial agreement with 100% agreement after discussion) (Silverman 2006), (4) compared final codes across all interviews (Huberman and Miles 1994), (5) looked for groups of participants with common responses represented by the percentage of participants who matched that perspective, and (6) compared common responses with community readiness stages (Kumpfer, Whiteside, and Wan 1997; Nakkula et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2006). The percentages reported in the qualitative section represent a sample of 25. The percentages are compared with the Theodos et al. (2010) study because the SEM process with latent variables does not easily allow for descriptive summaries of concepts in a manner that would allow meaningful quantitative and qualitative comparisons.

Results

Study Participants

Interviewers and surveyors invited residents to participate in the study based on their home address within neighborhoods with a high turnover rate, and therefore the study did not track the flow of individual participants through the study. The quantitative survey sampling techniques resulted in a 37% sample rate (n = 386). The in-depth resident interviews (n = 25) included representation from all predetermined screening categories, which included a 10% sample rate. Participants in both the quantitative and qualitative components were predominantly female (73%–75%) and Latino/Latina (44%) or African-American (22%). The quantitative surveys included predominantly participants with annual incomes of less than $12,500 US dollars (76%), and housed in a variety of housing types including traditional public housing (66%), redeveloped public housing (21%), HUD-subsidized apartments for residents that are low-income (11%), and neighboring houses (12%).

Measures

Descriptive characteristics including measurement model statistics for all variables are available in Table 5. All study measures had acceptable model fit during the CFA process (RMSEA ≤ .08, CFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90) (Hu and Bentler 1999; Kenny, Kaniskan, and McCoach 2014). The reliability of all measures was also acceptable (α ≥ .7).

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics Summary of the Study Variable.

Factor	Items	M	SD	CFI	RMSEA	TLI	α
Neighbor cohesion	11	3.2–3.7	1–1.2	.97	.07	.94	.94
Organizational collective efficacy	6	3.3–3.6	1–1.2	.98	.08	1.00	.88
Neighborhood problems		2.4–3.4	1.2–1.3	.94	.08	.95	.94
Crime and disorder	8	—	—	—	—	—	.90
Property maintenance	5	—	—	—	—	—	.69
Traffic safety issues	3	—	—	—	—	—	.80
Activism		0.06–0.6	0.2–0.5	.97	.06	.94	.88
Individual activism	3	—	—	—	—	—	.92
Collective activism	13	—	—	—	—	—	.96
Participation level: Attend	3	—	—	—	—	—	.96
Transition and relocation plan	4	3.9–4.2	0.7–0.8	.99	.08	.98	.96
Readiness for TOMIR		3.8–4.3	0.7–1.2	.95	.07	.99	.81
Readiness for mixed income	5	—	—	—	—	—	.73
Readiness for new urbanism	2	—	—	—	—	—	.90
Readiness for change	3	—	—	—	—	—	.80
Involvement in community organizations	6	0.1–0.3	0.3–0.4	1.00	.04	1.00	.70

Note. The model fit statistics are from a split-half sample exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis process. The alpha scores, means, and standard deviations are reported for the entire sample. Means and standard deviations are listed as ranges for the items within the scales. All scales are on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) except activism and involvement in community organizations (0 = no, 1 = yes). CFI, RMSEA, and TLI are indicators of model fit in the confirmatory factor analysis process. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; TOMIR = transit-oriented mixed-income redevelopment. The mean, standard deviation, and model fit statistics are provided for scales, but not subscales therefore — is included for these columns of the subscales.

A covariance matrix of the latent constructs in the model is included in Table 6.

Table 6.

Latent Variable Covariance Matrix.

	NC	OCE	TRP	Readiness for TOMIR	Inv	ACT
OCE	.18
TRP	.12	.12
Readiness for TOMIR	.07	.07	.09
Inv	.03	.00	.03	.00
ACT	.08	.02	.09	.06	.07
NP	−.04	−.02	.01	.01	.02	.08

Note. NC = neighborhood cohesion; OCE = organizational collective efficacy; TRP = transition and/or relocation plan; TOMIR = transit-oriented mixed-income redevelopment; Inv = involvement in neighborhood organizations; ACT = activism; NP = neighborhood problems.

Initial Quantitative Results

The study structural equation models are depicted in Figures 3 and 4. The two models in Figures 3 and 4 are mixed measurement and structural equation models, which include between one and three higher order variables (gray circles) that are represented by three subscales (with arrows pointing from the higher order variable toward white oval subscales). The white ovals and the gray oval with the three arrows represent the measurement component of the model, which is a precise way of including all items and subscales in a higher order variable rather than averaging scale items or creating a sum scale. The arrows between the gray ovals and circles represent the structural equation model. As hypothesized, neighbor cohesion, organizational collective efficacy, and possessing a transition and/or relocation plan predicted readiness for TOMIR with adequate model fit (CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05, TLI = .93) (see Figure 3). Activism also predicted involvement in neighborhood organizations and neighborhood problems predicted activism. The model had acceptable model fit (CFI = .93, RMSEA = .03, TLI = .93) (see Figure 4).

Figure 3.

Predicting resident readiness for mixed-income redevelopment.

Figure 4.

Predicting involvement in neighborhood organizations.

The direction of variables in Figures 3 and 4 cannot be determined in a cause and effect manner given the cross-sectional nature of the data; therefore, the directions of the relationships between variables may be the opposite (such as involvement predicting activism and activism predicting neighborhood problems). As the theoretical and community driven model building process resulted in adequate model fit, interviewers engaged neighborhood residents in in-depth interviews to explain or elaborate on the meaning of quantitative findings.

Qualitative Results

Qualitative interviews provided explanations of the complexity of resident experiences, which may not have been included in the initial or final quantitative results. Overall, residents had three different reactions to information regarding the likely redevelopment. Some became engaged in neighborhood organizations and as a result became more prepared for change via the collective processes (56%), which compares with the 40% of residents who are striving in previous studies (Theodos et al. 2010). Other residents described not wanting to be bothered by the neighborhood organizations or redevelopment process (36%), which resulted in individual-level coping with the news of an upcoming redevelopment. The second group may compare with the high-risk group (40%) (Theodos et al. 2010). A third group of study participants was not involved and opposed neighborhood change (8%), which may compare with the 20% of residents who are aging and distressed in the Theodos et al. (2010) study.

Engaged and change ready

Many resident interviewees were engaged in neighborhood organizations (68%), and as a result, they reported they were change ready (56%). Involved residents who attended meetings saw themselves as having an influence on redevelopment planning, which included noting improvements to their own readiness for change. For example, one resident who was involved in all neighborhood organizations and wanted to stay in the neighborhood said,

I think we maybe had a little influence getting designated bicycle paths or bicycle striping on the streets . . . I have also worked with the police in the different organizations . . . with respect to getting police patrols and getting reports on what’s going on in the neighborhood. Hopefully to reduce crime in the neighborhood . . . Well it’s definitely helped me get ready for change. I know what’s going on to plan a little more accordingly. (white, male, 61–70 years old who lived in the neighborhood for over 10 years, some college)

His description of involvement included links to the quantitative measures of neighborhood problems (including crime and traffic safety), as well as readiness for change. The quote explains his experience of why being involved in neighborhood organizations improving neighborhood safety prepares residents for change. His replies are similar to 41% of involved residents who described their involvement in community organizing, community development, and neighborhood planning as a means of building their capacity as residents to collaborate with others to address existing problems prior to and during the redevelopment process. For example, a study participant who was involved with various neighborhood organizations, reported wanting to move outside the neighborhood, and who had a felony 20 years ago said,

If you do go to meetings it’s been my experience that there’s been . . . positive results . . . the more you know about what is expected of you . . . what’s offered, the more educated you are, . . . [and] the better decisions, the more smooth, the more communication that’s out there, the easier it is to implement . . . to make a decision.

Another resident explained how informal conversations with neighbors lead to discussing and making sense of all the community meetings and preparations to become ready for neighborhood changes when she said,

There’s clotheslines in the back and [my neighbor] was asking me what are you thinking about it . . . I said it was a good thing . . . because when you see people improve themselves you want to improve yourself . . . she said well I don’t think it’s going to work . . . will you still be living here? She said most likely . . . we were just going back and forth . . . I said I’m kinda looking forward to it but it’s a big change. I think it’s a good thing that we will be ready for it you know . . . all of this preparation. And them talking, having meetings.

In essence, residents who were ready for change were open to the opportunities that redevelopment brings (such as decreasing crime, moving elsewhere, or improving their own lives). The residents in this group may fit closely with previous discussions of striving residents who may benefit from community involvement, just as much as household-level case management (Theodos et al. 2010). Engaged study participants have a better sense of what is expected of them and may be at the community preparation/mobilized action stages of community readiness because of their relationships, involvement, and awareness of neighborhood problems and efforts to solve them (Kumpfer, Whiteside, and Wan 1997; Nakkula et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2006).

Cannot be bothered by neighborhood organizations or change

In contrast, engaged residents described other residents as uninformed regarding neighborhood changes, perhaps due to barriers to involvement in collective activities. Other residents directly state that they cannot imagine some residents having the time, energy, or ability to get involved in community problem solving. They state that they send out flyers, but a lot of residents might be enduring personal hardships or are set in their ways.

Frequently, residents who expressed being neutral about the neighborhood changes (36%) also described multiple barriers related to their health, mental health, or substance use. When asked to speak for themselves, several study participants described their own focus on keeping up with doctor’s appointments and taking care of their children and grandchildren. Many were more neutral about the change or stated that the neighborhood changes did not matter to them, which may reflect their sense that redevelopment is beyond their control. They expressed more of a “wait and see” mentality about the changes and about where they saw themselves in the future.

In contrast, other residents who experienced struggles with mental health described their own experience of being curious or anxious about rumors of redevelopment. Uninvolved residents sometimes attended meetings but were either anxious at the thought of moving or as a result of the social interactions required at the meeting. One study participant described a neighbor who packed all of her belongings and left when she heard redevelopment was coming. Another resident said she went to meetings, but experienced panic attacks as a result. For example, one participant was asked about the one meeting that she attended in the last two years and said,

I don’t remember what it was about completely. I had a panic attack during it. I wanted as much information as I could get about whether or not I had to move. If I never walked outside my door I would be fine . . . I don’t stay for very long because truthfully I’m afraid of people.

Resident mental health therefore puts them at risk of being uninformed about neighborhood changes.

Other participants described their substance abuse as a means of coping with the reality of their lives in the present. For example, one resident participant stated that her day started with a drink in the morning, as a way of coping. In essence, they are not involved in neighborhood processes to plan for change as a way of avoiding facing change.

Residents who were uninvolved in neighborhood organizations were also neutral on the readiness for TOMIR (67% of those not involved were neutral on readiness for TOMIR). Uninvolved residents were also neutral on the neighbor cohesion, activism, organizational collective efficacy, and transition and/or relocation scales. Neutral residents provided multilayered quotes that may fit closely with high-risk individuals who may benefit from household-level supports to (1) prepare for redevelopment-related change, (2) cope with redevelopment-related change, and/or (3) improve the quality of their lives (Theodos et al. 2010). Study participants that cannot be bothered with neighborhood organizations or changes may be at the vague awareness stage of community readiness (Kumpfer, Whiteside, and Wan 1997; Nakkula et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2006).

Not involved and against neighborhood change

The third group of residents was not involved and was against neighborhood change (8%). They frequently could not imagine moving, either because they had lived in their unit for decades, or because of personal reasons to fear moving. Fears were sometimes rooted in severe mental health needs or having just stabilized as a family after being homeless. For example, a participant, who lived in the neighborhood for over 10 years and wanted to stay, said,

I don’t like it, I think it’s something I am not used to, you know. I don’t think I would be comfortable with it . . . just a lot of traffic and a lot of different people, you know it is not going to be neighborly. Like it is now, we are all neighbors, I think everybody knows each other. If they are going to bring a business into the neighborhood we have to live next door to or over the businesses and I am not comfortable with it. See I been here too many years and I am used to this. I am old, I am old fashion okay, but I am comfortable. Like a lot of things happened around here, which don’t bother me none. I got shot at one time, through the door not me, the bullet came and hit the end of that thing and ended up in the closet. It was at 2:00 in the morning. I didn’t even know it happened. I just thought one of my things hanging have fell. It scared me . . . I think it is better the way it is now. I am used to it. I don’t believe they are going to build big buildings and businesses together in the neighborhood. I am not comfortable with it . . . I’ve always been a Westsider. (female, mixed race, over 71 years old, no high school diploma or General Equivalency Degree, and was not involved in neighborhood organizations)

Residents who had adapted to the current neighborhood conditions and processes were closed to the idea of disrupting the familiarity of their neighborhood. They may match the aging and distressed descriptions of residents who simply want to age in place rather than risk a move, which may be too much given their age, health, or other personal conditions (Cisneros and Engdahl 2009; Theodos et al. 2010). Some residents asserted that they do not want to move at all, or if they did have to move, they did not want to leave their specific block, which they described as the safest or most comfortable block in the development. For this group of study participants, increasing the number of people, businesses, and traffic would be costly. As a result, resident participants even described their willingness to accept neighborhood problems rather than accept that the neighborhood would drastically change. Residents who described low levels of readiness for TOMIR also frequently conveyed being low on other study variables such as the neighbor cohesion, activism, organizational collective efficacy, and transition and/or relocation scales. Study participants who are not involved and against change may be at the community denial or resistance stages of community readiness (Kumpfer, Whiteside, and Wan 1997; Nakkula et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2006).

Revised Quantitative Results

The final structural equation model resulted in adequate model fit (CFI = .90, RMSEA = .02, TLI = .90) (see Figure 5). The structural equation model was revised to incorporate qualitative findings including relationships between (1) involvement in activism and neighborhood organizations and readiness for TOMIR; (2) neighbor cohesion, organizational collective efficacy, and neighborhood problems; and (3) resident awareness of neighborhood problems such as traffic safety, crime, and disorder and readiness for TOMIR. The additional variables were included as additional paths on readiness for TOMIR and then modified with guidance from theoretical connections, modification indices, and qualitative themes until the model had adequate model fit. For example, when neighborhood problems did not go up when readiness for TOMIR went up, then neighborhood problems was added to the model as an indirect predictor of readiness for TOMIR (such as neighbor cohesion going up when activism goes up and activism going up when readiness for TOMIR goes up).

Figure 5.

Final structural equation model predicting resident readiness for transit-oriented mixed-income redevelopment.

Residents higher on all study variables were more ready for TOMIR, and therefore engagement in relationships with neighborhoods and participation in activism and/or neighborhood organizations may help prepare residents for the TOMIR of their neighborhood. Residents who were lower on readiness for TOMIR may have either been against the TOMIR of their neighborhood, or may not have been engaged with neighbors or neighborhood organizations. These opposed or unengaged residents may need other interventions, such as household case management as outlined in Theodos et al. (2010), to help prepare them for neighborhood-level change. Therefore, the model provides evidence that as involvement in neighborhood organizations goes up, readiness for TOMIR also goes up. The cross-sectional design of the study does not allow for cause and effect interpretations of the model results; therefore, the opposite directions of relationships are possible. However, the qualitative results of the study provide in-depth descriptions that provide supporting evidence of the final structural equation model.

Discussion

The study findings were rooted in community-based research methods and measures that have implications for future research, practice, and policy in transit-oriented and/or MIR planning processes.

Research Implications

This study developed new reliable and valid measures for readiness for TOMIR and transition and/or relocation planning. The study established the association between readiness for TOMIR and existing neighborhood engagement measures, including neighbor cohesion, neighborhood problems, organizational collective efficacy, activism, and involvement in neighborhood organizations. As expected, study participants with higher ratings of the established neighborhood engagement measures and the transition and/or relocation planning measure were more ready for TOMIR (see Figure 5). SEM of known community engagement measures is unique to this study, particularly in the context of public housing redevelopment.

Involved residents participated in neighborhood organizations and activism because of their self-interest regarding how they could both gain a better sense of what is expected of them as well as how they influence redevelopment planning in a manner that had the potential to benefit their household. For example, involved residents felt they influenced new bicycle lanes, addressing neighborhood crime, and adding a focus on maintaining social connections during transition and/or relocation planning. As a result, engaged residents were further along in community readiness stages that included collective preparation and mobilized action (Kumpfer, Whiteside, and Wan 1997; Nakkula et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2006). Study findings are consistent with the previous literature indicating that community readiness is associated with (1) neighbor cohesion, (2) collectively identified neighborhood problems, (3) community investment and activism to identify solutions to address problems, and (4) developing specific interventions with a focus on sustainable change such as transition and/or relocation planning (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007; Kieffer 1984; Kumpfer, Whiteside, and Wan 1997; McKnight 1996; Obst, Smith, and Zinkiewicz 2002; Ohmer and Beck 2006; Perkins et al. 1990; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Speer and Hughey 1995). A framework describing readiness for TOMIR that is rooted in neighborhood engagement concepts was developed (see Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Sustainable community engagement practice components that focus on resident readiness for TOMIR.

Practice Implications

Residents involved in neighborhood organizations

Prevention work focused on preparing residents living in public housing neighborhoods facing redevelopment should include both household-level supports and community processes that prepare residents for change. Study findings are consistent with federal mandates for collective engagement of residents (Economic Opportunity Act 1964), community readiness research (Kumpfer et al. 1997; Nakkula et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2006), community practice research (Foster-Fishman et al. 2007), as well as recent research indicating the need for household-level case management (Theodos et al. 2010). Striving residents who are engaged with community processes may not require as many additional case management focused interventions to prepare for redevelopment (Theodos et al. 2010).

The community-based research partners of this study benefited from the research collaboration because they were able to influence the study measures and research question focused on validating their involvement in neighborhood organizations. Given the study results, residents can assert the importance of engaging existing neighborhood organizations in the process of preparing for TOMIR. Therefore, the grassroots organizations of a variety of styles of engagement (community organizing, community development, community-based participatory planning, etc.) are all valuable collaborators in planning processes. The study therefore legitimizes HUD priorities focused on the importance of engaging existing social networks in planning for and implementing redevelopment-related changes. The study also documented the importance of several TOMIR principles that may be of interest to planners including maintaining ethnic diversity, improving safety, and maintaining existing social networks and the sense of community.

Residents not involved in neighborhood organizations

In contrast, other aging and distressed and high-risk residents may experience mental health, substance use, health conditions, and other pressures on their families that may keep them from being able to engage with community-level interventions to prepare for change (Theodos et al. 2010). Study participants in the nonengaged group may need individual- or household-level supports that meet them at earlier stages of community readiness such as vague awareness or denial of upcoming community changes (Kumpfer, Whiteside, and Wan 1997; Nakkula et al. 2010; Plested et al. 2006).

Policy Implications

The focus of this study helps build the evidence base for Choice Neighborhoods policy approaches to community-level interventions that build on the strengths of neighborhoods during TOMIR planning processes (HUD 2009). Existing neighborhood organizations can effectively engage in problem solving and collaboration across multiple systems in a manner that both builds the capacities of residents and local organizations while also preparing them for neighborhood changes (Bellantoni 2009; HUD 2009; Lingham 2013; Obama 2009). Residents and organizations participate where they have a self-interest in seeing improvements to their neighborhood and may be able to help identify and implement solutions to both neighborhood problems (such as pedestrian safety and crime) and personal problems (such as mental health). Choice Neighborhoods investments in planning that are rooted in neighborhood social networks can result in increased public and private investments that increase the likelihood of successfully engaging residents of public housing neighborhoods in change processes. For example, the Sun Valley neighborhood of this study recently received a one million US dollar grant after its $500,000 US dollars Choice Neighborhoods planning grant (Vaccarelli 2014). The program will continue the same approach to collaborating with residents and local groups to decrease crime, provide improved access to mental health services, and work with residents reentering the community after serving a prison sentence (Vaccarelli 2014). Choice Neighborhoods grants therefore may increase investment in the neighborhood and decrease social isolation of residents through these community-level engagement strategies (Cisneros and Engdahl 2009; Popkin et al. 2004).

Limitations

The study had several limitations. First, the quantitative participants’ sample rate was below an ideal sampling rate. Therefore, the sample may include a self-selection bias that excluded a group that may have had different views from the study participants (such as may have undersampled the high-risk group and oversampled the striving group) (Theodos et al. 2010). Second, some of the study measures had only fair reliability or were not the most common conceptualizations of factors such as neighbor cohesion and organizational collective efficacy. Third, the study design only included two neighborhoods from the same city in the quantitative survey, and one neighborhood in the qualitative interviews. Therefore, it was unknown if the factors predicting readiness for TOMIR would differ in other contexts. For example, the measures may not fit with a community that is mobilized, yet resisting the TOMIR changes to the neighborhood. Qualitative data collection prior to the development of quantitative measures may provide important neighborhood-specific context.

Fourth, the blended exploratory quantitative model building process and qualitative thematic analysis provided a good pilot study exploring concepts important to existing neighborhood residents, but the methods were not rooted in grounded theory methods and may not have included a sample that was saturated. Therefore, the conceptual framework resulting from the study should not be considered grounded theory. For example, several qualitative interview themes were not included in the quantitative measures including (1) barriers to involvement (health status, mental health problems, and substance use), (2) anxiety about rumors of redevelopment and moving, (3) the importance of age in resident perceptions, and (4) other variables such as participation in redevelopment planning meetings. These four variables were not included as controls in the model and therefore could be included in future studies to determine what additional factors that may be barriers to or contribute to community readiness.

Fifth, the study relied exclusively on residents’ perception of their readiness and therefore future research could include additional measures of community readiness such as (1) readiness based on case managers or other professional assessment, (2) other organizational collective efficacy measures such as tangible wins of grassroots groups or professional assessment of the influence of specific organizations, and (3) reported neighborhood problems such as crime, housing problems, and vacancies within city records. Sixth, as stated previously, the direction of relationships between study variables cannot be asserted given the cross-sectional design of this study.

Additional research is necessary to determine if the study results are consistent when methodological issues related to sampling rates, sampling frames, measures, and data collection at multiple time points are addressed. Despite limitations, the study findings have implications for future research and public housing redevelopment practice in neighborhoods that have existing local housing authority resident councils, collaborative planning processes, and/or neighborhood community organizing groups engaged in the redevelopment processes.

Conclusion

Relocation/moving is a stressful process for anyone, particularly those who rely on public housing as a stabilizing factor in their lives. The study highlighted the potential for the readiness and participation measures to act as a tool to assess appropriate interventions to improve resident outcomes, which can guide housing authorities’ resident supportive services, community planning, and organizing processes. Study measures may help identify involved residents who can be prepared for changes via collective engagement (Economic Opportunity Act 1964), as well as other individual households that may experience barriers to involvement and may require other interventions to help prepare them for change such as household-level intensive case management (Theodos et al. 2010). Previous research grouped residents into household-level interventions according to personal demographics, which may be improved if the social process components of the proposed sustainable TOMIR planning and implementation process are included as additionally important predictors of needed interventions (Theodos et al. 2010). Future research could include additional measures of barriers to involvement to test the mediating or moderating relationships between these factors/study variables.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author worked as a community organizer and community-based researcher in the study neighborhoods throughout the research process; however the researcher and community practitioner roles were fully disclosed to study participants during the informed consent process.

Funding

Prepared under Grant Numbers H-21544SG and H-21608SG from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of University Partnerships. Metro Organizations for People/Together Colorado provided a supplemental translation budget for the quantitative surveys. Points of views or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or Metro Organizations for People/Together Colorado.

Author Biography

Laurie A. Walker, MSW, PhD was awarded the Association of Community Organization and Social Administration Emerging Scholar Award in 2014. She previously authored articles focused on public housing redevelopment in the United States. Examples of article topics include the benefits of engaging residents and professionals in public housing redevelopment planning, thermal discomfort in traditional public housing units with pre-set thermostats, and resident responses to housing voucher relocation outcomes.

References

Agyeman

Evans

2003. “Sustainability in Urban Communities: Building Equity Rights with Sustainable Solutions.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 590:35–53. doi:10.1177/0002716203256565.

Bellantoni

2009. Choice Neighborhoods. http://unca-acf.org/?p=34 (accessed July 7, 2010).

Bohl

2000. “New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner City Neighborhoods.” Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 761–801. doi:10.1080/10511482.2000.9521387.

Cisneros

Engdahl

2009. From Despair to Hope: HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities. Dallas, TX: Taylor Specialty Books.

Clark

V. L. P.

Creswell

J. W.

2007. The Mixed Methods Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Economic Opportunity Act. 1964. http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/751/769950/Documents_Library/eoa1964.htm (accessed March 15, 2011).

Foster-Fishman

P. G.

Cantillon

Pierce

S. J.

Van Egeren

L. A.

2007. “Building an Active Citizenry: The Role of Neighborhood Problems, Readiness, and Capacity for Change.” American Journal of Community Psychology 39 (1–2): 91–106. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0 PMid:17393297.

Garde

2004. “New Urbanism as Sustainable Growth? A Supply Side Story and Its Implications for Public Policy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 24:154–70. doi:10.1177/0739456X04266606.

Gliem

2003. “Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales.” 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7080/572 (accessed July 6, 2010).

10.

Housing and Urban Development. 2009. Funding Highlights. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4801699/FY-2010-Budget (accessed November 10, 2009).

11.

Bentler

P. M.

1999. “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1-55.

12.

Huberman

Miles

M. B.

1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Jacobson

Forsyth

2008. “Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented Development Projects.” Journal of Transport and Land Use 1 (2): 51–88.

14.

Joseph

M. L.

2006. “Is Mixed-Income Development an Antidote to Urban Poverty?” Hosing Policy Debate 17 (2): 209–34.

15.

Joseph

M. L.

2008. “Early Experiences at a New Mixed-Income Redevelopment in Chicago.” Journal of Urban Affairs 30 (3): 229–57. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2008.00394.x.

16.

Kamruzzaman

Baker

Washington

Turrell

2014. “Advance Transit Oriented Development Typology: Case Study in Brisbane, Australia.” Journal of Transport Geography 34:54–70.

17.

Kenny

D. A.

Kaniskan

McCoach

D. B.

2014. “The Performance of RMSEA in Models with Small Degrees of Freedom.”Sociological Methods & Research doi: 10.1177/0049124114543236.

18.

Kieffer

C. H.

1981. “The Emergence of Empowerment: The Development of Participatory Competence Among Individuals in Citizen Organizations.” PhD Dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

19.

Kumpfer

K. L.

Whiteside

H. O.

Wan

A. H.

1997. Community Readiness for Drug Abuse Prevention: Issues, Tips, and Tools. DIANE Publishing. http://ebookdb.org/reading/147B3526745A3011GCG5G269/Community-Readiness-For-Drug-Abuse-Prevention–Issues-Tips-And-Tools

20.

Lingham

2012. Development Theories and Community Development Practices: Trajectory of Changes. In Weil

Reisch

M. S.

Ohmer

M. L.

The Handbook of Community Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc. (2nd edition).

21.

McKnight

1996. A Twenty-First Century Map for Healthy Communities and Families.http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/century.pdf (accessed November 16, 2009).

22.

Muthén

B. O.

du Toit

Spisic

1997. “Robust Inference Using Weighted Least Squares and Quadratic Estimating Equations in Latent Variable Modeling with Categorical and Continuous Outcomes.” Unpublished manuscript. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/muthen/articles/Article_075.pdf

23.

Nakkula

M. J.

Foster

K. C.

Mannes

Bolstrom

2010. “Community Sustainability: Orlando’s Healthy Community Initiative.” Building Healthy Communities for Positive Youth Development 14 (7): 89–100. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5744-3_6.

24.

NORC at the University of Chicago. 2000. Making Connections. http://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/making-connections.aspx (accessed July 13, 2013).

25.

Obama

2009. Remarks by the President at Urban Metropolitan Roundtable. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/A-New-Vision-for-Urban-and-Metropolitan-Policy/ (accessed November 10, 2009).

26.

Obst

Smith

S. G.

Zinkiewicz

2002. “An Exploration of Sense of Community, Part 3: Dimensions and Predictors of Psychological Sense of Community in Geographical Communities.” Journal of Community Psychology 30 (1): 119–33. doi:10.1002/jcop.1054

27.

Ogra

Onatu

2013. “Metropolitan Housing Development in Urban Fringe Areas—Case Study of Three Metropolitan Cities in South Africa: Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni and Tshwane.” 2nd International Conference on Infrastructure Development in Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa.

28.

Ohmer

Beck

2006. “Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations in Poor Communities and Its Relationship to Neighborhood and Organizational Collective Efficacy.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 33 (1): 179–202.

29.

Ohmer

M. L.

Brooks

III . 2012. The Practice of Community Organizing: Comparing and Contrasting Conflict and Consensus Approaches. In Weil

Reisch

M. S.

Ohmer

M. L.

The Handbook of Community Practice. SAGE Publications, Inc. (2nd edition).

30.

Parker

R. N.

Alcaraz

Payne

P. R.

2011. “Community Readiness for Change and Youth Violence Prevention: A Tale of Two Cities.” American Journal of Community Psychology 48 (1–2): 97–105.

31.

Parsons

1999. “Assess Helping Processes and Client Outcomes in Empowerment Practice: Amplifying Client Voice and Satisfying Funding Sources.” In Empowerment Practice in Social Work, edited by Shera

Wells

L. M.

Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

32.

Perkins

D. D.

Florin

Rich

R. C.

Wandersman

Chavis

D. M.

1990. “Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residents’ Blocks: Crime and Community Context.” American Journal of Community Psychology 18:83–115. doi:10.1007/BF00922690.

33.

Plested

B. A.

Edwards

R. W.

Jumper-Thurman

2006. Community Readiness: A Handbook for Successful Change. Fort Collins: Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research.

34.

Popkin

S. J.

Levy

D. K.

Harris

L. E.

Comey

Cunningham

M. K.

Buron

L. F.

2004. “The HOPE VI Program: What About the Residents?” Hosing Policy Debate 15 (2): 385–414. doi:10.1080/10511482.2004.9521506.

35.

Rothman

2007. “Multi Modes of Intervention at the Macro Level.” Journal of Community Practice 15 (4): 11–40.

36.

Saha

Paterson

2008. “Local Government Efforts to Promote the ‘Three Es’ of Sustainable Development: Survey in Medium to Large Cities in the United States.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28:21–37. doi:10.1177/0739456X08321803.

37.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods 1.” American Journal of Sociology 105 (3): 603–51. doi:10.1086/210356.

38.

Silverman

2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text, and Interaction. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

39.

Speer

P. W.

Hughey

1995. “CO: An Ecological Route to Empowerment and Power.” American Journal of Community Psychology 23 (5): 729–48. doi:10.1007/BF02506989 PMid:8851347.

40.

Speer

P. W.

Peterson

2000. “Psychometric Properties of an Empowerment Scale: Testing Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral Domains.” Social Work Research 24 (2): 109–18. doi:10.1093/swr/24.2.109.

41.

Spencer

Ritchie

O’Conner

2003. “Carrying Out Qualitative Analysis.” In Qualitative Research Practice, edited by Ritchie

Lewis

219–62. London: Sage.

42.

Strand

Marullo

Cutforth

Stoecker

Donohue

2003. “Principles of Best Practice for Community-Based Research.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 9 (3): 5–15.

43.

Theodos

Popkin

Guernsey

Getsinger

2010. Inclusive Public Housing: Services for the Hard to House. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

44.

Tilly

1998. “Of Essences and Bonds.” In Durable Inequality, Vol. 2, 40. Univ. of California.

45.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. www.piton.org (accessed March 19, 2010).

46.

Vaccarelli

2014. Sun Valley Neighborhood in Denver to Benefit from $1 Million Grant. http://www.denverpost.com/denver/ci_26816611/sun-valley-neighborhood-denver-benefit-from-1-million-grant (accessed December 1, 2014).

47.

White

2009. HUD Announces $113 Million Available for Public Housing Transformation, Community Revitalization. http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?CONTENT=pr09-119.cfm (accessed November 10, 2009).