Navigating Revitalization Pitfalls: Scylla & Charybdis Of Place-Based Initiatives.pdf

Place-based initiatives aim to revitalize distressed communities, but they face two opposing pitfalls: too little change, leaving neighborhoods impoverished, or too much change, leading to gentrification and displacement of low-income households. Initiatives may deploy too few resources or use them in the wrong way, leading to a disbelief in change among residents and outside observers. Alternatively, revitalized neighborhoods may become gentrified, benefiting outsiders rather than the original residents.

Place-based initiatives have employed various strategies, including constructing apartment buildings, financing small businesses, and providing workforce training. These efforts recognize the profound challenges faced by communities of color due to a history of oppression and exclusion. Comprehensive community initiatives have gained interest in recent years, often backed by foundations and local governments.

The intellectual origins of place-based development efforts date back to the 19th century settlement house movement. The federal government's involvement in place-based programs began with public housing in the 1930s, followed by urban renewal and subsequent presidential administrations' initiatives. Despite the proliferation of place-based programs, there is no clear theory of change underlying these efforts.

A detailed review of multiple programs and initiatives reveals eight assumptions or justifications for intervention. These assumptions are often not fully articulated in advance or after the start of an initiative and have emerged from research evidence, practitioner experience, and the change program designers hope for. The eight assumptions are:

1. Place matters: distressed communities adversely affect the lives of their residents.
2. One-size-fits-all solutions do not work given the heterogeneity of US neighborhoods.
3. Local control and accountability lead to better outcomes.
4. The solutions to local distress do not lie in a single outcome domain, approach, actor, or policy change.
5. A local organization can coordinate community revitalization.
6. Locally focused efforts can overcome global, national, and regional challenges.
7. Neighborhoods have tipping points, and place-based initiatives can lead to self-sustaining, market-based investments in target areas over time.
8. Residents stay in place long enough to benefit from revitalization; place-based efforts do not lead to substantial displacement.

The first assumption, "Place matters," is supported by research evidence showing that neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage have strong negative effects on residents' well-being and the vitality of towns and cities. The "neighborhood effects" literature is well-developed, with several mechanisms identified for how people's surroundings influence their life trajectory. These mechanisms include social, environmental, geographical, and institutional factors, such as the quality of local services, peer influences, exposure to crime and violence, and relative deprivation.