CAROL S. COLLARD AND VON E. NEBBITTINTRODUCTION
AFRICAN AMERICAN ADOLESCENTS LIVING IN urban public housing are exposed to positive and negative influences from their immediate community. Many youth experience favorable outcomes despite living in public housing; they complete their education and go on to lead productive lives. The reasons are varied and not definitive, but there is commonality in the association of individual resiliency, familial support, and community cohesion with more favorable youth outcomes. As chapters 3 and 8 demonstrate, community cohesion plays an important role in influencing a youth’s positive adaptation.
However, the current conditions of many public housing developments and the surrounding environs often do not foster strong community cohesion. Hay et al. (2007) examined the correlation between delinquent behavior and the level of community poverty; they observed that the lower the collective socioeconomic status of a community, the more likely a child is to engage in deviant behavior. Although efforts to positively affect individual behavior and attitudes are essential to appropriate youth development, it is folly to not recognize the importance of place as an influencer of behavior.
This chapter examines the national decline of public housing and current policies and programs designed to revitalize it. Despite their flaws, current public housing policy initiatives suggest significantly improved conditions for families. The favorable impact on quality of life for public housing residents in turn indicates the likelihood of a favorable effect on the level of community cohesion.
THE DECLINE OF PUBLIC HOUSING
Initially conceived in the 1930s and 1940s to rid the urban landscape of its slums, public housing was intended as an interim solution to help families stabilize and transition out of their impoverished circumstances. It is painfully ironic then that the perception and use of this vital resource would later morph into a dumping ground for the disenfranchised. Over the next 50 years, political and social forces skewed by inequities of race and class have distorted the mission of public housing, making it the primary resource for housing the chronically poor and marginalized.
Under the guise of urban renewal, public housing proved to be a useful vehicle to perpetuate segregation and isolate certain neighborhoods according to race and socioeconomic status. Often situated in areas removed from major employment centers, public housing developments grew increasingly undesirable as a housing option for those who could opt to not live there. The tenant mix became less economically diverse and largely populated by households headed by single mothers who were marginally educated, chronically unemployed, and welfare-dependent (Bloom 2008; Turner 2009). Furthermore, because many of the local housing authorities grappled with reduced funding, public housing was further crippled by inadequate management practices and absent security, which created unfettered opportunities for illegal drug trafficking and violent criminal activity (Katz 2009; Turner 2009; Vale 2002). This characterization is particularly true in major urban areas, where an estimated two-thirds of all public housing residents are located (Coulibaly 1998; Turner 2009; Vale 2002). Too often, the inevitable outcomes are environments that are as bad—and in some instances, worse—than the slums they sought to eliminate. According to Vale (2002:8), “Once public housing became reconceptualized as a publicly funded resource for coping with the needs of the most desperate city-dwellers, public neighborhoods inevitably became treated as storage facilities rather than as communities.”
Along with a declining economy, the 1980s also launched a period of significant increases in drug use and crime. This marked shift is believed to be largely connected to the introduction of crack cocaine to the inner cities (Katz 2009; Turner 2009; Vale 2002). Witnessing the change, the remaining households that could afford to escape to the suburbs or to better neighborhoods quickly did so. For those remaining, the rapid rise in drug and gang activity coupled with inadequate municipal solutions made impoverished neighborhoods, particularly public housing communities, a haven for the criminal element and a trap for those with no safer place to go. With few alternatives, youngsters found the neighborhood drug lords and other criminal elements to be deceptively tempting role models.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLACE
Critical to human development over the life course is the ongoing connection to place. The place, or the physical environments, we inhabit have a role in affecting behavior and well-being (Bell et al. 1996; Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz 1999; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff 1995). A critical subcomponent of self-identity is place identity (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff 1995). From infancy to adolescence, the earliest environmental influences—home, school, and neighborhood—are where some of the most significant social roles are learned. These are the places where an individual experiences the beginning of efficacy and develops a sense of mastery to use, change, and derive satisfaction from his or her environment (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff 1995).
The positive and negative experiences attendant to each place informs the individual and shapes his or her environmental understanding. The individual learns what the expectations are and how to behave for each setting. Importantly, the person learns how and whether he or she is valued from environmentally transmitted cues. That knowledge, in turn, shapes self-perception and efficacy in those and other settings.
The physical design of most public housing developments, although initially intended to symbolize a new and better neighborhood, eventually devolved into stigmatizing and oppressive places to inhabit (Coulibaly 1998; Vale 2002). Many were massive, high-rise apartment complexes that were poorly constructed and maintained. Commonly known as “the projects,” they were often sterile environments with minimal architectural features or amenities (Turner 2009; Vale 2002). Because most public housing developments are also located in the poorest, most isolated neighborhoods, they are often considered the focal point of the area’s crime and blight.
Studies have shown that the quality and location of our homes and neighborhoods can often impact how we function and how we are regarded by society (Dreier, Mollenkopf, & Swanstrom 2004). Annison (2000:251) asserted that the “creation and experience of home is an important contributor to a person’s humanity and their positive social perception by others.” Dreier, Mollenkopf, & Swanstrom (2004:27) affirmed, “Where we live has a powerful effect on the choices we have and our capacity to achieve a high quality of life.” Stating that you live in “the projects” often automatically conveys a certain meaning or stereotypical perception about your life experience, without even having to say in which project you live (Vale 2002). The physical and social space inhabitants occupy in “the projects” can both perpetuate and reinforce perceptions of inferiority and collective dysfunction. Tragically, in far too many instances, those negative perceptions are embraced by society and internalized by its inhabitants. Given this context, it is not surprising that findings indicate that the collective efficacy of a neighborhood is thus compromised and the cohesion of the community suffers as the concentration of poverty in a neighborhood rises (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley 2002).
ADOLESCENT WELL-BEING AND ITS CONNECTION TO PLACE
According to Coll et al. (1996), children and adolescents living in neighborhoods like public housing are simultaneously exposed to inhibiting and promotive influences from their immediate community. Nevertheless, many of these youth still experience favorable outcomes (chapters 5 and 8). They complete their education and go on to lead productive lives. The reasons are varied and not definitive. However, based on the studies featured in this text, there is commonality in the association of individual efficacy, familial support, and community cohesion with more favorable youth outcomes.
Chapter 6 discusses the concept of community cohesion, which is understood to be the supportive relationships beyond a youth’s immediate home environment (Gutman, Sameroff, & Eccles 2002). Social support is generally recognized as the network of peers and caring adults within a youth’s community. Its quality or effectiveness is evaluated on the basis of people’s perceptions of how community members relate to each other (Rountree & Warner 1999; Garbarino & Kostelny 1992). As asserted in chapter 3, community cohesion plays an important role in influencing a youth’s positive adaptation. Other findings indicate that higher community cohesion is associated with higher generalized self-efficacy (Nebbitt 2009), which in turn is associated with lower alcohol and other drug use in adolescents. Chapter 8 also cites community cohesion as a protective factor against adverse mental health outcomes for adolescents exposed to the risk factors of deviant peers and perceived neighborhood risk.
Given the grim and potentially dangerous environments that often characterize impoverished urban neighborhoods and affect community cohesion, there is legitimate concern regarding the influence of place on adolescent well-being. Social disorganization theory suggests that people living in low-income situations experience stress that is a result of lack of social control (Hay et al. 2007). The lack of control results in maladaptive coping mechanisms that manifest themselves in delinquent behavior.
Galster and Santiago (2006) found that children and youth living in inner-city neighborhoods characterized by high levels of poverty and social disorganization have poorer health outcomes, lower levels of academic achievement, fewer employment opportunities, heightened vulnerability to gang recruitment, and greater exposure to violence relative to similar children living in more advantaged neighborhoods. The child’s exposure to violence, in turn, heightens the likelihood of their own involvement in violent situations (Corcoran & Chaudry 1997; Galster & Santiago 2006; Okundaye 1999; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley 2002).
There are hopeful indicators, however (as reported in chapters 5–8), which suggest that changes in public housing policy may contribute to heightened community cohesion, yielding positive outcomes for the young people in public housing. Chapter 7 cites research that examines the effects of community cohesion on psychological (internalizing) functioning in urban youth and youth’s externalizing behavior (e.g., substance abuse). The chapter also reported findings that the relationship between exposure to delinquent peers and substance abuse is moderated by increases in community cohesion. This observation may have important implications for youth in urban public housing, as chapter 7 cited other scholars (Aneshensel & Sucoff 1996; Zimmerman et al. 2000) who have made similar observations.
It should be noted that while protective factors include family and social support, the efficacy of these factors is also susceptible to the influences of place. Parents struggling to cope with their own environmental stressors may experience challenges that could negatively affect their roles as parents and heads of households (Corcoran & Chaudry 1997; Gallagher 1993; Galster & Santiago 2006). Along with improved public housing conditions, community cohesion will be strengthened when these young people can be assured access to a competitive public education and adequate community resources. That is why we must look critically at public housing and their environs as a resource for increasing the likelihood of positive youth outcomes.
A REINVENTION OF PUBLIC HOUSING
Housing policymakers have returned to public housing’s original mission to improve housing conditions and foster upward mobility for low-income citizens. There is a chastened recognition that the concentration of poverty without opportunity for escape is disastrous not only for those trapped in the cycle but also for the society at large. Also clear is the need for more to be provided than just housing. In addition to creating quality, affordable dwellings, emphasis now is on creating or facilitating the kinds of environments that allow diversity of race and class, provide vital community services and supports, and are likely to foster heightened community cohesion.
Current public housing initiatives developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development include HOPE VI, Moving to Opportunity, and Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. Integral to public housing’s transformation and goal of deconcentrating poverty (Katz 2009) is increased availability of Housing Choice vouchers (also known as Section 8 vouchers), which ideally promotes choice among low-income recipients as well as access to and integration of less impoverished neighborhoods.
HOPE VI
The earliest example of the repositioning of public housing was Techwood Homes, located in Atlanta, Georgia. Built in 1936, Techwood Homes was the nation’s first public housing development. Sixty years later, it was also distinguished as being among the first to be demolished to make way for a reinvention of public housing that uses public–private partnerships to own and manage its developments (Atlanta Housing Authority 2010). Using a federal program called Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI), the Atlanta Housing Authority partnered with a private developer to create Centennial Place, as it is now known. Master-planned as a mixed-income community, Centennial Place integrates public housing with market-rate apartments. Situated in the shadow of Georgia Tech University, the Centennial Place plan also included development of additional upscale owner-occupied housing, a charter school, a new YMCA, and retail centers.
Since the inception of the HOPE VI program in 1992, an estimated 86,000 of the 1.3 million public housing units nationwide have been identified as severely distressed and targeted for demolition. The plan is to eventually replace them all with newly constructed low-rise and townhome developments (Katz 2009).
Proponents point to the contributions that HOPE VI projects have made in revitalizing neighborhoods, of the heightened perception of safety among residents, and of the furtherance of the deconcentration of poverty in urban areas. Studies also point to improved outcomes regarding school quality and access to community resources (Turner 2010). Most of the criticism of HOPE VI centers around three concerns:
1. Noncompliance has occurred regarding the unit-for-unit replacement policy. Because there already exists a shortage of affordable housing, a failure to allot the same number of public housing units in the redeveloped sites reduces the inventory of affordable housing in that jurisdiction (Crowley 2009; Marquis & Ghosh 2008).
2. Strict eligibility guidelines do not guarantee housing for every displaced household. Not all public housing residents are eligible to apply to return to the newly constructed development, and not all receive housing subsidies to relocate (Crowley 2009; Marquis & Ghosh 2008).
3. Public housing authorities and developers fail to take into account the importance of loss and disconnection from social and communities ties that displaced residents experience postrelocation (Crowley 2009; Vale 2002).
Moving to Opportunity
The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration program emphasizes the benefits to residents of exercising personal choice to move to less impoverished neighborhoods. Modeled after the Gautreaux initiative, MTO asserts that families would realize improved life circumstance and better outcomes if they could have access to better schools and more social and community resources (Katz 2009; Turner 2009). The program is currently based in five public housing authorities (Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City). Public housing residents are issued Housing Choice vouchers and are counseled to locate housing in less impoverished neighborhoods.
Having a housing voucher is no guarantee of upward mobility (Turner 2009). By and large, although most African American families do use the vouchers to move out of public housing, they often ended up in nearby neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty in order to remain close to family and friends. However, follow-up studies tracking outcomes for former public housing residents do indicate that most are better off, despite still experiencing poverty (Turner 2009). Turner (2009) reported that former residents acknowledge improvement in housing and neighborhood quality, reduced incidence of violent crime, and better schools for their children.
Rosenbaum, Reynolds, and DeLuca (2002) conducted a qualitative study on participants of the Gautreaux program, which evaluated the relationship between housing and community and individual efficacy. The “culture of poverty” theory was contrasted with the “geography of opportunity” theory in determining if low-income residents from one of Chicago’s public housing developments would continue to demonstrate low efficacy even after moving to a more affluent neighborhood. The results of the study showed that the change in environment influenced efficacy. The “behaviours seen in ‘housing project residents’ do not indicate inherent capabilities. These behaviours are not seen in former ‘housing project residents’ after they move if the random assignment placed them in middle-class suburbs” (81).
Similarly, a longitudinal study (Boston 2005) conducted in the metropolitan Atlanta area evaluated the outcomes of public housing residents moving to mixed-income settings in suburban areas surrounding Atlanta’s city limits. Residents were followed over a 7-year period. The study reported that residents who relocated experienced higher rates of employment, better health conditions, better schools for their children, and better housing conditions. Boston reported: “Focus group and survey results from resident tracking studies in Atlanta indicate that the change in location played a major role in improving households’ motivations” (401). Boston also cited another study of public housing residents that was conducted by the Georgia State School of Social Work. He reported that their findings also indicated that most participants acknowledged experiencing some aspect of personal growth or development that they associated with relocation.
Critics acknowledge that while there are significant benefits to the program, it is important to recognize that the families in transition often experience a sense of loss when leaving their public housing community (Clampet-Lundquist 2010; Turner 2009, 2010), which may lead to a lowered sense of environmental mastery from the disconnection with the familiar, both of social ties and place.
Choice Neighborhood Initiative
Launched by the Obama administration, the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is the newest affordable housing initiative designed to improve the plight of distressed neighborhoods and continue the effort to deconcentrate poverty (Turner 2010). The initiative seeks not to permanently relocate families but instead to leverage public–private partnerships to revitalize the existing neighborhoods. Along with improved housing conditions, the effort will focus on providing coveted community amenities, particularly on improving schools and related services that affect child well-being.
As noted in chapter 7, given the role that community cohesion plays in influencing a youth’s positive adaptation, social work scholars and practitioners must reexamine prevailing perceptions of such communities. Indeed, despite their often deplorable conditions, such communities have both the resources and potential to solve their own problems if they are empowered to do so.
The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative may offer some appeal to detractors of both the HOPE VI and MTO programs because the emphasis is on improving conditions where low-income households currently live, offering the services and supports that would make these neighborhoods attractive to other, more economically self-sufficient families.
INFLUENCE OF ECOLOGICAL TRANSITION ON WELL-BEING
Rosenbaum, Reynolds, and DeLuca (2002:81) cited compelling evidence on how the ecological transition of changing neighborhoods can positively affect efficacy and subsequent behaviors among low-income households:
Unlike the culture of poverty model espoused by some researchers, it has been seen that the very same individuals who report having very little efficacy over their life experiences in housing projects subsequently show considerable efficacy in middle-class suburbs. Places matter. The attributes of neighbourhoods, and the experiences provided by neighbourhoods have profound effects on people’s capabilities and their ideas about what they can accomplish.
CONCLUSION
Although promising, the changes underway regarding public housing policy currently affect a very small percentage of all public housing units. Furthermore, ongoing prejudice and discrimination in urban and suburban communities will limit the expanded use of Housing Choice vouchers in more affluent communities. The expanded scope of programs and policies expected to be implemented under the Obama administration are encouraging. There appears to be recognition that while current conditions in public housing are not conducive to healthy development of our youth, there is value in investing and revitalizing existing communities. Is it realistic, however, to expect that the disparities of class and race will not continue to influence future policy decisions, posing prolonged discrimination and disadvantages for the poor? The research shows promise, but it will prove to be a daunting challenge.
Despite their flaws, the current trends in public housing policy point to improved housing and community conditions for families, which in turn suggest a direct and favorable effect on the level of community cohesion. Based on the findings reported in this volume, community cohesion appears to be integral to nurturing individual efficacy and to mitigating the negative influences from the environment among adolescents. The neighborhood context does matter. The neighborhood in which a home is located matters because the impact of neighborhood on well-being is undeniable. We remain hopeful that, in the long term, the expectations of success and well-being for adolescents living in public housing will not be determined by their address but by their character and abilities.
