Place-Based Initiatives of the Obama Administration: Resident and Community Engagement in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
We share our findings[1]from a national evaluation conducted by Urban Institute and MDRC to research the early implementation of Choice in Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle. We explore the following research questions:
- How do grantees support positive social and economic outcomes for the 1,600 low-income households who are relocating into mixed-income housing?
- How do grantees foster service coordination in the areas of employment, education, and health for the benefit of all households in the neighborhood?
- How have the intended beneficiaries been engaged in planning and to what end?
Methods: This report includes data collected between September 2011 and May 2014, including:
- Key documents, including funding applications, quarterly reports, and budgets;
- Interviews of HUD staff, grantee staff, and key community stakeholders (n=approximately 120);
- Observations of key meetings (n=approximately 50);
- Household survey of residents (n=1,700 residents across 5 cities); and
- Focus groups with residents (n=10 groups).
Results: Choice is designed as a comprehensive approach to community development centered on housing transformation. As such, it can be contextualized as a contemporary empirical example within a broader historical framework of comprehensive community development initiatives that aim to mobilize communities towards social change. Using the literature from the field of community practice, we pose the possibilities and limitations of Choice as a community-based policy intervention (O’Connor, 1999; Rothman, 1974; Sites, Chaskin, & Parks, 2007).
The five sites show promise that Choice will create the foundational conditions that may result in mixed-income neighborhoods. However, these sites face challenges in attracting an economically diverse population of residents due to the challenge of social integration. We distinguish three main categories of valuable interventions: Supporting residents as they undergo relocation; improving service coordination among local providers; and resident engagement and community-building. Considering the complexity of social challenges as well as the discrete financial resources allocated to deliver interventions, grantees have made limited progress.
Implications: Our results shed light on the challenges of community-based, federally funded policy interventions. For service providers working in redevelopment projects, our data suggest the need for early resident support before and during relocation. For officials working in government, our data suggest the need to consider the value of performance management, not just measurement since the tracking of outcomes may have resulted in a diminished focus by grantees on service engagement. Finally, place-based interventions need to consider the importance of elevating resident leadership and other community building efforts in order to manage the integration of diverse populations.
[1] The report will be made public by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, who funded this research. Our research team has completed the data collection and written the draft report.