Promoting Inclusive Social Dynamics in Mixed-Income Communities: Promising Practices - Mixed-Income Strategic Alliance January 2019
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Promoting Inclusive Social Dynamics in Mixed-Income Communities: Promising Practices Mixed-Income Strategic Alliance January 2019
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
The Imperative of a Greater Focus on Promoting Inclusive Social
Dynamics 3
Setting the Scene: Contexts of Social Isolation and Exclusion 5
Conventional Community
Building in Mixed-Income Communities and Its Shortfalls 5
r
How to Promote More Inclusive Social Dynamics? 6
Examples of Promising Practices for Cultivating Inclusive Social
Dynamics in Mixed-Income Settings 6
Conclusion 10
Citations and Acknowledgments 12
Summary Tables 13
Resource Readings 17
2
Executive Summary document on Implications for Action builds off
the lessons here and puts forth specific rec-
This report considers the key challenges ommendations for practitioners, policymakers,
of promoting “inclusive social dynamics” in funders, researchers, residents, and communi-
mixed-income communities, presents key ty members to cultivate social inclusion.
principles and approaches to achieve greater
success, and spotlights promising efforts to The Imperative of a Greater Focus
advance these approaches. The Mixed-Income
Strategic Alliance produced this report as part on Promoting Inclusive Social
of a broader inquiry regarding social inclusion Dynamics
in mixed-income communities. Our aim is to
help advance strategic action in the community Mixed-income communities have the prom-
development field to more effectively promote ise of providing a conducive environment for
a shared sense of belonging, increased social residents from a variety of social and economic
cohesion and broadened voice and influence backgrounds to thrive and lead healthy lives.
in order to increase equitable outcomes in One primary lesson that has emerged from
mixed-income communities. The report was past mixed-income community interventions
created through scans of the field, evidence (particularly where public housing sites have
r mapping, reviews of the literature, and in-depth been redeveloped into new mixed-income
interviews with practitioners. communities) is that providing high quality
housing and supportive services is not enough
Our findings suggest that conventional com- to ensure that low-income families fully thrive
munitybuilding strategies in mixed-income in the revitalized communities.1 While there are
settings often fall short in overcoming barriers clear benefits of living in a socially and eco-
to inclusion because they do not address isola- nomically diverse community, there are also
tion and exclusion across individual, social and significant social challenges. It has become
structural levels. Recognizing that perceptual clear that while mixed-income communities
dynamics, relational dynamics, and power and may facilitate residential integration, they
influence dynamics are all at play in mixed-in- do not ensure meaningful and positive social
come communities, we propose that success- integration. Deeply held attitudes and be-
ful mixed-income interventions must address haviors—including perceptions of difference,
all three of these dynamics in order to cultivate othering, lack of trust, and bias—can reinforce
an inclusive community where everyone feels the marginalization of low-income residents in
they belong and can thrive. Spotlighting four a mixed-income setting. Today’s political and
promising models—trauma-informed commu- social environment of race-baiting and exclu-
nity building, Trusted Space Partners’ commu- sion exacerbates and complicates the us-ver-
nity network-building, Kindred’s parent cohort sus-them group segregation dynamics that
groups in mixed-race, mixed-income schools, often naturally emerge in mixed-income com-
and Regent Park’s equitable governance munities. For example, we recently learned of
models—we examine how these efforts seek a couple of new homeowners in a Seattle-area
to transform perceptions, relationships, and mixed-income development who, upon com-
underlying exclusive structural conditions. We ing out to the community barbeque, asked the
identify specific components of these inter- staff community builder (to her dismay): “This is
ventions, including a comprehensive theory of great, how can we start a barbeque for home-
change, community stewardship, and strategic owners?” suggesting the instinct to create
implementation, which should be carefully con- spaces exclusively for people like themselves.
sidered and incorporated. A companion doc-
ument presents a Conceptual Framework for The social isolation that often emerges in
Inclusive Social Dynamics. Another companion mixed-income communities may be com-
3
pounded by individual trauma, health issues, Imperative #1: Promote an enhanced and
as well as persistent barriers to resources and sustained vision, clarity, and communica-
economic opportunity. That social isolation tion among all stakeholders about a shared
may further compound pre-existing health commitment to inclusion and equity in the
issues, having been shown to be as harmful mixed-income environment with a keen antic-
as clinical risk factors.2 Furthermore, there are ipation of the challenging social dynamics due
often limited opportunities for active and eq- to the socioeconomic and racial diversity in
uitable participation in local deliberation and these communities.
decision-making in socioeconomically diverse
environments. While conventional “community Imperative #2: Implement intentional strate-
building” efforts aim to engage residents and gies to translate this shared vision into durable
provide spaces for interaction, research shows policies, practices, and routines that promote
that it is particularly difficult to promote and inclusive social dynamics.
sustain meaningful relationships, particularly
across race and class differences.3 Therefore, Trusted Space Partners, which we highlight
in addition to the financial, operational, eco- later in this report, advocates for an “oper-
nomic, legal, political, and other consequential ating culture shift,” which refers to a signif-
“dynamics” that are at play in mixed-income icant change in the way that institutions,
r communities, we assert that “social dynam- organizations, and individuals take (or fail to
ics” are particularly critical to the health and take) responsibility for cultivating inclusive
well-being of all residents. mixed-income communities.5 Like a Culture
of Health paradigm shift, a culture of inclusive
We identify three main categories that make social dynamics would completely shift think-
up what we refer to as “social dynamics”: per- ing and action in mixed-income communities.
ceptual dynamics, relational dynamics, and In Trusted Space Partners’ view, to achieve
influence and power dynamics.4 Perceptual mixed-income communities where all resi-
dynamics concern individual identity, efficacy, dents (and professionals) can thrive, existing
and self-agency; aspirations for self and fam- community and institutional contexts that
ily; neighborhood frames; and perceptions of are so often (and increasingly) shaped by fear,
one’s role in the broader community and so- division, and isolation must be replaced by an
cietal context. Relational dynamics concern operating culture grounded in aspiration and
how individuals are socially connected to each connectedness. They assert that creating and
other, which encompasses factors like social sustaining mixed-income communities where
capital, social support, social networks, and all can thrive requires stakeholders (planners,
social cohesion. Influence and power dynam- developers, property managers, service pro-
ics concern how individuals can impact their viders, institutional representatives, funders,
surroundings and environment through voice and resident leaders among many others)
and local influence, participation, governance, to navigate this endeavor with more holistic,
collective efficacy, and informal social control. proactive, and human-centered approaches
Thus our framing of social dynamics is broader than are characteristic of most past and exist-
than more typical frames of social cohesion, ing efforts. This process demands intentional
social relations or social inclusion. practices and spaces, dedicated capacity, and a
deep commitment to shifting the way we think
We believe there are two main imperatives at about, address, and encourage relationships
this stage of policy and practice to ensure that both among residents and among community
all people who live and work in mixed-income members, professionals, and residents.
communities feel like they belong, can thrive
socially, and can influence life in their commu- In this report, we first briefly describe the ex-
nity. isting individual, social, and structural exclusion
4that establishes the imperative to promote The structural level includes differential means
inclusive social dynamics in mixed-income and access to quality services, amenities, and
communities. We then provide a brief overview educational opportunities, disparities in partic-
of the shortcomings of conventional communi- ipation and voice in decision-making by race
ty-building efforts. Next, we highlight promis- and class, economic exclusion and income dis-
ing models and key insights drawn from those parities, and structural and institutional racism.
examples about how to effectively pursue this
endeavor. In our view, the most promising practices to
promote inclusive social dynamics address
Setting the Scene: Contexts of exclusionary conditions at all three levels.
Social Isolation and Exclusion
Conventional Community
To effectively cultivate inclusive social dy- Building in Mixed-Income Commu-
namics across race and class differences, it nities and Its Shortfalls
is essential that those working to promote
mixed-income communities have a clear sense In many mixed-income community settings,
of the existing self-perpetuating conditions of particularly in planned mixed-income devel-
isolation and exclusion. These conditions are opments, there have been explicit efforts to
r at play at the individual level, social level, and promote engagement and a sense of communi-
structural level.6 ty, in recognition of naturally-existing divisions
between residents. Through activities such as
The individual level includes physical, mental, social events and programs that are open to ev-
emotional, and behavioral health challeng- eryone in the community, these efforts gener-
es, and internalized racism. These conditions ally intervene at the social level with a focus on
create barriers to meaningful participation in providing opportunities for individuals to mix
community life, generate negative neighbor- with one another. These strategies may include
hood frames and limit perceptions of aspira- intentionally shaping the physical space to en-
tion, belonging, self-agency, and the ability to courage social mixing through common areas
envision and effect personal change. and other design features, hosting activities
and events on site, providing shared amenities
The social level includes disconnection, oth- and institutions, and implementing place-mak-
ering, interpersonal racism and discrimination, ing strategies. Creating attractive spaces and
stigma, and negative perceptions of peers. opportunities for residents to interact, while
These conditions limit social interaction, the important, is limited, and fails to reflect the
formation of social networks, conflict resolu- individual–level conditions of trauma, poor
tion, shared learning, empathy, and compro- self-perception and low self-agency, prevalent
mise. Because of these conditions, a collective stigmatization, and broader structural condi-
sense of community often does not naturally tions in which social divisions are embedded.
emerge, particularly across lines of difference. They also generally focus on resident-to-resi-
Even in places with relatively high levels of dent connection rather than genuine engage-
neighboring (whereby individuals establish ment or relationship-building with those in
shared expectations and values that enable positions of local and institutional power.
them to live well together), relationships most
often emerge amongst people of similar hous- Some efforts intentionally combine supportive
ing tenures, incomes, and races. Research also services (sometimes referred to as “human
shows that the more diverse a community is, capital” or “social services”) with communi-
the less interaction occurs, even among indi- ty-building efforts. Through case management,
viduals of the same social group.7 new programs and supports that focus on
5health, education, and economic self-sufficien- ditions that perpetuate isolation and exclu-
cy, this approach tends to incorporate both sion and their implications?
social-level and individual-level strategies to • Have community stakeholders developed
overcome components of isolation and exclu- and articulated a commitment to self-re-
sion. These approaches recognize that promot- flection, transformation, and an operating
ing individual well-being creates a more level culture shift away from the status quo?
social playing field, which is essential to the
cultivation of more inclusive social dynamics. Who? Community Stewardship
Most mixed-income community interventions • Are residents, community members, com-
fail to incorporate a focus on structural-level munity-based professionals, and other
inclusion such as equitable participation, inclu- institutional stakeholders “stewarding” the
sive governance, and equitable informal social process of cultivating an inclusive mixed-in-
control (without which public housing and other come community? Are there intentional ef-
low-income residents’ actions and voice and forts to identify such community “stewards”
access to space may be constrained and dis- and build their local capacity?
proportionately monitored and sanctioned). • Is there a shared understanding that every-
Where tenant councils or other structures for one has a role and that promoting inclusive
public housing residents do exist, they tend to social dynamics is not a task that can be
r be less influential than condo associations or assigned to a particular person or silo of an
structures for residents of market-rate units. In initiative?
failing to interrogate the equity of formal and • Is there comfort with the need for both
informal rules, regulations, governance struc- resident leadership and mobilization for
tures, and norms, these approaches do not advocacy and power-building to promote
recognize the underlying culture and pervasive the interests of marginalized residents and
systems that perpetuate fear, isolation, and community stewardship to cultivate com-
division. mon ground and a shared, inclusive institu-
tional, and community operating culture?
How to Promote More Inclusive
Social Dynamics? How? Strategic Implementation
• What is the organizational infrastructure
We offer the following questions to guide deci- that will incubate, support, and sustain this
sion-makers seeking more effective and dura- process and how is it resourced?
ble approaches to promoting inclusive social • How can an “operating culture shift” to
dynamics in mixed-income communities. cultivate inclusive social dynamics be in-
corporated into all routines, practices, and
Why? The Theory of Change activities?
• Is there a comprehensive strategy in place
that addresses perceptual, relational, and
Examples of Promising Practices
influence/power challenges and opportuni- for Cultivating Inclusive Social
ties? Does this comprehensive strategy em- Dynamics in Mixed-Income Set-
ploy a trauma-informed/healing-informed,
asset-based (as opposed to needs-based)
tings
frame?
Each of the models highlighted below is no-
• Have stakeholders jointly named the exist-
table for its explicit approach to addressing
ing underlying historical and enduring con-
individual, social, and structural barriers. Unlike
6programs and approaches that mainly encour- San Francisco.9 Today, the trauma-informed
age interaction amongst diverse community community building approach is influencing
members, each of these examples is grounded place-based initiatives around the country,
in a theory that acknowledges the underlying but the model does not have any centralized
exclusionary conditions and a need to radically home. In April 2018, the Urban Institute, which
shift existing mental models, operating culture, helped implement these strategies in Benning
and practices. It should be noted that each of Terrace, published a practical guide to inform
these examples are relatively new and all are practitioners, housing authorities, and other
still being piloted and modified on a relatively stakeholders on trauma-informed community
small scale of a single site or a few sites. So building and engagement.10 There is additional
while these practices are indeed promising, work needed to identify specific policy levers
there is still much to be learned about their to deploy and advance a TICB approach (please
implementation, results, sustainability, and see our Implications for Action memo for our
scalability.8 emerging work on how a range of actors can
take action to apply these practices).
Trauma-Informed Community Building
The strategies and desired impacts of TICB
Trauma-Informed Community Building (TICB) are conceptualized at the individual, social,
r is an approach to community-based work that and structural level. At the individual level,
prioritizes community healing and empower- trauma-informed strategies strive to provide
ment (see summary tables for more details repeated and consistent opportunities for
about the theory, strategies, and implemen- individuals to engage with the opportunities for
tation contexts on each of the four models personal and community support, and offer re-
highlighted below). This approach requires liable incentives and personal rewards. In order
stakeholders to recognize individual and com- to increase trust, motivation, and self-efficacy,
munity-level trauma, which may have resulted strategies aim to meet residents at their cur-
from violence, racism, and historical harms. rent state of readiness and to avoid overprom-
Such traumas cause a deep distrust of new ising or introducing unrealistic expectations.
programs and leadership. TICB applies the The goal is to help residents envision change
trauma-informed lens from the social services in their lives—despite their past experiences
field to community-building efforts, to better with people and systems failing them—and to
acknowledge and address the deep challenges increase their capacity to seek out this change.
of individual, community, and structural con- One exemplary aspect of the TICB model is its
texts in high-poverty neighborhoods. Unlike efforts to proactively create space and incen-
in the social services arena, in a community tives for community members to take on lead-
setting the focus can be on the experiences of ership roles. At the social level, engagement
and implications for all community members, and regular peer-to-peer activities are rooted in
including professionals. This method emphasiz- personal sharing and mutual support to create
es long-term consistency, reliability, and trans- shared positive experiences and trust between
parency, and is particularly attentive to how key residents and staff and to cultivate community
actors position themselves to avoid reinforcing leadership. At the structural or “systems” level,
inequity. TICB approaches aim to build partnerships for
long-term investment. Using community voices
TICB was first developed by Emily Weinstein, to communicate a sustainable shared vision to
formerly of BRIDGE Housing, and Jessica Wolin, stakeholders, institutions can then better ad-
of San Francisco State University in the course dress local needs and opportunities. The goal
of their work with the HOPE SF mixed-income is for system processes to better drive strat-
public housing transformation initiative in egies based on community input and assets.
7The model acknowledges that without these and builds trusting relationships among diverse
changes, systems will continue to fail individu- community residents and stakeholders.
als, reinforcing inequities and deepening mis-
trust of those in positions of power. Trusted Space Partners was founded by Bill
Traynor and Frankie Blackburn, who are cur-
TICB is still relatively early in its implemen- rently based in North Carolina. Traynor honed
tation and evolution. In practice thus far, the his perspectives and approaches on commu-
trauma-informed community building lens has nity network-building during his time leading
proven effective at expanding awareness and Lawrence CommunityWorks in Massachusetts
shifting narratives, but its outcomes have not and Blackburn did so while leading Impact Sil-
yet been well measured. For example, trau- ver Spring in Maryland. Today, members of the
ma-informed language may be incorporated Trusted Space team train and coach city plan-
in strategy documents, but implementation ning departments, public housing authorities,
efforts thus far have lacked clear mechanisms real estate developers, property owners, man-
to track and evaluate outcomes. Another key agers, residents, and community partners and
challenge is the task of institutionalizing and provide on-the-ground implementation and
sustaining a TICB focus. For example, at the technical assistance in numerous cities cross
Potrero Hill public housing development in San the U.S.
Francisco where this approach was originated,
r there has been considerable staff turnover. Trusted Space’s community network-building
Weinstein and Wolin are no longer involved processes are particularly intentional about
in the site effort, there is a new development weaving together individual-level, communi-
team in place, and the relocation and construc- ty-level, and systems-level transformations,
tion phase of the mixed-income transformation through both a goal shift and an operating shift
has generated considerable disruption to local amongst stakeholders and community mem-
activities. Finally, there is a danger that a trau- bers. At the root of the Trusted Space theory
ma-informed focus will reinforce a deficit focus, is the belief that every individual—whether a
without a strong associated focus on existing decision-maker or not—has wisdom and val-
resilience and on healing. ue to contribute. When provided intentional
spaces and opportunities to exchange, individ-
Trusted Space Partners uals across lines of difference can engage in
relationships of trust and mutual benefit. The
The Trusted Space Partners model of com- model calls for a goal shift—from distinct goals
munity network building aims to create a new held by disparate stakeholders, residents, and
organizational and community operating cul- neighbors in a community—to a shared aspira-
ture rooted in connection and aspiration. This tional vision. As referenced earlier, the model
process works to shift energy and focus away also calls for an operating culture shift in the
from existing siloed institutional and communi- way that individuals and groups interact and
ty processes that can foster isolation, division, operate (moving away from compliance-driven,
and fear. Rather than working primarily through risk-averse and fear-driven routines and prac-
resident organizations and associations, the tices). The Trusted Space team helps build net-
Trusted Space Model aims to create a new, works and promote operating culture shifts in a
fresh, inclusive, flexible, and open community number of settings and communities, including
network with no gatekeeping and many ways the affordable housing and mixed-income com-
to join and participate. Using creative, dynamic munity space.
open space techniques and intentional practic-
es to foster meaningful exchange, community The notion of an operating culture shift has
network building identifies shared interests been generally compelling to partners in
various community initiatives. There are ele-
8ments of the strategy that have been relatively Kindred
easy for community members to launch and
adopt, such as the monthly NeighborUp Night Kindred, founded in Washington, DC by Laura
gathering for residents, staff and community Wilson Phelan, is an organization that builds
members, in which interaction is fast-paced structures and relationships for parents from
and curated with numerous opportunities to diverse backgrounds to advance racially and
derive actionable value from time spent with economically just outcomes for children within
others that evening. The “party with a pur- their school communities. The foundation of
pose” elements are the same every time: heavy the model involves carefully curated small dia-
recruitment for diverse attendance, a lively logue groups in the educational setting to bring
and energetic welcome, a visually festive and together diverse parents to build interracial,
positively disruptive atmosphere that primes interclass relationships and create the space
attendees for a different meeting experience, for honest conversations and action-oriented
a “new and good” opening in a seated circle projects about equity. Kindred aims to shift
where all voices in the room are heard saying attitudes and behaviors of parents in a way that
something positive within the first 15 minutes will change school behaviors, and resource al-
of the event, a “table talk” period where meet- location and improve student outcomes. There
ing attendees spontaneously select and host is an explicit focus on equity and coalition
r conversation topics for the evening, a “mar- building with a priority of creating a sustainable
ketplace” in a standing circle when attendees model by training cohorts of parents to lead di-
exchange information and favors or make alogue groups and equity-driven actions on-go-
positive declarations about self-improvement, ing. Kindred’s model includes the intent to build
and finally a “bump and spark” opportunity to a digital platform for parents across schools to
mix and mingle. NeighborUp Night is just one connect on issues of equity. Ultimately, Kin-
“device” in Trusted Space Partners’ community dred’s intention is to create a critical mass of
network-building regimen that also includes parents who, transformed by their interracial,
community pop-ups, steward-seeking, mutual interclass experiences, become lifelong ad-
support cohorts, idea contests, and neighbor- vocates for social justice in their priorities and
circles. actions, including how they raise their children.
While the activities of community net- As of 2018, eight school sites across Washing-
work-building have been relatively easy to ton, DC implement the Kindred model (which
launch, it has proven far harder to ground these is currently designed as a 3-year program). In
activities within a broader, sustained process the coming school year, at least four addition-
of an operating culture shift that meaningfully al sites will be added, with the intent to scale
shifts mindsets about the trajectory and pos- the model through partnerships and training
sibilities for the community, blurs and bridges school-based staff. The model currently is
lines of difference, and elevates residents directly implemented by Kindred staff and
and other community members to a differ- is funded in part by the school (sources vary
ent position of influence in order to shape depending on whether it is a charter school or
decision-making and achieve durable policy public school), but mostly through foundations
and systems change. A key ingredient to help and individual philanthropy.
sustain and deepen the work is the organiza-
tional infrastructure and staffing dedicated to Though a young organization, Kindred has
orchestrating the overall process, integrating invested in two external evaluations of its
these processes into everyday work flow, and program in each year of operation to assess
taking responsibility coordination across vari- whether the intended impact of the program
ous partners involved in the effort. is being realized. These evaluations, available
9online, offer insight into the sustainability of mixed-income, cross-racial groups to promote
the model and stages of Kindred’s theory of individual mindset shifts, meaningful relations,
change. Both studies found that parents who and ultimately advocacy and policy change
participated in Kindred’s program experienced seems like it might be quite applicable to other
a change their beliefs, values and networks, es- settings such as mixed-income housing com-
pecially as related to building empathy, valuing munities.
diversity, increasing their efficacy and diver-
sifying their social capital networks. Further, Regent Park
parents who participated in Kindred accessed
additional resources—either through other Regent Park, a mixed-income community in
parents or the schools. The most recent evalu- Toronto, Canada, has recently instituted an in-
ation, published October 2018, found that there novative governance model meant to increase
was no diminished effect in the school where tenant influence and power in decision-making
parents facilitated the dialogue groups for and build leadership capacity. Regent Park is a
Kindred (vs. Kindred staff) with regard to build- revitalized Toronto Community Housing (THC)
ing trust and community among parents nor in public housing site that began undergoing
discussing issues of race, ethnicity, and equity a mixed-income community transformation
in their schools. in 2009. The mixed-income design includes
r completely separate buildings for subsidized
This evaluation also found promising indica- tenants and condo owners which creates a
tors of whole-school effect from Kindred’s core level of segregation in the community.
programs, including changing school environ- Anticipating that there would be an imbalance
ments to shift the culture to be more equi- of representation and having experienced
ty-driven. For example, at one site parents took adverse social outcomes in prior mixed-income
initiative to draft and post an equity statement. conversions, THC’s plan to revitalize Regent
In addition, they shifted their PTA meetings so Park prioritized social inclusion goals—building
that every other one is held in Spanish with En- a cohesive integrated community while also
glish translation while the other is the reverse, celebrating its diversity—through the creation
to enable a more welcoming, inclusive setting of a Regent Park Social Development Plan.
for families whose first language is Spanish.
These changes have been coupled with a Julio Rigores, the Manager at the Resident
noticeable difference in topics raised on the and Community Services Division at Toronto
parent listserv and in the PTA to focus on creat- Community Housing led the development of
ing equitable opportunity for families to access the current Regent Park governance model
resources. There is also a new comfort level in collaboration with TCH tenants. As of 2018,
in naming race and disadvantage in different this current governance model is only used by
school experiences, and increased parent ac- the Regent Park community, but the goal is to
tivism. Taken together, the evaluations suggest serve as a replicable model across TCH proper-
that the Kindred model has effects at all three ties, and other mixed-income communities.
levels of social dynamics: individual, social, and
structural. The prior system of governance—the Regent
Park Neighbourhood Initiative (RPNI)—had
Unlike the other examples highlighted here, played a key role in promoting resident voices
the Kindred model operates in mixed-income (including early advocacy for the community’s
schools rather than mixed-income housing revitalization). RPNI disbanded, however, in ear-
communities, and thus the social dynamics ly 2014 due to leadership and financial issues,
are shaped by a different set of organizational leaving tenants without a working governance
and systemic realities and constraints. How- structure. In accordance with the Regent Park
ever, the sophisticated model of cultivating
10Social Development Plan and in response to structures exist both at the individual building
the Neighbourhood Integration Study con- level as well as the neighborhood level (through
ducted in partnership with the University of collaborations between TCH buildings and Re-
Toronto, THC aimed to develop an innovative gent Park condo boards). At the individual level,
new system that would ensure influence for THC offers opportunities for leadership train-
THC residents in the governance of Regent ing and capacity building through workshop
Park. In anticipation of a 70 to 30 proportion of curriculums that focus on topics such as civic
market-rate residents to THC (subsidized) resi- engagement, marketing and communications,
dents in the new mixed-income community, the community organizing, and advocacy. These
new system (and notably the process used to workshops begin with training and capacity
design it) would build tenant capacity and rep- building for elected representatives. These
resentation so that they could be more equal processes are also meant to promote social co-
participants and decision-makers as it relates hesion and more meaningful integration in the
to important decisions such as funding streams new mixed-income community. With building
and service provision. celebrations, which are local gatherings within
individual buildings, for example, residents can
The Regent Park governance structure con- come together to celebrate the diversity of
sists of representational mechanisms on both their communities. Participation in committees
r the private condo side and the THC side, as and the Neighborhood Association provide
well as a combined Regent Park Neighborhood further spaces to interact with neighbors on
Association (RPNA). At the building level, THC’s equal footing, promoting relationship and trust
system mirrors the existing condo boards’, building. Ultimately, the model’s focus is to cre-
which have three directors per building. Thus, ate an equitable governance structure for local
Regent Park instituted a three-person elect- decision-making that responds directly to local
ed Building Committee for each building. needs and desired outcomes.
THC Building Committee members make up
a Tenant Council, which has a seven-member While the model is still in early phases, some
leadership team. Representatives from both clear challenges and signs of success have
the condo and THC side form the RPNA, Terms emerged. There is a widespread culture around
generally last three years (and bi-elections are getting involved, though it’s worth noting that
held to fill unexpected vacancies). Additional- complicated social tensions do arise. In the
ly, subcommittees within the RPNA focus on RPNA, for example, some residents have felt
priority areas identified collectively (including that their neighbors do not fully understand
safety, maintenance, gardens, employment, their backgrounds or understand the need for
and programs and services). While THC finan- individuals to exercise their own voices rather
cially supports collaborative projects and pro- than be advocated for. Sometimes well-inten-
vides staff for capacity-building efforts, RPNA tioned market-rate residents tend to speak on
is funded through a grassroots approach. behalf of TCH tenants, preventing them from
Through connections with neighborhood agen- speaking up for themselves. There is also gen-
cies and in kind contributions, RPNA is finan- eral stereotyping to combat on both sides.
cially independent of THC. All elected members
are volunteers. The current focal measures of success are
participation and engagement in processes and
The governance model integrates both ongo- events such as community surveys, building
ing processes with sustainable structures to celebrations, Leadership Cafes, and elections.
build individual capacity, cultivate new relation- Both THC residents and market residents have
ships, and create and maintain inclusive deci- shown strong interest in community partici-
sion-making and power sharing systems. These pation, and all RPNA positions remain filled.
11One staff member noted that residents—re- sets and Expectations, Sense of Community
gardless of income—are most likely to actively and Civic Engagement.
participant when three aspects come together: 5
Full disclosure: Trusted Space Partners and
personal enjoyment, the social connection, and the National Initiative on Mixed-Income Com-
recognizing the benefit to the community. munities have a collaborative venture called Tri-
ple Aim Impact to provide technical assistance
for community network-building and other
Conclusion strategies in mixed-income communities.
6
This section draws on Bulger, 2018.
Research and practice indicate that the path- 7
Putnam, 2007.
way toward successful mixed-income commu- 8
An evaluation of the Kindred model was re-
nities requires far more than social services leased on October 3, 2018. To date, there have
and engagement activities. If we really want not been formal evaluation efforts of the Trust-
to promote inclusive social dynamics across ed Space Model. The Trauma-Informed Com-
race and class, our efforts must help transform munity Building Model implemented in HOPE
individual behaviors, attitudes, and actions and SF’s Potrero Hill site was formally evaluated in
also seek to change the underlying social and 2015. Other evaluations consider trauma-in-
structural conditions that breed fear, isolation, formed lens of programs such as social service
r and distrust in mixed-income communities. delivery but are not specific to mixed-income
This quest entails an settings.
approach to individual and community transfor- 9
Weinstein, Wolin and Rose, 2014.
mation that is firmly contextualized within his- 10
Falkenberger, Arena and Wolin, 2018.
torical and structural conditions and requires
intentional,
conceptually-driven practices with a broad Acknowledgements
mission to shift (or more boldly, disrupt) exist-
ing operating cultures among all people and Support for this report was provided by the
sectors that touch the mixed-income commu- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views
nity. With asset-based and trauma-informed expressed here do not necessarily reflect the
approaches, a shared and clear narrative, views of the Foundation.
mechanisms to cultivate inclusive behavior, a
willingness to shift influence and power, as well The lead authors for this report are Joni Hirsch
as intentionality and persistence, there will be a and Mark Joseph. We thank Frankie Black-
greater chance of creating mixed-income com- burn, Bill Traynor, and Yerodin Avent of Trusted
munities where all can truly thrive. Space Partners for their leadership in the field
of community networkbuilding, their tutelage
of us, and their generosity with their philosophy
Citations and practices. We thank Julio Rigores of the
Toronto Housing Corporation and Laura Wilson
1
See list of selected resource readings on page Phelan of Kindred for their dedication, time,
15. and information. We thank research assistants
2
See Pantell, et al. 2013. Emily Miller, Halle Beshouri, Kwame Botch-
3
See for example, Chaskin and Joseph 2015; way, Morgan Bulger, Aaron Rentrope, Karen
Fraser, Oakley, Levy, 2013; Levy, McDade, Ber- Reynolds, and Nathan Ruhrkraut for their con-
tumen, 2013. tributions. We also thank Giridhar Mallya and
4
Note that the three levels of our social dynam- George Hobor for feedback on earlier drafts of
ics framework align well with the three levels this report.
in RWJF’s Culture of Health Action Framework
Action Area 1: Health as a Shared Value: Mind-
12Summary Table of Promising Models
Key Design Elements and Implementation Examples
Trusted Space Partners Community Network-Building
Theory of Change Core Principles Highlighted Implementation
Strategies
If people of different back- Human first Individual: Delivery Model:
grounds are connected in a Frequent one-on-one out- Consulting, coaching, train-
clearly identified network, Interdependent gifts and reach with a compelling invita- ing; some on-the-ground
tion to new members to join
make exchanges of value, reciprocal exchange implementation
the neighborhood network
and build new understand-
ing, then they will be more Compelling invitations for “Steward” teams that can Setting/Sites:
successful at achieving new members build capacity for the network Affordable Housing Devel-
systemic change and a opments (i.e. TREK Devel-
r higher quality of life. Action learning and inno- Sparking of a wider network opment Group, Pittsburgh;
vation with campaigns and oppor- Edgewood Terrace, Wash-
If we create intentional tunities for individual growth ington, D.C.)
spaces, practices, and a Form follows function (i.e. forming a mutual support
group)
network of mutual ex- Mixed-income Initiatives
change and collaborative (New Communities Ini-
Devices like the “Market-
action, then we can shift place” which recognize the tiative in Washington DC,
the current operating value and wisdom of each HOPE SF in San Francisco,
culture of isolation, divi- individual CA)
sion and fear to one of
aspiration, connection, and Social:
co-investment. Intentional spaces, practices,
and devices that promote
meaningful exchange across
lines of difference
Mutual support groups, affini-
ty circles, NeighborUp Nights,
pop ups, and other consistent
spaces that provide opportu-
nities for individuals to build
relationships and to grow the
network
Structural:
Development of a shared
vision of community change
based on aspiration and co-in-
vestment
Operating culture shift among
stakeholders and community
members around shared goals
13Kindred
Theory of Change Core Principles Highlighted Implementation
Strategies
Safe, accessible ways for Addressing root causes of Individual: Delivery Model:
diverse parents to connect opportunity gap Discussion of identity, his- Program implemented by
and have dialogue will tories, and aspirations for Kindred Staff
increase empathy, increase Sustained impact through children
how they value diversity in equity-driven parent orga- Setting/Sites:
their childrens’ educational nizations Social: Mixed-Race and Mixed-In-
setting, and share resourc- Cohort models of parents come School settings (i.e.
es to support success of all Safe spaces to develop from diverse backgrounds E.L. Hayne and, Marie Reed
children. empathy and cultural com- that come together in Elementary Schools in
petency dialogue groups to build Washington, DC)
The goal is to change be- relationships and collabo-
liefs and values as well as rate on actions that lead to
social networks, behaviors, equity
r and access to resources,
and to take collaborative Structural:
action to close the oppor- Development of critical
tunity gaps at their child’s masses of parents trans-
school. formed by interracial,
interclass experiences to
generate equity-focused
policy change
Coalition building to ad-
vocate for and drive more
equitable
resource allocation
14Trauma-Informed Community Building
Theory of Change Core Principles Highlighted Implementation
Strategies
Acknowledging past Do no harm Individual: Delivery Model:
harms, honoring commu-
nity knowledge, ensuring Community power Incentives and personal re- Strategic lens to apply to
sustainability, setting ward to increase individual place-based service and
realistic expectations, and Acceptance motivation and to encour- engagement strategies
creating clear ways for age leadership
residents to get involved, Structural frame/Social Setting/Sites:
encourage accountabili- justice Meeting residents where
ty and foster thoughtful they are; grief work Community-based Initia-
sustainable work, will pro- Sustainability tives (HOST in Washington,
mote community healing, Realistic expectations and DC, HOPE SF in San Fran-
increased trust and en- avoiding overpromising cisco, CA)
r gagement, and long term
community change. Social: Other Government Pro-
grams (i.e. Office of Resi-
Operating with a trau- Repeated and consistent dent Services in Portland,
ma-informed lens allows opportunities for peer and Oregon)
stakeholders to implement staff engagement
strategies that allow com-
munities to feel genuine Proactively created wel-
ownership over changes. coming spaces for shared
positive experiences
All activities allow for per-
sonal sharing and mutual
support
and trust between peers
and staff
Structural:
Community voices com-
municating a sustainable
shared vision to stakehold-
ers
Partnerships for long-term
investment based on com-
munity-driven research
Strategies designed
according to community
input and assets
Visible, tangible activities
that reflect community
change
15Regent Park Model of Equitable Governance
Theory of Change Core Principles Highlighted Implementation
Strategies
Power-sharing, democrat- Representation Individual: Delivery Model:
ic decision-making, and Opportunities for leader-
capacity-building to form Shared decision-making ship training and individual Community engagement
an inclusive, cohesive, and capacity-building through processes tied with capac-
representative community Capacity building workshop curriculums ity-building and equitable
where residents have the governance structures
mandate to influence deci- Governance structures at Social: among residents across
sions like funding streams multiple levels Building Celebrations to income levels
and service provision provide spaces where res-
idents can come together Setting/Sites:
to celebrate diversity
within their Piloted in Regent Park in
community Toronto, Canada,
r a mixed-income commu-
Participation in commit- nity with separate market
tees and the Neighbor- rate condos and public
hood Association which housing buildings
promotes relationship and
trust building with neigh-
bors on equal footing
Structural:
Formation of equitable
governance structures
including Tenant Council,
Condo Boards and Neigh-
borhood Association
Election processes to
ensure equitable represen-
tation in decision-making
processes
16Resource Readings
Blackburn, Frankie. 2015. The Power of Intentional Khare, Amy, Mark Joseph, and Robert Chaskin. 2014.
Networks in Mixed Income Housing.(2015). http://www. “The Enduring Significance of Race in Mixed-income
trustedspacepartners.com/uploads/7/7/3/4/77349929/ Developments.” Urban Affairs Review, 50: 1-30.
the_power_of_intentional_networks_in_mixed_income_
housing_-_blackburn.pdf. Levy, Diane, Zach McDade, and Kassie Bertumen. 2013.
“Mixed-Income Living: Anticipated and Realized Benefits
Blackburn, Frankie, William Traynor and Yerodin Avent. for Low-Income Households.” Cityscape, 15: 15-28.
2018. Practical Ideas for Addressing Micro-Segregation
in Mixed Income Communities. https://shelterforce. National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities.
org/2018/07/06/practical-ideas-for-addressing-mi- 2013. State of the Field Scan #1: Social Dynamics in
cro-segregation-in-mixed-income-communities/. Mixed-Income Developments (2013). http://nimc.case.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/State-of-the-Field-
Bulger, Morgan. 2018. Toward a Theory of Social In- Scan-1_Social-Dynamics-in-Mixed-Income-Develop-
clusion: The design and practice of social inclusion in ments.pdf.
mixed-income communities. (Doctoral Dissertation. Case
Western Reserve University, submitted June 2018). Pantell, Matthew, David Rehkopf, Douglas Jutte, S. Leon-
ard Syme, John Balmes, and Nancy Adler. 2013. Social
Chaskin, Robert and Mark Joseph. 2015. Integrating Isolation: A Predictor of Mortality Comparable to Tradi-
the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income tional Clinical Risk Factors. American Journal of Public
Public Housing Transformation. Chicago: University of Health. 103:11: 2056-62.
r Chicago Press.
Putnam, Robert. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and
Chaskin, Robert, Amy Khare and Mark Joseph. Participa- Community in the Twenty-First Century. Scandinavian
tion, Deliberation, and Decisionmaking: The dynamics of Political Studies 30: 137-74.
inclusion and exclusion in mixed-income developments.
Urban Affairs Review. 48(6), 863-906. (2012). http:// Tach, Laura. 2009. “More Than Bricks and Mortar: Neigh-
nimc.case.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/chaskin_ borhood Frames, Social Processes, and the Mixed-In-
study_7_web_1.pdf. come Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project.” City
and Community, 8: 269-99.
Falkenburger, Elsa, Olivia Arena and Jessica Wolin. Trau-
ma-Informed Community Building and Engagement April Traynor, William. 2016. 4 Groups That Need to Change to
26, 2018. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/ Make Mixed-Income Communities Work. https://shelter-
trauma-informed-community-building-and-engagement. force.org/2016/05/06/4-groups-that-need-to-change-
to-make-mixed-income-communities-work/.
Fraser, James, Deidre Oakley and Diane Levy, Guest
Editors. 2013. Mixed-Messages on Mixed-Income. City- Weinstein, Emily, Jessica Wolin, and Sharon Rose. 2014.
scape, 15(2): 83-100. Trauma-Informed Community Building. A Model for
Strengthening Community in Trauma Affected Neighbor-
Gallagher, Megan and Erica Greenberg. 2017. Kindred hoods. https://bridgehousing.com/PDFs/TICB.Paper5.14.
Pilot Studies: Summary of Findings from Parent Surveys pdf.
and Focus Groups (2017). https://kindredcommunities.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Kindred-Urban-Pi- Wells, Amy Stuart, Lauren Fox, Diana Cordova-Cobo.
lot-Study-2017.pdf. 2016. How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms
Can Benefit All Students (2016). https://tcf.org/con-
Graves, Erin. 2010. “The Structuring of Urban Life in a tent/report/how-racially-diverse-schools-and-class-
Mixed-Income Housing Community.” City and Communi- rooms-can-benefit-all-students/?session=1.
ty, 9: 109–31.
HOPE SF Learning Center. 2015. A Formative Evaluation
of the TICB Model and its Implementation in Potrero Hill.
Hyra, Derek. Addressing Social Segregation in
Mixed-Income Communities (2016). https://shelter-
force.org/2016/05/04/addressing-diversity-segrega-
tion-in-mixed-income-communities/.
17You can also read
