INTRODUCTION Delores Fitch was tired
Delores Fitch was tired. She was tired of seeing drug dealers in her apartment
complex. She was tired of hearing the violence outside her thin apartment walls. She was
tired of being shuffled around and forced to move several times in government housing. But
most of all, she was tired of worrying about how this environment would affect her three
grandchildren living with her. Finally Miss Dee, as most know her, decided it was time for a
change. She had heard a little about Habitat for Humanity from friends and neighbors and
decided it was time to find out more.
Miss Dee attended a local information session about Habitat and found out she
could help build her own house. She also found out she would have to take
homeownership classes and that it would take about a year to complete the program and
move into a new home in a nearby neighborhood. She would still pay a mortgage, but it
would be interest free and similar to what she paid for her public housing. She was
excited, but nervous. She hadn’t been to class in a long time, and the thought of building a
house seemed overwhelming. But she left the meeting with an application…three separate
times. “I think I was just scared of the responsibility that I wouldn’t be able to do it,” she
recalls. “I kept finding excuses.”
Finally the hope of a better future for her grandchildren drove her to complete and
return her third application. “I did go back and took my application and talked with Miss Anne
(Assistant Director of Family Services). She said ‘Come on Delores. We’ll work with you.
We’re family and we’ll stay with you.’” That gave Miss Dee the confidence she needed. Once
accepted, she immediately began taking Habitat’s life skills classes, including budgeting and
home maintenance courses. She also started working on the construction site building Habitat
houses, filing papers and answering phones at the
Habitat office, and about anything else they’d let her do to complete her 400 hours of
“sweat equity,” a staple of the Habitat program. Her grandkids even got involved by earning
hours for making good grades and helping their grandmother cook meals for Habitat
construction teams.
After about 14 months of classes and service hours, Miss Dee and her
grandchildren moved into their new three-bedroom, two-bath house next door to five other
Habitat families in the Portland neighborhood of Louisville. Though they’ve only been in
their home just over a year now, Miss Dee has already put her new skills to use. She used
her housewarming gift of a new drill to install pulls on her kitchen cabinets, and later
fixed a leaky faucet all by herself. “I was able to do it because I learned how in class,”
Miss Dee boasts. “And I never realized that [budgeting] class would come in as handy as
it has.”
Miss Dee uses her new financial skills to pay bills each month, including the
20year, zero-interest mortgage for her house. She also uses her home maintenance and
gardening skills she learned in class to keep up her house and beautiful yard, which she is
especially proud of. But she is most proud that she finally did find a better environment for
her grandkids. “They just seem to be doing much better now that we have a place of our
own. And it feels so good to know we will never have to leave.”
Miss Dee’s story is a success story, one of thousands boasted through local
Habitat websites, newsletters, newspapers and now even social media. These are the
stories Habitat staff and volunteers across the globe point to as evidence that the program
works, and that Habitat does make a difference in people’s lives and even the
neighborhoods in which they live. But it is not the typical story of those caught in the web
of poverty. Newspapers and nightly news casts are filled much more with the stories of
crime, drugs and violence that Miss Dee and her grandkids know all too well. And the
research largely backs it up as neighborhood poverty continues to be a major concern for
scholars, policy makers and advocates.
Studies have linked neighborhood poverty with high crime, low employment, poor
health, and low educational achievement. Because of these linkages, federal housing
policy over the past few decades has often tried to “deconcentrate” or disperse the poor
from these neighborhoods into more affluent neighborhoods with the hope that better
institutions and better neighbors will help these families to improve their lives. However
research on large mobility programs such as the Gautreaux program and Moving to
Opportunity (MTO), has found mostly mixed results and criticized the programs for only
affecting a few. Several researchers have also shown that race and income prove to be
significant barriers to low-income residents realizing the benefits of their new
neighborhoods (Galster and Zobel 1998; Schwartz & Tajbakhsh 2005; Clark 2005;
Turney et al. 2006).
These shortcomings have led to renewed interest in neighborhood revitalization efforts
through federal policy. Hope VI, Promise Neighborhoods, and Choice Neighborhoods are
recent examples. However, the mixed-income neighborhoods sought in many of these
programs still assume the need for low-income residents to utilize more affluent neighbors as
role models to better their lives. Yet very little is known about other characteristics that may
play a part in revitalization of these neighborhoods. This dissertation instead investigates the
influence of neighborhood residents who are similar in race and income to their neighbors,
but motivated to better their lives.
This dissertation proposes that Habitat for Humanity families are more motivated
to better their lives than their neighbors because of Habitat’s selection criteria and
because they have completed the process of becoming a Habitat homeowner. The purpose
then is to discover the impact Habitat homeowners have on the neighborhoods where they
live. In other words, the point is to discover if these individual success stories lead to
better neighborhoods?
CHAPTER II
CONCENTRATED POVERTY, NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS & SOCIAL
MOBILITY
The relevant research for this dissertation begins with an understanding of
American poverty and its effect on the people and places within its grasp. It is also
important to discuss the policy implications of high-poverty neighborhoods and the
lessons learned from the programs implemented. Habitat for Humanity is discussed as
well, and what little is known about the organization’s impact from a research perspective.
Finally this section concludes by discussing the concept of social organization as a
theoretical framework used to measure the influence of Habitat for Humanity on low-
income neighborhoods.
American Poverty
Poverty is a context dependent concept. The World Bank defines the international
poverty threshold as $1.25 per day, meaning anyone with less than this is considered
impoverished. But the fact that nearly half the world population, or more than three
billion people live on less than $2.50 per day, or that at least 80% of humanity lives on
less than $10 per day ($3,650 annually) doesn’t seem much better (World Bank, 2011).
These numbers hit harder when we also understand that poverty is blamed for the death of
nearly 22,000 children under the age of five each day (UNICEF, 2010). This death toll
would equate to that of a 2010 Haitian earthquake occurring every 10 days (Shah, 2011).
However, these facts and analogies are literally foreign concepts in the U.S.
where the poverty threshold for a family of four in 2010 was $22,314 (U.S. Census
Bureau), and only 15% of Americans live below that threshold as seen in Figure 2.1
below. However this doesn’t mean that the U.S. does not have poverty concerns of its
own. The graph also shows that the 46.2 million Americans considered impoverished is
the largest total since poverty tracking began in the late 1950s. This is not surprising in the
wake of the recent recession and due to the U.S. population continuing to grow, but the
upward trend is also reflected in the poverty rate rising to 15.1%, the first time it has been
above 15% since the early 1990s.
Figure 2.1 U.S. Poverty rate
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011
However the trend upward doesn’t appear to be due to any new shift in the data. Figure
2.2 below shows that the majority of Americans in poverty are still minorities, especially those
identifying as Black or Hispanic. And with the exception of Asians, all groups are currently
trending toward higher poverty rates. And though these rates are considerably lower than rates
in the early 1960s prior to Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” they also show minorities are
consistently the majority of the American poor.
Figure 2.2 U.S. Poverty rate by race
Source: Institute for Research on Poverty, 2014
Similarly, where poverty occurs hasn’t changed much since the late 1970s. Figure
2.3 shows that Central city areas still have the highest rates of poverty, though rural areas
are close behind. Yet again, with the exception of rural areas, all categories graphed show a
trend toward higher rates since the recent recession, and rural areas have only recently
shown signs of leveling. Perhaps most informative here is that suburban poverty has been
consistently rising for the past decade.
Poverty according to family type has also proven consistent over the past several decades.
Figure 2.4 shows that of households with children, single moms are far more likely to be in
poverty than married couples. Again this is not a shock, but emphasizes the consistency over
time of what we know about who is poor in America.
Figure 2.3 U.S. Poverty rate by residence type
Source: Institute for Research on Poverty, 2014
Figure 2.4 U.S. Poverty rate of households with children
Source: www.stateofworkingamerica.org, 2014
The one area to show consistent change over the past 55 years is in age. Figure 2.5
indicates that poverty rates have been higher for children since the mid1970s. The graph
also shows that the only population to see consistent decline in poverty rates has been the
elderly. This dramatic decrease in elderly poverty coincides with higher and higher levels
of spending for social security as seen in Figure 2.6. However, aside from elderly poverty
rates significantly decreasing, rates for other age groups have remained consistent with
children under 6 years old having the highest rate of poverty at 25.8%.
Figure 2.5 U.S. Poverty rates by age
Source: www.stateofworkingamerica.org, 2014
Figure 2.6 U.S. elderly poverty rate and per capita social security expenditures
Source: www.stateofworkingamerica.org, 2014
The demographics of American poverty are important to know for effective policy
creation that aims for a more equal society, but the bulk of poverty research goes beyond
demographics to examine the causes and effects of poverty. The goal of much of this
research has been to find intervening variables or variables that can mitigate the effects of
living in poverty.
Researching Poverty
Poverty elicits certain images. Whether these are images of the inner city or rural
landscape, pictures of poverty are used to bring attention to both the people and places of
poverty. At least since Charles Booth’s maps of London, researchers have understood a
connection between poor places and poor people. Booth demonstrated that poverty was
concentrated on London’s east side while wealth was concentrated on the west (Booth,
1902). In the U.S. Jacob Riis, using photographs, showed the bleak conditions of
immigrant tenement residents concentrated on New York City’s Lower East Side in the
early 1900s, and in similar fashion James Agee and Walker Evans showed the stark reality
of rural poverty for sharecropper families in 1930s Alabama (Berube, 2008). These early
researchers and journalists documented the link between poverty and place as well as the
tendency for poor people to live among other poor people.
By the middle of the 1900s, researchers were more and more concerned with the
causes and effects of poverty, and in the context of deindustrialization, rapid suburbanization,
and out-migration of working and middle class residents, the center city was the setting for
growing concern over American poverty. Stories of life within innercity neighborhoods gave
support to the view that these residents lived outside middleclass norms in what some writers
considered a “culture of poverty” (Lewis, 1966). This view emphasized the role of
destructive individual behavior in perpetuating poverty. But other authors argued that
structural explanations such as industrial transition (Kasarda, 1989), employment
suburbanization or “spatial mismatch” (Kain, 1968), and racial segregation and
discrimination (Massey & Denton, 1993) were more to blame than individual behaviors.
Considered a turning point in the debate, William Julius Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged
(1987) argued in favor of structural factors such as the decline of manufacturing jobs for
less-skilled inner-city workers as the major catalyst for growing geographic concentrations of
poor minority families in urban areas. He also argued that these concentrations contributed to
high rates of crime, out-of-wedlock births, female-headed households, and welfare
dependency.
Wilson went beyond any single structural debate and instead argued that extreme
neighborhood poverty was the result of a complex web of causal events, policies and
phenomena. Wilson’s thesis hinged on the concept of a “social buffer.” Focused on
Chicago, he explained that urban ghettos of the 1940s and 1950s consisted of black
middle, working and lower class residents who all lived, worked, recreated, worshipped,
and in general found community in the same basic geographical area. This provided a
buffer for the community in times of economic hardship that helped “keep alive the
perception that education is meaningful, that steady employment is a viable alternative to
welfare, and that family stability is the norm, not the exception” (pg. 49).
However, according to Wilson, the social organization of the urban ghetto
crumbled throughout the 1960s as Civil Rights legislation gave new opportunities for
middle class and working class blacks to move out to other parts of the city to take
advantage of better employment and education opportunities. The result of this new
mobility left the lower-income residents isolated in the ghetto without the buffer of a
diversified class structure in times of economic decline. This “social isolation” in effect
created a highly disadvantaged underclass unable to maintain the neighborhood institutions
and collective norms.
Arguing against Murray’s (1984) claim that welfare caused poverty, Wilson’s
theory of social isolation effectively replaced the “culture of poverty” as the key
theoretical concept behind sustained ghetto poverty. But some have also considered
Wilson’s work to “bridge the gap between structural and behavioral explanations for
concentrated poverty” (Berube, 2008). Wilson also coined the term “concentration effects”
to describe the differences in experiences of low-income families living in the ghetto
compared to those living elsewhere in the city (Wilson, 1987, pg. 56). Wilson’s theories of
social isolation, social buffer and concentration effects were catalysts for an explosion of
research in the 1990s surrounding neighborhood poverty. Much of this research has
focused on the related, but somewhat tangled concepts of concentrated poverty and
neighborhood effects.
Concentrated Poverty
Paul Jargowsky (1997) built on Wilson’s concentration effects by quantifying many
of Wilson’s claims. Operationalizing neighborhoods of concentrated poverty to mean
census tracts with 40% or more of their residents living in families with incomes at or
below the federal poverty line, Jargowsky showed that between 1970 and 1990 the number
of poor Americans living in concentrated poverty tracts within U.S. metropolitan areas
nearly doubled from 1.9 million to 3.7 million (pg. 37). This meant that just more than 14%
of the American poor were living in concentrated or “extreme poverty” neighborhoods. Yet
almost no change occurred in national poverty rates during this same period. Jargowsky
thus noted that while there was little change in poverty rates, there was a fundamental shift
in where the poor lived.
Updating this research, Kneebone et al (2011) found that after a significant drop in
the concentration of the poor during the 1990s, there has been a re-concentration in the
early 2000s. This is illustrated in Figure 2.7 below. The authors also found that the total
number of concentrated poverty tracts has followed a similar growth trend. Table 2.1
below shows that similar to the percentage of poor in concentrated poverty tracts, the
number of tracts has consistently grown since 1970, aside from the similar reprieve in
2000. Troubling for researchers is the fact these tracts have more than doubled since 1970,
confirming Jargowsky’s earlier conclusion.
Figure 2.7 Share of total population and poor population in extreme poverty tracts, 1990 to 2005-09
Source: (Kneebone, Nadeau & Berube, 2011)
Table 2.1 Number of Concentrated Poverty Tracts by Decade
Year Number of Concentrated poverty tracts
1970 1,177
1980 1,767
1990 2,726
2000 2,075
2005-09 2,822
Source: (Kneebone, Nadeau & Berube, 2011)
Factors leading to both the decline in concentration by 2000 and the reconcentration
taking place by 2005-09 are likely numerous, largely structural and complexly related as
Wilson (1987) showed earlier, but the strong economic growth in the 1990s as well as the
recession in the late 2000s certainly rank high among the more recent factors. But the more
troubling challenge for researchers and policy makers has been examining the problems
associated with concentrated poverty. Scholars consider those living in these areas “doubly
disadvantaged” beyond what their own individual circumstances would dictate (Gennetian,
2013). A family is poor, but also subject to fewer job opportunities, more crime, poor
performing schools, and higher costs of goods and services (Kneebone et. al, 2011). The
effects of the greater burden are often discussed as being an effect of living in a
concentrated poverty neighborhood, or more generally, a neighborhood effect.
Neighborhood Effects
The thought that neighborhood or community context could influence individual
outcomes is typically linked to the early research of the “Chicago School.” In the early 1900s,
University of Chicago sociologists examined the relationship between collective institutions
such as schools or neighborhoods and criminal behavior, work attachment, educational
attitudes and health effects (Briggs, 1998; Sampson, 2008). The early work focused on crime
and delinquency, but these studies fueled more research and a broader reach as concern for
inner-cities grew in the 1970s and 1980s.
Published in the wake of Wilson’s work, Jencks and Mayer (1990) helped push the
theory of neighborhood effects with their review of early quantitative studies. The authors
identified five conceptual models of how neighborhood effects operate. These models
were meant to test the basic assumption that children who grow up in a good
neighborhood are more likely than children who grow up in a bad neighborhood to “work
hard in school, stay out of trouble, go to college, and get a good job when they become
adults” (p. 113). These models include: 1) Contagion or Epidemic theories, 2) Collective
socialization, 3) Institutional models, 4) Relative deprivation or Social Comparison and 5)
Competition theories.
Contagion or Epidemic models, according to Jencks and Mayer, focus on the way
in which peers influence each other’s behavior. Thus if a child grows up in a neighborhood
where a lot of his neighbors vandalize, he will be more likely to vandalize. The theory
works in reciprocal fashion as well meaning that if a child grows up where most of his
neighbors graduate from high school, he will be more likely to graduate.
Collective socialization models focus on the way the adults in a neighborhood
influence young people who are not their children. These models emphasize the effects of
adult monitoring and positive role models. Here adults are viewed as both enforcers of
established norms and role models of success who prove that hard work and good behavior
pay off. This is evident in Wilson’s (1987) concept of a “social buffer” where mixed-class
neighborhoods offer adult role models even in times of economic hardship.
Institutional models primarily focus on how adults from outside the community
influence children inside the community. These adults work in the community institutions
such as schools, police departments, and other neighborhood institutions. These models have
the important possibility of providing what Briggs (1998) terms “social leverage.” This
leverage is a component of social capital that helps one “get ahead or change one’s
opportunity set” (p. 178).
Jencks and Mayer (1990) as well as Briggs (1998) point out that contagion,
collective socialization and institutional models all operate on the assumption that having
more affluent neighbors is an advantage. The authors also argue that the three models are
hard to distinguish in real world settings as they all predict positive outcomes with
affluent neighbors. In practice, however, there has been little attempt to distinguish
between the models, and instead the effect is attributed broadly to “neighborhood effect.”
Following in the footsteps of Jencks and Mayer, Sampson et al. (2002) examined 40
studies of neighborhood effects conducted in the 1990s and early 2000s, and concluded
that four related, but independent classes of neighborhood mechanisms work to influence
individual outcomes: social ties/interaction, norms and collective efficacy, institutional
resources, and routine activities. The social ties/interaction class is largely concerned with
the concept of social capital, a resource that is realized through social relationships
(Coleman, 1988; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). More specifically, these mechanisms
are concerned with the density of social ties and support networks, and the frequency of
interaction among neighbors.
Norms and collective efficacy mechanisms are concerned instead with the willingness
of neighbors to intervene on one another’s behalf, or on the behalf of neighborhood children.
Sampson et al. (2002) argue that the willingness to intervene is largely due to conditions of
mutual trust and clearly shared expectations or neighborhood norms. Collective efficacy then
is the combination of mutual trust and a shared willingness to intervene for the public good
(Sampson et al., 1997).
Going beyond social relationships, Institutional resources refers to the quality,
quantity and diversity of community institutions (Sampson et al., 2002). These institutions
are typically geared toward the needs of local youth but may include facilities for
libraries, schools, child care, medical care, job training and support centers. Similarly the
final class of mechanisms, routine activities, focuses on how land use patterns and the
distribution of institutional resources affect individual well-being. This may involve the
location of schools and public transportation nodes as well as the mix of residential,
commercial and industrial uses.
But regardless of the specific mechanisms at work, or exactly how neighborhoods
effect residents, there has been overwhelming evidence that neighborhood context does in
fact matter for individual outcomes. Who lives in a neighborhood, the relationships
between neighbors, the services present, and the ability to access those services and other
parts of the city can all play a part in outcomes. The below sections briefly review some of
the key findings on problems associated with living in concentrated poverty
neighborhoods.
Effects
Outside Investment
Large collections of low-income families and low-skilled workers make areas of
extreme poverty less attractive to developers, investors, and potential employers, limiting
job opportunities, amenities and even decent housing. This continues to create a “spatial
mismatch” between residents and employment centers (Kain, 1992). And the goods and
services that are available in these extreme poverty areas tend to be of lower quality and cost
residents more than they would elsewhere in the city (Caplovitz, 1967; Fellowes, 2006). As
a result of paying higher prices for items such as food, insurance and utilities, residents may
take on unsustainable debt or have less money for investments such as a reliable car that
could improve their long-term economic situation (Berube, 2008).
Employment
Similarly, low labor force participation in concentrated poverty tracts can be
detrimental to fostering informal networks important for helping residents find good jobs
and advance in their careers (Kasinitz and Rosenberg, 1996). Also hurting workers in these
tracts is the stigma employers attach to poor neighborhoods discouraging them from hiring
residents (Neckerman and Kirschenman 1991). And as Wilson (1996) has argued, high
levels of unemployment can change the social norms around work leading to less
investment by younger generations in training and education necessary for career
development.
Education
Investigating education, Crane (1991) found that high school drop-out rates and teen
pregnancy rates were much higher for both black and white teens living in areas of
concentrated or extreme poverty. But Crane also noted that rates greatly improved in
“neighborhoods even slightly better than the worst” (pg. 318). Following in Wilson’s
(1987) footsteps, Crane advised that high-status workers were needed as role models in
extreme poverty areas and suggested that it is both their affluence and influence that can
bring needed resources into their communities. Recent research performed by the Century
Foundation Task Force on the Common School (2002) also lends weight to Wilson’s
claims. The Task Force found that children from concentrated poverty tracts tend to attend
schools where most of the students are poor and at greater risk for failure. Specifically the
Task Force found these schools to have low standardized test scores and grade retention as
well as high drop-out rates in comparison to other schools in the area.
Ainsworth (2002) argues that this is in part due to children in poor areas facing
reduced educational expectations and homework demands leading to weaker outcomes.
Part of this is likely due to the uphill battle that schools in these tracts face. Classroom
stability is often frustrated by student mobility, and attracting the best teachers is also
difficult as extra resources are spent on issues of disorder and student social welfare
(Kahlenberg, 2001; Jacob, 2007). Yet when schools do manage to cope with the extra
pressures of poverty there is increasing evidence of many social benefits for the community
as graduation rates reach higher, especially in regards to reduced crime and incarceration
rates (Lochner & Moretti, 2003).
Crime
In general, however, areas of concentrated poverty have higher crime rates overall
and especially higher rates of violent crime when compared to other local tracts (Ellen &
Turner, 1997). Sampson and Wilson (1995) argue that neighborhood poverty can be used as
a trusted predictor of crime, and Case and Katz (1991) showed that neighborhood peer
groups have significant influence on adolescent crime and drug use. Berube (2008)
suggests that higher crime rates in concentrated poverty neighborhoods may be due to
lower social penalties for delinquent behavior, and that poor access to jobs and quality
schools further reduces opportunity costs of crime. Higher rates of crime and delinquent
behavior are also evident in negative health outcomes.
Health
Residents in concentrated poverty areas have higher rates of negative health
outcomes in general. The stress of being poor along with living in dilapidated housing and
at greater risk to environmental hazards such as lead-based paint, pollution and cigarette
smoke are all likely factors (Berube, 2008). Studies have found higher rates of depression,
asthma, diabetes and heart ailments in concentrated poverty neighborhoods
(Cohen et al., 2003; Diez-Roux et al., 2001), and the quality of care in these neighborhoods
is often much worse than that of wealthier neighborhoods (Berube, 2008). However,
research has also found that moving to areas of reduced violence and disorder along with
improved community resources such as better parks and schools can have significant
mental health benefits, similar to that of clinical and pharmacological interventions
(Levanthal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003).
Earlier, Brewster et al. (1993) also found that community context can play a large
role in teen sexual activity and contraceptive use, leading to higher rates of sexually
transmitted diseases and infant mortality in poverty areas. The authors argued that
socioeconomic status of the community and female labor force participation were
important indicators, and likewise important mediators, for teen girls becoming sexually
active and using contraceptives. Adolescent girls living in extreme poverty areas tended
to have loosely enforced or unclear normative standards in regards to sexual activity and
contraceptive use. Also important, the authors showed that teen girls tend to be influenced
more by adults who are “like them” than the community at large in regards to educational
attainment and future work and family lives. This suggests the immediate environment or
neighborhood context is most important for role models.
Wealth Building
According to the Brooking Institution, only 29% of residents in high-poverty
census tracts were homeowners in 2000. This is far below the national homeownership rate
of 67.4% for the same year (U.S. Census Bureau). But even for the 29% that do own their
homes, market devaluation in many of these distressed areas stifles wealth accumulation
enjoyed by owners in wealthier areas (Goetz, 2007). Galster et al. (2008) quantified this by
showing that owner-occupied housing in concentrated poverty neighborhoods compared to
other neighborhoods in large metropolitan areas is worth approximately 13% less.
Effects on the Larger Community
Cities also face the burden that problems found in high-poverty neighborhoods
may spillover to surrounding areas as well. For instance, a neighborhood’s inability to
attract investors and employers reduces housing and retail options as well as employment
opportunities for residents in a wider area (Berube, 2008). Crime is also a likely spillover
into adjacent or nearby areas, and Aud et al. (2010) shows that low performance in
highpoverty schools can effect entire school districts when parents choose to either move
to wealthier districts or enroll their children in private schools. Cities also have higher
costs of government in concentrated poverty areas due to higher welfare case loads,
indigent patients at hospitals and health clinics, and the need for more police presence.
This in turn diverts resources from other areas of the city and can lead to increased tax
burdens on other city residents and local businesses (Pack, 1998). Consequently, this can
also lead to greater out-migration of wealthier households into suburban and exurban
areas, resulting in fewer tax dollars and the diversion of state funding to address the
problems of concentrated poverty and disadvantaged populations (Joassart-Marcelli et al.,
2005). Research examining the problems of concentrated poverty neighborhoods
has led governments to seek policy solutions. And though anti-poverty policy includes a
broad spectrum of interventions and programs, of interest here is the solution of housing
mobility programs and recent revitalization efforts.
Solution: Mobility & Revitalization
The theoretical basis for housing mobility programs is generally tied to Wilson’s
theories of social isolation and concentration effects. This in turn leads to the solution of
de-concentrating or dispersing the poor into neighborhoods that create a new “geography
of opportunity” (Briggs, 2005). Williams (1998) shows that five separate types of mobility
programs operate within the United States, and in all, more than 50 programs operate
within 35 metropolitan areas across the country. They all operate with the basic
assumption that high-poverty households will fare better outside of poverty
neighborhoods. The two largest mobility programs to date, the Gautreaux program and
Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO), however have not overwhelmingly
supported this assumption.
Gautreaux
In 1976 public housing lawyers convincingly showed the Supreme Court that public
housing families in Chicago had been denied the opportunity to live in more integrated
neighborhoods, and they blamed the Chicago Housing Authority and the office of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). As a result, low-income black families who were in
Chicago’s public housing projects became eligible for relocation vouchers to
neighborhoods that were 30% African-American or less (Rosenbaum, 1995). Between
1976 and 1990, more than 7,000 moved across the Chicago area. Families were placed in
new neighborhoods by housing counselors on the basis of their position on a waiting list.
Interestingly about half moved to mostly white suburbs, and about half to non-public
housing city neighborhoods, allowing for comparison. This opened the door for researchers
to examine how changes in neighborhood translated into improvements in family and child
well-being (DeLuca & Rosenblatt, 2010).
Researchers found that those who moved to suburban communities were more
likely to be employed (although their salaries were not necessary higher) compared to city
movers (Rosenbaum & Popkin, 1991). More generally DeLuca and Rosenbaum (2003)
found nearly two decades later that mothers who moved to less segregated, more affluent
areas were more likely to still live in such communities, less likely to be on welfare, more
likely to be employed and earning slightly more than those who relocated to less
advantaged areas. In terms of education, significant positive impacts showed that children
who moved to the suburbs attended much more rigorous schools, made better grades, and
were more likely to attend college (Rubinowitz & Rosenbaum, 2000).
Aside from positive findings in education and employment, the research on
Gautreaux also raised many questions and potential drawbacks. Clark (2008) noted that
the program was criticized for selection bias as the 7,000 movers were a small proportion
of all the applicants, meaning that it is hard to decipher a neighborhood effect from the
motivation wrapped into family and individual values. The program has also been
criticized for focusing much more on suburban movers than city movers and for not
having a true control group from which to base comparisons. Researchers for the most part
also did not attempt to disentangle race and class, leaving one to only speculate as to
whether it mattered more that the neighbors were white or affluent. Galster and Zobel
(1998) point out that the gains found among movers may not come from a lower
concentration of poverty or of minorities, but rather from the structural advantages of the
suburban areas, such as better schools, public services, and job accessibility. However, the
positive findings in employment and education were enough to warrant future research on
intentional mobility.
Moving To opportunity (MTO)
Largely motivated by the Gautreaux outcomes, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) conducted a randomized experiment between 1994 and 1998
that gave several thousand public housing families a chance to relocate to higher-resource
neighborhoods through the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment. Families were
recruited from Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. They were
randomly assigned into one of three groups: an experimental group that received housing
counseling and a special voucher that could only be used in census tracts with 1990
poverty rates of less than 10% (unlike the Gautreaux program, there was no racial
restriction); a second treatment group, the Section 8 group, that received a regular
voucher with no geographic restrictions; and a control group that received no voucher
through MTO, although they could continue to reside in their public housing units or
apply for other housing subsidies (usually a regular Section 8 voucher) (DeLuca &
Rosenblatt, 2010).
In all, about 4,600 families were part of the MTO program, and more than 1,700 were
randomly assigned to the group offered the low-poverty neighborhood vouchers. A little over
half of these families used the vouchers to successfully “lease up” in a low poverty
neighborhood. Nonprofit agencies provided the housing counseling in partnership with
public housing authorities, which administered the vouchers. Although families were given
housing counseling, they chose their own housing units within allowable census tracts.
Housing counseling did, however, vary widely across the sites (Sampson, 2008).
In general MTO investigators have looked at five main outcomes of the study.
These outcomes include economic self-sufficiency, mental health, physical health,
education, and risky behavior or crime. No significant differences have been found
between experimental and control groups for adult economic self-sufficiency or physical
health (Sampson, 2008). However, significant positive findings have been reported for
adult mental health, young female education, physical and mental health of female
adolescents, and risky behavior (e.g., crime, delinquency) among young girls (Ludwig,
Hirschfield, & Duncan, 2001). Interestingly, adverse effects of moving were found for the
physical health and delinquency of adolescent males, and null effects have been reported
for a number of outcomes, such as cognitive achievement (Sampson, 2008). Turney et al
(2006) also showed that more affluent neighbors seemed little help for MTO experimental
in-movers seeking jobs partly because the MTO families didn’t interact much with
neighbors, and in part because neighbors had few ties to industries or job possibilities for
lower-skilled labor.
The largely mixed results for MTO to date have led to extensive methodological
debate. Regardless of the randomized design, many researchers point to selection bias as a
spurious problem, and others have argued that the study may have different results if
families were required to use their vouchers (Briggs et al., 2010). As it stands, those that
did use vouchers make up a selective group. Only 47% of the experimental group actually
used their vouchers, and because they were only required to stay in their new
neighborhoods for one year, few spent much time in the most advantageous neighborhood
setting (Clampet-Lundquist & Massey, 2008). Orr et al. (2003) showed that nearly 70% of
all controls moved after random assignment, which is another reason for skewed results
(controls didn’t stay put). Ultimately the authors found that 60% of the entire sample
spent no time in a low-poverty tract, and the average amount of time spent in a low-
poverty integrated tract was very short (2.7 months for controls, 1.8 months for non-
compliers, and 14.9 months for compliers). And Clark (2008) found that the majority of
MTO experimental movers moved again after their initial year in the low-poverty
neighborhood. The majority of this group moved either back to their original
neighborhood or to a neighborhood of similar race and income as their origination
neighborhood.
Mobility vs Revitalization
The mixed results from Gautreaux and MTO have opened the door for debate over
the strategy of deconcentration versus revitalization and repair that has largely been the
domain of Community Development Corporations and private investment (see Imbroscio,
2008 and rebuttal by Goering & Feins, 2008). But there has also been an increase in
revitalization efforts on the national level. HOPE VI, Promise Neighborhoods and Choice
neighborhoods are all recent policy initiatives aimed at creating better neighborhoods for
more positive individual outcomes in many cities across the country. And though it is too
early to judge the success of these programs as a whole, a brief understanding here is
instructive for the setting of this study.
HOPE VI
Launched in 1992, HOPE VI has been the largest neighborhood and community
revitalization effort in the United States over the past two decades. Targeting the most
distressed public housing in the country, HOPE VI grants through 2007 have provided
more than $6 billon to local housing authorities to demolish more than 150,000 units and
replace them with 247 mixed-use projects in 34 states (Turner & Kingsley, 2008, p. 10).
The HOPE VI program has had the overriding goal of promoting resident selfsufficiency.
But the program also seeks to contribute to the improvement of HOPE VI neighborhoods,
to provide housing without concentrating poverty and to build sustainable communities
(Popkin et al., 2004). New Urbanism principles have also been utilized including front
porches, a mix of incomes and ages, and weaving the developments into the surrounding
city fabric with form and density. Defensible space strategies, a higher quality of
construction and amenities, and independent management have made HOPE VI attractive
to a mix of residents and developers alike (Cisneros & Engdahl, 2009).
Few have argued that HOPE VI developments have not shown a dramatic
improvement over the distressed housing they replace, but there are still problems. The largest
of these is that replacing large scale distressed public housing with smaller scale mixed-
income developments has created a net loss in affordable housing units that are already too
few in number for the amount of needy Americans. Kingsley (2009) showed that in total only
55% of the units demolished or rehabilitated with HOPE VI will be replaced with new public
housing. Added to this is the fact that residents who lost their homes due to HOPE VI may not
qualify for a unit in the new development because of tougher screening standards (Popkin,
Cunnigham & Burt, 2005). Lengthy construction schedules have also led to attrition of
original residents resulting in the estimate that only
38% of the original residents would ultimately move back to completed developments
(Kingsley, 2009). Those displaced have sought rental vouchers, units in other
developments or left subsidized housing all together. Generally those that were able to
obtain vouchers have moved into better neighborhoods, though many have reported
having trouble paying for their higher living expenses (utilities), and feeling a loss of
community and isolation after moving away from their social networks and support
systems (Popkin, Katz et al, 2004). The debate continues for HOPE VI as to the benefits
and the costs, but in general it has been accepted as a success over past public housing and
it has helped change the perception of public housing.
Continuing Toward Mixed-income
Hoping to build on the successes of HOPE VI, the Obama Administration has
recently funded the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative. Reminiscent of the Model
Cities Program, this initiative seeks to coordinate several federal programs of aid into an
integrated place-based strategy that focuses on transforming distressed neighborhoods into
“neighborhoods of opportunity” (White House, 2010). Mixed-income housing, quality
schools, crime prevention and preventative community health centers are the focus of the
coordination. In part, the initiative calls for the formation of the Choice
Neighborhoods program under the direction of HUD. Specifically, Choice
Neighborhoods aims to transform “distressed public and assisted housing into sustainable
mixed-income housing that is physically and financially viable over the long term, to
promote positive outcomes for families, and to transform neighborhoods of concentrated
poverty into viable, mixed-income neighborhoods with access to key assets and services”
(White House, 2010, p. 3). It remains to be seen how well Choice Neighborhoods and the
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative will transform these neighborhoods of distress, but
the policy shows a clear direction toward place-based strategies as opposed to
peoplebased mobility programs and vouchers.
Non-profit & Faith-based alternatives
The results from Gautreaux, MTO and HOPE VI bring into question the
assumption that poor people will benefit from more affluent neighbors. Mobility programs
and revitalization efforts that stress mixed-income strategies discussed here both
emphasize the need for more affluent role models. This is not in opposition to Wilson’s
(1987) theories, but the research from these programs suggests that neighbors who are
similar in race and/or income may have more interactions with one another as well as
more influence on one another. In general people migrate toward neighborhoods with
residents similar to their own race and income over time. This suggests that mobility
programs, which are limited already in scale, may have large drawbacks in terms of a
cost-benefit ratio for actually moving families out of generational poverty, and
revitalization needs to look beyond mixed-income as race and income continue to present
barriers for low-income families.
Clearly there is no silver bullet in housing policy; it is complex by necessity as
there are numerous housing problems. But the volatile political environment of these
policies and programs coupled with the mixed results from research conducted on their
outcomes has also called attention to the importance of alternative interventions,
specifically those provided by non-profit and faith-based housing organizations
(Schwartz, 2010). These organizations typically have a varied pool of funding to pull
from, giving them greater stability than government departments relying solely on
government funding. Here, faith-based organizations that operate outside any government
funding may be the most stable partners for future projects. But non-profits in general also
operate on a mission and not for a profit, giving them more incentive than private
developers to reach the most distressed neighborhoods. These organizations also often
provide multiple services other than building or rehabilitating housing including pre and
post occupancy counseling, community building efforts, and more personalized attention
(Bratt, 2007).
Non-profits as a whole also have existing structure in place in all types of
communities to work toward increasing the stock of affordable housing. These
organizations may be better aware of the local problems and more willing to nurture tenants
or homeowners that need extra help (Bratt, 2007). And Shook (2006) found that many
faith-based organizations have utilized various models outside the scope of more
mainstream policy with great success in specific contexts. Some of these models include
sweat equity, grassroots empowerment, community land trusts, co-ops, community trusts,
and various forms of tenant management. Taken together the benefits from non-profits and
faith-based organizations along with mainstream efforts create a more comprehensive
housing policy, but there is also the possibility that these alternative initiatives can inform
mainstream policy. Of particular interest for this dissertation is what can be learned from
Habitat for Humanity.
Habitat for Humanity
Overview
Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit ecumenical Christian housing
ministry that focuses on providing homeownership opportunities to low-income
individuals and families. Founded in Americus, Georgia in 1976, the organization now
includes more than 1,500 local offices or “affiliates” in all 50 U.S. states, and more than 70
national organizations around the world. Together this network has built and repaired more
than 800,000 homes and served more than 4 million people worldwide (Habitat for
Humanity-a, 2014).
Each Habitat affiliate is founded on the belief that “every man, woman and child
should have a decent, safe and affordable place to live” (Habitat for Humanity-a, 2014,
para. 1). Local affiliates offer homeownership opportunities to families who are unable to
obtain conventional house financing. Generally, this includes those whose income is 30 to
50 percent of the area's median income. In most cases, prospective Habitat homeowner
families make a $500 down payment. Additionally, they contribute 300 to 500 hours of
"sweat equity" on the construction of their home or someone else's home. Sweat equity is
also earned in often mandatory homeowner readiness classes focused on financial
independence and home maintenance. Partner families purchase their homes through
noprofit, no-interest mortgage loans or innovative financing methods that in turn build
more Habitat homes. Because Habitat houses are built using donations of land, material
and labor, mortgage payments are kept affordable (Habitat for Humanity-b, 2014).
But aside from building decent, affordable homes, Habitat has also claimed an
equal part of their mission is to build or rebuild “strong and vital neighborhoods that
strengthen people and build solid families” (Fuller, 2000, p. 53). Fuller suggests that this
is done best by building Habitat homes in clusters, which have ranged from four or five in
a row or group to several hundred. But more recently, the organization as a whole has
realized that while one new house or even a handful of new houses on a block is a start, it
isn’t enough to transform a neighborhood.
In late 2009 Habitat International launched the Neighborhood Revitalization
Initiative (NRI) in an effort to affect more families in a neighborhood than
homeownership could alone. The NRI program offers an array of housing services to low-
income homeowners including house repair and maintenance, weatherization,
landscaping, and accessibility upgrades. The program also claims a more holistic approach
to transforming neighborhoods by encouraging the local affiliate to partner with local
government, other non-profits, businesses and residents to create a “shared vision of
revitalization (Habitat for Humanity-c, 2014, para 6). The NRI program has occurred in
conjunction with a shift in the organization from focusing on the number of houses built to
the number of families served. This shift has reportedly helped smaller affiliates especially
due to the smaller donation amounts required to help more families, enabling greater local
exposure for the affiliate (personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013). But little
formal research has been done to support Habitat’s claims of building strong families and
strong neighborhoods before or after the introduction of the NRI program. However, what
little is known about Habitat’s programs from research studies is discussed below.
Habitat Research In 1998 HUD funded Making Homeownership a Reality: Survey of
Habitat for
Humanity International Homeowners and Affiliates with the goal of learning more about
“one of the most productive and successful homeownership programs for low-income
families” (AREA, 1998, pg. 1). This research was the first (and only to date) to present
systematic information collected from Habitat homeowners and their experiences with
homeownership. Applied Real Estate Analysis (AREA) Inc. interviewed and conducted focus
groups with homeowners and Habitat staff from 19 U.S. affiliates in both urban and rural
locations (N=95). The study was conducted with the major goals of identifying the types of
homeowners assisted by the program and to determine what they perceive as the benefits and
burdens of homeownership.
The study showed that Habitat owners are considered low and very low income families
with 43% earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI) and another 34% earning
between 50% and 80% of the median. Sixty-six percent of Habitat homeowners also identified
as minorities. However, 60% are two-parent families, and 82% are high school graduates with
33% claiming “some college.” In terms of employment, 91% of Habitat homeowners are
households with a working adult, and 67% are working full-time (AREA, 1998). Investigators
also found that on average homeowners spent only 27% of their monthly income on mortgage,
taxes and insurance, and they considered zero-interest loans and very low purchase prices the
keys to many families being able to achieve homeownership. Together the affiliates boasted
less than a 2% foreclosure rate, though typically just less than 10% of owners were currently
behind on their payments (AREA, 1998).
The most common benefits of homeownership cited by owners were not financial
but social-psychological. The number one benefit was pride and increased stability that a
family received from feeling safe and secure in their home. Many homeowners planned to
keep on living in the home and eventually pass it on to their children (AREA, 1998). This
importantly may help stabilize neighborhoods that often have high resident turnover,
which research has shown to correlate with low collective efficacy and higher crime rates
(Sampson & Groves, 1989). And though no significant statistical conclusions were
claimed for education benefits and revitalization efforts, many homeowners claimed in
qualitative interviews that they felt their children were in significantly better educational
situations and many expressed that Habitat was helping revitalize distressed
neighborhoods through clusters or subdivisions within previous areas of disinvestment.
Others mentioned the feeling of security being next to other Habitat owners, and in
general homeowners that expressed the greatest neighborhood satisfaction were those
living in clusters or subdivisions of habitat homes (AREA, 1998). Study findings here
show Habitat homeowners to be similar in terms of income and race to their neighbors in
general. However, findings in terms of education, employment, and neighborhood tenure
speak to the ability for Habitat homeowners to act as role models in low-income
neighborhoods.
In another investigation of Habitat for Humanity, Bratt (2007) argued that Habitat’s
pre and post occupancy counseling is a key to resident success and low foreclosure rates.
Bratt also noted that the tendency for Habitat affiliates to be more lenient than other
financial institutions in times of economic hardship and job loss allows for greater
success. The enhanced feeling of security and community for Habitat owners in clusters
also helps them succeed where other low-income homeowners might not
(Bratt, 2007). These elements of the Habitat for Humanity program speak to the ability of
Habitat homeowners to succeed even with repairs, neighborhoods of low land value, and
decreased ability to save for emergencies that many researchers have shown to be problematic
for low-income homeownership (see Belsky, Retsinas & Duda, 2007; Goetz, 2007; Rohe,
Quercia & Van Zandt, 2007).
Hays (2002) also argued that the significant use of volunteers in the Habitat model
leads to greater social capital accrual for volunteer and homeowner alike. Hays
specifically cites the interaction between low-income homeowners and middle or
higherincome volunteers during home construction and classroom education as examples
of social capital bridging, where more affluent volunteers can introduce resources to
lowincome neighborhoods. Though often unintentional, this may have the effect desired,
but unfulfilled in many mixed-income developments.
A handful of dissertations have also investigated pieces of the Habitat model.
Studies have examined the self-help model, the practice of sweat-equity, the use of
empowerment to change individual outcomes, and the use of theology in organizational
action. This dissertation hopes to add to the research on Habitat for Humanity and to the
theories and assumptions behind housing policy decisions by investigating the influence of
Habitat developments on low-income neighborhoods. Measuring this influence can be
done in many ways, but staying within the structure found in much of the concentrated
poverty and neighborhood effects literature, this study utilizes social organization as a
guiding framework.
CHAPTER III
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION & RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Theoretical Framework: Social Organization
Most scholars agree that the theory of social organization (or disorganization)
begins with the Chicago School research of Shaw and McKay. In their seminal work,
Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (1942, 1969), Shaw and McKay argued that the
structural dimensions of low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity and residential
mobility led to a disruption of community social organization. This disruption, or social
disorganization, is generally defined as the inability of a community structure to realize
the common values of its residents and maintain effective social controls (Kornhauser,
1978 p. 120). Shaw and McKay argued that the levels of these dimensions in urban
neighborhoods were responsible for variations in crime and delinquency. Further, the
solution to this disorganization was in three intervening dimensions: 1) The ability of the
community to supervise and control teen peer groups, 2) Informal local friendship
networks, which allow for more control as neighbors can recognize strangers, and 3) A
high rate of local participation in formal and voluntary organizations. Importantly, Shaw
and McKay’s work argued for and has led to the measurement of intervening variables not
often found in macro-level poverty and delinquency research that depends on census data.
But determining which intervening variables have the greatest impact on social
disorganization continues to be debated. Researchers do agree, however, that the
components of social disorganization are largely structural.
This structural nature of the theory is found at the heart of the systemic model
presented by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974). The authors argued that local community
should be viewed as a complex system of friendship and kinship networks and formal and
informal ties rooted in family life and continual socialization processes. Thus as Bursik
(1984) notes, the systemic model and the theory of social disorganization share the
assumption that structural barriers impede development of the formal and informal ties
that promote the ability to solve common problems. This has led to the view that social
organization and social disorganization are different ends of the same continuum with
respect to systemic networks of community social control. Therefore, neighborhoods with
a healthy amount of community social control are largely organized, while those with little
community social control are disorganized.
Community social organization is at the heart of William Julius Wilson’s The
Truly Disadvantaged (1987). As mentioned earlier, Wilson argued that black, urban
ghettos were socially organized before 1960, and though these areas had higher rates of
poverty, they had lower rates of teen pregnancy, crime and unemployment in 1960 than in
1980. Social organization is therefore an important characteristic for Wilson of
neighborhoods without at least some of the social problems so often discussed with
concentrated poverty. For Wilson, social organization consisted of three dimensions: a
sense of community, positive neighborhood identification, and explicit norms and
sanctions against aberrant behavior (p. 56). Wilson defined social organization with
intervening variables similar to and encompassing of Shaw and McKay’s, but perhaps
broader and less well-defined. Wilson also linked the presence of these intervening
variables with the presence of neighborhood role models.
Nearly simultaneous to Wilson’s work, Sampson and Groves (1989) continued to
build on the theory of social organization with their examination of the first British Crime
Survey conducted in 1982. Here Sampson and Groves added family disruption and
urbanization to Shaw and McKay’s original structural forces that lead to social
disorganization. Their general conceptual model is given below in Figure 3.1. The authors
viewed their model as “an extended version of Shaw and McKay’s theory of community
systemic structure and rates of crime and delinquency” (p. 783). In general the model
theorizes that when the five structural forces on the left are present in an urban
neighborhood local friendship networks will tend to be sparse, unsupervised teen peer
groups will be present, and participation in local organizations tends to be low. In turn
these dimensions of social disorganization lead to higher rates of crime and delinquency.
Figure 3.1 Dimensions of Social Organization
Source: (Sampson & Groves, 1989)
Sampson and Groves helped solidify the theory by providing empirical evidence
that the conceptual model worked. But perhaps more important, the authors showed that
variations in the three dimensions of community social disorganization in large part
mediated the effects of community structural characteristics (low SES, residential mobility,
ethnic heterogeneity, and family disruption – Urbanization was not significant). This meant
that theoretically if it was possible to increase friendship networks, supervise teen peer
groups and promote organizational participation, the structural forces present may not lead
to increased crime and delinquency. The research also showed that perceived direct effects
from these structural forces were often in error, and that future research would need better
measures for dimensions of social disorganization.
Using the second British Crime Survey (BCS), Sampson (1991) looked at different
community-level dimensions of social disorganization. Though unsupervised teen peer
groups and local organizational participation were not measured in the second BCS,
measures for social cohesion and collective neighborhood satisfaction were included.
Sampson was able to show that both cohesion and collective satisfaction can be
significant intervening variables or dimensions of social organization. Sampson also
provided evidence that increased length of tenure for individual residents and collective
community stability increase local friendship ties that in turn increase attachment to
community and level of community social cohesion. This shows that residential mobility
may be the most difficult structural characteristic to overcome with intervening variables,
if it is possible at all. But this finding does support low-income homeownership programs
such as Habitat for Humanity that produce longer tenure.
One of the major limitations from the BCS was that only a few measures of social
organization dimensions were included and those included often had to be extrapolated
from others. The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), a
continuation of Chicago School research techniques, helped to solve this limitation. This
1995 survey of more than 8,700 residents in 343 Chicago, IL neighborhoods included
several likert-scale measures for informal social control, social cohesion or trust,
intergenerational closure, reciprocal exchange, and physical and social disorder.
Measures for organizational participation, services present, friendship ties, voluntary
associations, and neighborhood activism were also included.
Examining the PHDCN, Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls (1997) showed that
informal social control and social cohesion or trust, though measured separately, are
significantly correlated when aggregated at the neighborhood level. The authors, therefore
combined the intervening dimensions of social organization into a summary measure they
coined “collective efficacy.” Sampson, Morenoff and Earls (1999) also argued that there
are slightly different dimensions of social organization that affect children. These include
intergenerational closure, reciprocal exchange, and child-centered social control.
Intergenerational closure measures the valuable relationships between children and adults
from various generations such as teachers, family members, police officers and clergy.
Reciprocal exchange similarly captures the exchange of advice, information, or even
material goods between children and other community members. Finally, child-centered
social control aims to measure how adults within the community help control the
community youth. Child-centered social control is now synonymous with informal social
control in most research. It should be noted that these dimensions are very similar to
mechanisms discussed earlier in regards to how neighborhood effects operate.
Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) showed that physical and social disorder as well as
condition and presence of neighborhood amenities and services were also important
variables of disorganization. The authors also argued that systematic social observation
(neighborhood observation) techniques may be the best way to measure these variables.
A decade later, Sampson and Graif (2009) summed up much of the work from Chicago
by presenting seven dimensions of neighborhood social organization. These dimensions
included collective efficacy (informal social control and social cohesion), neighborhood
activism (often measured by talking with local leaders about neighborhood problems),
intergenerational closure, reciprocal exchange, density of friendship ties, organizational
participation, and police efficacy and reliability. The authors also updated Shaw and McKay’s
structural characteristics. What was originally low economic status was now concentrated
disadvantage (measured with census data: % below poverty, % on public assistance, %
unemployed, and % female-headed household). Ethnic heterogeneity was replaced with
racial/ethnic diversity measured again with census data. And residential mobility was now
neighborhood stability measured by the percentage of homeowners and percentage of those
living in the same residence as five years prior.
Sampson and Graif (2009) also argued that social organization (or disorganization)
theory should be considered a guiding framework, but that many dimensions of the theory
are also constructs for social capital. The authors specifically name organizational
involvement, density of friendship networks, collective efficacy, and conduct norms here.
They cautioned that more research is needed to disentangle the various dimensions and
how they interact with one another. However, they also conclude that all dimensions have
shown evidence of value in creating better communities. The collection of dimensions of
social organization is used here as a guiding framework for the evaluation of Habitat’s
influence on low-income neighborhoods.
Summary of the Literature
The rising rates of neighborhood poverty in the U.S. are troubling as research
consistently shows that the residents of these neighborhoods will face more crime, fewer
job opportunities, poorer quality education, and more factors leading to poor mental and
physical health. The large housing policy initiatives have helped some families find
greater opportunity, but the number affected is only a select few. Research on these
initiatives has also shown race and income to be consistent barriers to poor families
realizing benefits from more affluent neighbors. An alternative to these large federal
initiatives has been localized non-profit and/or faith-based programs. One of the largest of
these organizations is Habitat for Humanity. Habitat is a well-known organization in
many cities, but little is known from a research perspective about the effectiveness of
their programs and especially the impact on low-income neighborhoods where Habitat
homes are built. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine this impact with the
guiding framework of dimensions of social organization. This leads to the research
questions presented below.
Research Questions, Propositions & Hypotheses As mentioned
in the introduction, the guiding research objective for this dissertation is to determine the
effect Habitat for Humanity homes have on the lowincome neighborhoods in which they
are built. However, assessing this effect or influence can be done in many ways.
Following Wilson’s findings that socially organized neighborhoods have lower rates of
social problems, the dimensions of social organization are used here to assess the effect
of Habitat for Humanity. This leads to the main research question:
1. What is the effect of Habitat for Humanity developments on dimensions of neighborhood
social organization in low-income neighborhoods?
The main research question also leads to several propositions for this research:
1. Characteristics of local Habitat affiliates affect how Habitat developments influence
neighborhood social organization.
2. Physical neighborhood characteristics affect the impact Habitat homes have on their
surrounding neighbors and blocks.
3. Patterns of development affect the impact of Habitat for Humanity homes on
neighborhood social organization.
The research question and propositions above in turn lead to the following hypotheses:
1. Blocks where Habitat is present will have greater social organization than those with
no Habitat presence.
2. Blocks with clusters of Habitat homes will have greater social organization than
areas with only one or two homes scattered in an area.
3. Habitat affiliates that are older, have built more homes, and require more hours of
sweat equity will produce greater social organization in the neighborhoods where
they operate.
4. Habitat affiliates with programs specifically targeting neighborhood revitalization
will produce greater social organization in the neighborhoods where they operate.
The research question, propositions and hypotheses presented here will be examined through
the research design explained in Chapter 4.
CHAPTER IV
A COMPARATIVE MULTIPLE CASE ANALYSIS
The more than 1,500 Habitat for Humanity affiliates in the United States operate
in many different geographic situations and contexts. Affiliates build homes in extremely
rural as well as extremely urban areas, and all are subject to local codes, covenants, design
guidelines and planning regulations. Operating procedures also vary widely as smaller
affiliates may only build a house every few years while larger affiliates may build and
repair several hundred homes each year. The variance of geography and operating
procedures even within the U.S. affiliates makes it difficult to assess a true “Habitat
effect.” This dissertation examines the effect in five large U.S. cities spread across the
country. This provides for some variance but also much greater common ground for
comparisons. A multiple case study design is utilized based on the real life context of
Habitat’s work in these cities. Yin’s (2009) advice was followed closely. Data from
surveys, interviews, neighborhood observations, and archival research as well as
qualitative and quantitative analysis procedures are used to build a comprehensive
understanding of Habitat’s influence. The various study components are discussed in
detail below.
Study Area
This dissertation takes advantage of the Making Connections survey data
(sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation) collected in three waves from 2002 through 2011.
Data was collected in 30 low-income neighborhoods within 10 U.S. cities geographically spread
across the country. This study focuses on the third wave of survey data collected between 2008
and 2011 in seven of the ten cities. Based on the amount of Habitat homes present in the study
area, five of the seven cities were selected for a multiple case study design: San Antonio, Des
Moines, Indianapolis, Louisville and Providence. All five cities rank in the top 100 Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSA) according to their 2010 population. MSA rankings are provided for each
city below in parentheses within Table 3.1. These five cities also represent three different
typologies of neighborhood poverty and several sections of the United States:
1. Industrial deconcentration: Louisville, KY (South); Indianapolis, IN (Midwest)
2. Immigrant in-movers: Des Moines, IA (Midwest), Providence, RI (East)
3. Stable Hispanic communities with persistent poverty: San Antonio, TX (West)
Each case study city has an identified study area determined by Making
Connections researchers. These study areas comprise of between one and four lowincome
neighborhoods generally located adjacent or in close proximity to one another. A map for
each study area is included in Appendix A. The size of the study areas varies widely. Table
4.1 below shows this variation based on Census 2000 data.
Table 4.1 Study Areas
Study Area Population Area (Sq. Miles)
Des Moines (88) 31,673 17.94
Indianapolis (34) 37,589 23.25
Louisville (42) 15,760 6.76
Providence (37) 38,514 7.64
San Antonio (25) 137,448 31.80
Source: (Coulton et al., 2009)
Variables of Study
Each case study follows the conceptual model presented here (Figure 4.1). The model
illustrates the variables of study, which are discussed in detail below.
Figure 4.1 Conceptual Model
Contextual Variables Control Variables
Independent Variable
The Independent variable for this investigation is the presence of Habitat for
humanity homes. This was operationalized as census blocks with at least one Habitat
home present and census blocks with no Habitat homes present. Blocks with Habitat
homes were divided into two treatment groups: 1) Scattered Sites (blocks with one Habitat
home, and 2) Clusters (blocks with two or more Habitat homes) in order to help determine
if clustering has any greater effect. Blocks with no Habitat presence (NonHabitat) were
considered the control group.
Dependent Variable
Social Organization is operationalized for this study with Wilson’s (1987)
dimensions and several intervening variables from the literature. The dimensions, variables
Presence of
Habitat homes
Number &
pattern of
Habitat homes
Neighborhood
physical
characteristics
Habitat
Affiliate
characteristics
Dimensions of
Social
Organization
Income
Race
Home -
ownership
Improved rates
of social
problems
Independent Variable Dependent Var iable
Latent
Outcome
and indicators from the survey instruments are provided below. Coding is provided in
parentheses where applicable.
Sense of Community
Neighborhood Activism (1=yes, 2=no, 3=DK, 4=refused)
2.1: spoken with local political official
2.2: talked to local religious leader or minister
2.3: gotten together with neighbors
Cohesion (1-5 likert-scale, 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree)
1.5a: live in close-knit neighborhood
1.5b: people willing to help their neighbors
1.5c, 2.7a: generally don’t get along with each other (reverse code)
1.5d, 2.7b: do not share the same values (reverse code)
1.5e: neighbors can be trusted
Organizations/Volunteerism
4.1: over past 12 months volunteered or helped with activities in community (1=yes,
2=no, 3=DK, 4=refused)
4.2: do you attend religious services inside or outside neighborhood (1=in, 2=out,
3=don’t)
4.3: has there been any neighborhood get-together during past year (1-4 as above)
4.4: in past year have you served as an officer or on committee of local club, organization or
religious institution (1-4 as above)
Positive Identification with Neighborhood
1.4: good place to raise children (1=yes, 2=no, 3=DK, 4=refused)
1.8: how does future look for neighborhood (1=get worse, 2=stay same, 3=get better)
Safety (1-7 likert, 1=very strongly disagree, 7=very strongly agree)
2.5a: neighborhood is safe for children
2.5b: feel safe at home at night
2.5c: feel safe being out in neighborhood alone during day
2.5d: if someone stopped at night to ask directions, I would stop to speak with them
2.5e: on Halloween most kids go trick-or-treating in this neighborhood
2.5f: most criminal activity here is committed by people living outside of neighborhood
Disorder physical/social (0-6, 0=does not occur, 6=very common)
2.6a: graffiti on buildings and walls
2.6b: litter or trash on sidewalks and streets
2.6c: vacant, abandoned, or boarded-up buildings
2.6d: drug dealers, drug users or drunks handing around
2.6e: traffic safety problems
2.6f: gangs and gang activity
2.6g: prostitution
2.6h: racial incidents
Services and Amenities (1-7, likert, 1=very dissatisfied, 7=very satisfied)
3.1a: trash collection
3.1b: street repair
3.1c: fire department
3.1d: ambulance services
3.1e: neighborhood schools
3.5g: park or playground
3.5h: recreation or community center
3.5i: library
3.5k: job placement, counseling & training
Police (1-5 likert, 5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree)
3.2a: helpful when dealing with residents
3.2b: honest when dealing with residents
3.2c: quick to respond when called
Explicit Norms, Sanctions against Aberrant Behavior
Informal Social Control (1-5 likert, 5=very likely, 1=very unlikely)
1.7a: if child showing disrespect to an adult, how likely others would stop it
1.7b: if group of kids skipping school, hanging on street corner
1.7c: if kids spray-painting graffiti on local building
1.7d: if fight broke out in front of their house
1.7e: if fire station closest to their house was threatened by budget cuts
Contextual Variables
Though the real life context of this study allows for the presence of many
contextual variables, three are specifically measured here: Physical characteristics of study
area neighborhoods, the number and pattern of Habitat homes, and Habitat affiliate
characteristics.
Habitat Affiliate Characteristics
One of the challenges to studying Habitat for humanity as a whole is the differences
between their affiliates. Small, rural affiliates may only build a new home every two years,
yet larger, more urban affiliates can build more than 1,000 housing units in the same time
span (personal communication, C.Civitate, June 17, 2013). This difference in scale
typically coincides with differences in operation as well. And though affiliates have
similarities of mission and programming protected by their charters with
Habitat for Humanity International, each is an individual non-profit free to operate how it
prefers. Some affiliates take a more active role in neighborhood revitalization and community
partnerships and others focus more on family education and relationships
(personal communication, D. Baker, June 17, 2013). Programs such as the Neighborhood
Revitalization Initiative (NRI) are encouraged by the parent organization, but local participation
is left to agreement among board members.
The five case cities selected for this project include affiliates that vary in their
building capacity, program requirements, neighborhood focus, and overall affiliate
characteristics. These differences are theorized to have an effect on the social organization
of the blocks in which each Habitat builds. For this reason, the local Habitat affiliates
within each case city are considered embedded units of analysis along with census blocks.
Data from interviews with Habitat staff members as well as archival data from websites
and internal publications are used to explain contextual effects.
Number and Pattern of Habitat Homes
Following the qualitative findings from the AREA (1998) study discussed
previously, the number of Habitat homes and pattern of development was measured as
another contextual variable. It is theorized from the literature that clusters of Habitat homes
in close proximity to one another have a larger effect on overall block social organization
than do scattered site homes. For measurement purposes “scattered sites” were
operationalized as blocks with only one Habitat home present and “clusters” were
considered blocks with two or more Habitat homes present. Data for the number and
pattern of Habitat homes was largely provided through Habitat address lists provided by
local affiliates. Similar to the determination of Habitat and Non-habitat blocks, addresses
were entered into ESRI Business or Community Analyst and blocks with two or more
homes were coded as cluster blocks.
It is noted here that the distinction of two homes is based on a small number of
studies. In her thesis work, Browning (2006) suggested that a small cluster of five Habitat
homes produced minimal spillover effect on neighbors in terms of neighborhood
improvement. In a dissertation, Zhu (2006) argued that it was more instructive to examine
Habitat “neighborhoods” of at least 10 homes. This study makes the distinction at two
homes in order to have large enough cohorts for analysis, but also examines larger
clusters to determine if a critical mass can be calculated for any spillover effect. It is also
important to note that clusters do not always fit within census block boundaries. Because
streets are often used as boundaries for census blocks, those clusters that consist of
several homes on one side of the street and several more on the other are not measured as
clusters within this study, but are identified where appropriate.
Neighborhood Physical Characteristics
The neighborhood context of each case site is considered a contextual variable as
well. It is theorized here that physical characteristics of the study areas may play a large
role in determining the level of social organization within Habitat and Non-habitat blocks.
Observations from the study areas provide empirical weight for survey and interview
data, and help explain differences across case sites. Observations also provide data not
addressed in survey and interview instruments, which allow for a more complete
understanding of the challenges and aids to social organization. Physical characteristics
are undoubtedly broad, but the existence of natural or man-made barriers such as rivers
and highways, established historic districts and parks, and the inclusion of university
campuses and student housing may have a significant effect on neighborhood social
organization.
Control Variables
The main control variables for this study include race/ethnicity and income. Based
heavily on the literature, it is theorized here that these can act as both barriers and aids to
social organization therefore they are important to control. However, homeownership is also
an important control variable. It is necessary to decipher between a perceived “Habitat”
effect and the effect of homeownership alone. These variables are in general operationalized
similar to census research and they were measured through survey instruments.
Methods & Data Collection
Data collection involved multiple sources of evidence for each case site including:
1) Making Connections survey data, 2) supplemental survey data, 3) interviews with Habitat
staff, 4) neighborhood observations, 5) GIS data and analysis, and 6) documents and
archival data.
Making Connections Survey
As mentioned above, this project takes advantage of the Making Connections
survey sponsored by the Annie E. Casey foundation conducted in low-income
neighborhoods in several U.S. cities. The survey addresses topics including mobility,
social capital and networks, neighborhood processes, resident perceptions and
participation, economic hardship, the availability and utilization of services and resources,
and child and adolescent well-being. These topics include the variables and measures of
social organization outlined above. The survey was designed in order to comply with
academic standards of design, sampling, and content. The design team included
methodologists and researchers from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at
the University of Chicago, the Urban Institute, Case Western University, University of
North Carolina Chapel Hill and the University of Chicago. NORC researchers conducted
the survey. NORC/University of Chicago statisticians designed the sampling and
calculated the weights for analytic purposes. University researchers from
Case Western University, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and University of Chicago
oversaw all aspects of the survey (Making Connections-a, 2014).
Participants
Participants of the Making Connections survey in each of the five case cities are provided
in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Making Connections Survey Responses
Case City Total Survey Responses
Des Moines 796
Indianapolis 789
Louisville 795
Providence 811
San Antonio 842
Total 4,033
Source: Data calculated by Author
Procedures
The data used here comes from the third wave of the survey conducted in the five
case study sites between 2008 and 2011. Surveys were completed both in-person and over
the phone as an interview with sample households located in the case city study area.
Respondents were required to 18 years of age. Approximately 30 NORC researchers were
used per site to conduct the survey, and typically each survey took 50 minutes to
complete. Survey respondents were paid $20 for their participation, and survey response
rates for the third wave ranged from 74% to 87% (Making Connections-b, 2014).
Supplemental Survey
A second survey instrument was created using the same indicators as the Making
Connections survey for social organization dimensions. The survey also included indicators
for control variables. In total each survey included 23 questions and was assumed to take
15-20 minutes to complete. (The survey was not included in pilot testing because it was
developed later, but it was tested on four colleagues. Each completed the survey in less
than 15 minutes).
The survey was mailed to Habitat homeowners in each case city study area in order
to determine a “Habitat homeowner” response for comparison purposes. The survey was
also mailed to Non-Habitat residents of census blocks with five or more Habitat houses
present in each study area in order to determine if Non-Habitat residents in cluster areas
significantly differed from other Non-Habitat respondents. These were considered “cluster
neighbor” responses. Addresses for Habitat homeowners were obtained from local Habitat
affiliates through email correspondence between January, 2012 and April, 2012. Addresses
for cluster blocks were obtained by the author during neighborhood observations in each
case city between May and July of 2013.
Participants
The supplemental survey was mailed to the entire population of Habitat
households in each study area as well as the entire population of Non-habitat neighbors in
cluster blocks for each study area. The total population and responses received for each
case are provided in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3 Supplemental Survey Responses
Case City Habitat
Homes
Habitat
Responses
Cluster
Homes
Cluster
Responses
Response
Rate
Des Moines 150 46 112 31 29%
Indianapolis 105 42 23 10 41%
Louisville 61 22 16 6 36%
Providence 44 12 32 11 30%
San Antonio 274 74 273 64 25%
Total 634 196 456 122 29%
Source: Data calculated by Author
Procedures
Surveys were mailed out in two separate waves. The first wave was mailed in
November, 2013 and the second wave was mailed in February and March of 2014. Salant
and Dillman’s (1994) suggestions for mail surveys were used to guide the process. For the
first wave, an introductory letter was first sent to all survey recipients notifying them that
they would receive a survey about their neighborhood within a week. The introductory
letter also explained the survey and its purpose and informed recipients that one $100 gift
card would be randomly awarded among returned and completed surveys. Surveys were
then mailed using bulk mail rates in 6x9 envelopes along with a letter of instructions and
introduction and a folded reply envelope with business reply postage already printed.
Spanish and English surveys and letters were provided for Des Moines, Providence and
San Antonio based on a large percentage of Hispanic population in the study area.
Louisville and Indianapolis only received English surveys due to less than 10% Hispanic
population in the study areas. Follow-up postcards were also sent to survey recipients 10
days after surveys were sent. Postcards provided a phone number and email recipients
could use to be re-mailed a survey. Sixteen calls and emails were fielded for additional
surveys. All survey materials are provided in Appendix B.
After a response rate of approximately 12% for wave one, a second wave of surveys
was sent with minor modifications. The second wave did not receive an introductory letter
before receiving the survey. However, each survey was sent with a $1 bill provided as a
thank you for completing and returning the questionnaire. All mail was hand addressed
with actual stamps, including the stamped response envelope provided. Labels were used
for return addressing. No $100 gift card was awarded for the second wave of surveys. The
second wave attained a slightly better response rate of 17%, giving an overall response rate
for the survey of 29%.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with Habitat staff in each case city in order to better
understand affiliate operations, mission and neighborhood influence. Interviews were
semi-structured and used the interview questions in Appendix C as a guide to keep
conversation moving and to ensure comparable information was gathered. Questions were
focused on affiliate operations and programs for contextual data, though interviewees
were also asked about components of social organization and neighborhood outreach.
Between one and three interviews were conducted at each site typically lasting 45-90
minutes. One interview was scheduled for each site, however in Des Moines and
San Antonio more staff members were asked to join in order to answer specific questions.
After asking permission, a tape recorder was used for all interviews. The Providence
interview was conducted over the phone to accommodate scheduling conflicts, but all
other interviews were conducted in person at Habitat offices. Table 4.4 below provides the
participants for each case city.
Table 4.4 Interview Participants
Case City Interview Number Participant Title
Des Moines 1 Director of Development
2 Director of Strategic Partnerships
3 Rock the Block Outreach Coordinator
Indianapolis 1 Neighborhood Outreach Director
Louisville 1 Chief Executive Officer
Providence 1 Chief Executive Officer
San Antonio 1 VP of Development & Communications
2 Marketing Assistant
Neighborhood Observations
Direct observations were recorded for each case site study area during a 5-10 day visit
during May and June of 2013. Procedures for observations were adapted from the
Systematic Social Observation method outlined by Earls, Raudenbush, Reiss and Sampson
(1995) in their work for the Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods (PHDCN). Observation techniques explained by Jacobs (1985) and
Meinig (1979) were also incorporated. Observation logs and guide sheets created from
sources mentioned here were used to guide documentation and data gathering. These items
can be found in Appendix D.
Observations were recorded with field notes, photographs, voice recording and a
small amount of video recording. Observation was done via walking, bicycling and
driving in each study area. Effort was made to at least drive through all sections of each
study area, though not every street of the San Antonio study area was visited due to its
large size and time constraints. All Habitat clusters were visited along with most Habitat
homes in each study area. Observation focused on signs of disorder, decay and dislocation
including graffiti, litter, drug deals, loitering, public drinking, dilapidated housing, and
poor yard maintenance. However, items suggesting social organization were also recorded
such as well-maintained housing and land, well-used parks, diversity in public spaces,
transit nodes, accessible job centers, recreation paths, and symbols for neighborhood
organizations and celebrations. Table 4.5 below provides the dates for each site visit. All
dates are 2013.
Table 4.5 Site Visits & Dates
Case City Site Visit Dates / Duration
Des Moines June 17-21 / 5 days
Indianapolis June 10-14 / 5 days
Louisville June 3-8 / 6 days
Providence June 25-30 / 6 days
San Antonio May 15-24 / 10 days
GIS data
GIS data was used largely for preliminary analysis. Two web-based GIS programs,
ESRI Business Analyst and ESRI Community Analyst, were used to visualize the layout
of Habitat homes and clusters within each study area. Program data also allowed for the
identification of area schools, parks, churches, and land use typology. These programs
were also used for general mapping done throughout the dissertation document and some
descriptive statistics for each case city and study area.
Documents and Archival data
Documents and archival data were used to support the other forms of data in this
project. Perhaps most important, address lists of Habitat homes within each study area
were provided by local affiliates. Each Habitat affiliate website was also examined for
basic program components, staff directories and contacts, and affiliate history and mission.
Several affiliates also offered internal publications as a research aid for various missional
components and statistics. For instance, vision plans, fact sheets, annual meeting reports,
volunteer packets, and newsletters were used to better understand the context and
operations for each affiliate.
Summary of Data Collection
Table 4.6 below provides a summary of all evidence collected for each variable in the
conceptual design and the corresponding method of data collection.
Table 4.6 Summary of Evidence & Data Collection
Project Variables Data Collection Method(s)
Independent Variable
Presence of Habitat Homes
Archival Records (Address Lists)
Dependent Variables
Neighborhood Activism
Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Cohesion Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Organizations/Volunteerism Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Safety Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Disorder Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Services & Amenities Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Police Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Informal Social Control Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Contextual Variables
Habitat Affiliate Characteristics
Interviews / Archival Records
Number & Pattern of Habitat homes Archival Records / GIS data
Neighborhood Physical Characteristics Neighborhood Observations / GIS data
Control Variables
Race/Ethnicity
Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Income Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Homeownership Making Connections & Supplemental Survey
Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis includes both quantitative and qualitative procedures. Analysis
began by identifying all census blocks in each study area as Habitat blocks (scattered site
and Cluster) or Non-habitat blocks. This was determined for each case by inputting
Habitat addresses (provided by local Habitat affiliates) located in each case study area into
ESRI Business or Community Analyst software. Once input, study area census blocks
with one Habitat home present were coded as Scattered Sites, blocks with two or more
Habitat homes were coded as Cluster blocks and blocks with no Habitat presence were
coded as Non-habitat blocks. Scattered Site blocks and Cluster blocks were considered the
two Treatment groups and Non-habitat blocks were considered the control group in each
study area. This is illustrated in the map of Providence, RI below (Figure 4.2). The study
area for Providence is in light purple. Habitat blocks are outlined in dark purple and the
blue and white pins indicate Habitat homes, which were used to determine Scattered Sites
and Clusters. As is illustrated here, study areas had more Non-habitat blocks than Habitat
blocks overall. The thick purple borders also represent the four adjacent neighborhoods
within the Providence study area.
Figure 4.2 Habitat and Non-Habitat Blocks in Providence, RI
Source: (ESRI Business Analyst, 2014)
Key
Non-habitat Blocks
Habitat Blocks
Habitat Homes
Making Connections survey responses (provided at the block level) were then
coded as Scattered Sites (treatment), Clusters (treatment 2) or Non-habitat block responses
(Control). Using SAS software, analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were run on
treatment and control group responses to determine if significant differences in variables
of social organization existed. The Tukey Method (Tukey-Kramer method) was used to
test for significant difference due to its correction for experiment-wise error rate (Type I
errors), however F values and p values were also checked for significance.
Control variables (race/ethnicity, income and homeownership) were also analyzed with
SAS software for descriptive statistics. Attempts were also made to group Making
Connections responses that come from cluster blocks (those with five or more Habitat homes),
but there were not enough for statistical comparison in each individual city.
The Supplemental survey was conducted to provide an overall Habitat response in
each case city as well as a response for non-habitat residents living in cluster blocks with five
or more Habitat homes present. Responses from Habitat homeowners were coded as “HH”
and responses from Non-habitat residents of cluster blocks were coded as
“5+NBR.” The Supplemental survey responses are used for comparison with Making
Connections responses, however because the surveys had key differences in procedures
(mail vs. face-to-face and timing especially) they are not directly compared with ANOVA
procedures. Salant & Dillman (1994) suggest that interview procedures provide better
response rates and understanding of each question, but mail surveys may provide more
uninhibited responses as the respondent does not have to answer in front of an
interviewer. Therefore it is assumed here that the supplemental survey may provide
somewhat different answers based on different collection procedures. However,
Supplemental survey responses aid in the discussion of project propositions and
hypotheses and provide greater understanding of each study area and the level of social
organization found where Habitat homes are present.
Interview data, affiliate archival research and neighborhood observation data
relied on both themes from the literature and themes to emerge through content analysis.
Differences between Habitat affiliates allowed for pattern matching in cross-case analysis
and explanation building throughout the analysis. Neighborhood physical characteristics
were analyzed in much the same way, but both contextual variables were also used to
explain the variance (or lack thereof) in mean scores for survey findings. In general all
qualitative data was used to better understand and assess rival explanations for variance in
means. In this way, explanation building was used as the main analytic strategy for the
dissertation as an explanation was built on each new piece of evidence.
The number and pattern of Habitat homes was analyzed with GIS tools in ESRI
Community and Business Analyst. This information was used to identify clusters for
address gathering, coding and again to explain differences in variance for survey data.
Other background analysis included the analysis of comparative statistics for each study
area and larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in order to better understand the level
of disadvantage present. This was performed using data analysis tools with the ESRI
software. Data for these procedures came from Census 2010 findings.
Reporting the Findings
Though each case city was researched as a separate case within the multiple case
study design, the findings of the dissertation are reported as a cross-case analysis by
variable. This was done to allow for easier comparison between the cases for each variable.
Findings for contextual variables are presented first to build the explanation of each case.
Dependent variable findings are then presented along with discussion for each individual
variable that incorporates contextual and control findings. Again this is done to build the
explanation of each case and allow for the maximum ease of comparison between cases.
Validity & Reliability
Construct Validity
This study best counters threats to construct validity by utilizing data from the
Making Connections survey. This survey (as well as the supplemental survey) used well
established measures in social science literature for variables of social organization. The
research design here also used multiple sources of evidence (triangulation) including
survey results, interviews, neighborhood observations as well as GIS and archival data.
Though not all sources of data were used to directly measure social organization, several
measures for each variable of social organization were incorporated into Making
Connections survey questions, and observations in the neighborhoods were partly used to
confirm survey findings. Case sites were also picked that clearly distinguished a difference
in neighborhood poverty and the pilot study also helped here by refining research and
interview questions. Finally, a clear chain of evidence has been established with guidance
from the case protocol and case study database.
Internal Validity
This is the greatest concern of the study. Rival explanations pose a significant
threat. The inclusion of contextual and control variables that may be considered rival
explanations is one strategy to used here to build internal validity. The contextual
variables especially will then be used to aid in pattern matching and explanation building
to better understand if any significant difference in variances can be considered a “habitat”
effect. Other influences from these neighborhoods cannot be ruled out, but the large
sample of Making Connections responses, the inclusion of the supplemental survey and
different geographic and poverty contexts helps to show Habitat influence in various
situations. Also a case description of each Making Connection study area is included in
the findings as part of the contextual results. Habitat staff also helped here by providing
local knowledge of other organizations and interventions at work in each study area.
External validity
The use of a multiple-case design in different poverty contexts is used to help
defend against threats to external validity. It is also hoped that replication over time in
other regions of the country and within other contexts can help verify these results.
Generalizing to any greater population is not the intent of this study, but it hopes to work
toward building greater understanding of how neighborhood effects operate and in what
contexts neighbors have the most influence. This study should also open the door to greater
examination of the Habitat for Humanity program and the use of motivation to better one’s
life as a characteristic for revitalization. In this way, the goal of this study is for analytic
generalization building on the theoretical framework discussed earlier.
Reliability
Threats to reliability for this project are countered with the creation of a case study
protocol and case study database. A detailed case study protocol was used to guide data
collection and reporting. The case study database also includes the array of evidence
including supplemental survey results, interview transcriptions, field notes, photos, videos
and voice recordings from observations and maps created with GIS tools. Making
Connections survey results are not included due to security issues with the data, however
coding explanations and analysis procedures are included.
CHAPTER V
DES MOINES: CONTEXTUAL FINDINGS
Chapters 5-9 examine the Habitat affiliate characteristics and physical
characteristics of each study area as well as the development pattern of Habitat homes
within those areas. These chapters present findings from Habitat staff interviews,
neighborhood observations and GIS mapping and analysis to help build the explanation
of each case city and study area.
Habitat Characteristics
Homeownership Program
In operation since 1986, Greater Des Moines Habitat for Humanity has built or
renovated 221 homes in the Des Moines area through 2013 with plans to add 30 more
homes in 2014 (27 new construction and three renovations). The majority of the affiliate’s
homes have been built in the study area and plans for at least the next five years will
expand on this presence (personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013). The
affiliate largely builds new homes through the flagship Homeownership program;
however there are typically 3-4 each year that are rehabs of homes acquired in decent
enough shape to rehabilitate instead of demolishing and building new construction.
The affiliate targets residents making between 30% and 60% of the Area Median
Income (AMI). This range is partly derived in order to meet the local need for housing,
and partly to make sure the prospective homeowner has sufficient income to pay a 20year
mortgage at 0% interest along with taxes and insurance. Despite having more than a
dozen plans they build, the typical Habitat house in Des Moines is built for $106,500 and
appraises for around $125,000. This leaves families with a monthly mortgage payment
around $450. The affiliate doesn’t build less than three bedrooms despite the family size
to protect resale value, and has built up to a seven bedroom house, but generally homes
are 3-5 bedrooms depending on family size and ability to pay. But before families move
into to a new Habitat home they have to complete the homeownership program. For all
prospective Habitat homeowners this begins with an application and the process of
getting qualified, which mostly has to do with credit and debt.
The Des Moines affiliate typically has 75-100 people for applicant information
meetings held once every two months. Beyond dispelling the common misconception that
Habitat “gives away” houses, this meeting covers the basics of Habitat, where they are
building, what they are building and what is required of each applicant. Those interested
can then take an application to complete. From this meeting the Des Moines affiliate
usually receives 35-40 applications and will ultimately accept 8-15 applicants into the
program based on their “readiness” from each applicant information meeting. Readiness
is based heavily on minimum credit score and debt to income ratio. The affiliate acts as
the bank, but families still pay their no-interest mortgage so they must have enough
income to cover this payment and any other debt. Each application is reviewed by the
affiliate’s Family Services Department and each applicant family or individual will meet
one-on-one with a staff member to discuss the application. If any deficiencies are found,
the staff member counsels the family on how they can ultimately qualify. For those
willing to work on their application deficiencies, Habitat staff members are willing to
help even if it takes several months or even years:
If somebody who applies isn’t qualified or they’re rejected for some reason
there’s an invitation. If you want to come in and talk and basically learn what you
can do or what other services might help you get more ready, we will chat with
you. That step’s up to them but the invitation is always there and some families
take us up on it…some families we’ll work with a year or two to help them get
ready. And there are families that will apply two or three times, but if they’re
listening and doing what they can, they become more likely to be accepted
(personal communication, B Shird, June 17, 2013).
Once families have a qualifying application, they begin working through the
homeownership program and “earning” their house through sweat equity. The sweat
equity model is the basis for the parent organization and all affiliates claiming the
program is “a hand up, not a hand out.”
Sweat Equity
The sweat equity model is a cornerstone of all Habitat affiliates and functions to
replace the monetary down payment with a down payment of work or “sweat.” At
Greater Des Moines Habitat, program participants are required to complete 400 hours of
sweat equity before they move into their new house, and 200 of those hours must be
complete before families can select their property. Another common misconception of
Habitat is that families only earn sweat equity by building their own house or other
applicant’s homes; however, the Des Moines affiliate like many others offers many
avenues to earn hours. Besides construction, adults can also help with filing, answering
phones and similar tasks at the Habitat office. Others spend time as cashiers and helpers
at the Habitat Restore, which functions as both a thrift store with second-hand clothes,
furniture and housewares, and as a hardware store with many new and used construction
items including paint, tools, roofing, doors, windows and other hardware items. Elderly
or disabled applicants who have trouble performing the more physical tasks can help
provide treats and drinks to construction volunteers along with words of encouragement.
In general the affiliate tries to stay flexible based with schedules, physical ability, age,
and comfort level.
Other than all the optional possibilities for sweat equity, all families must
complete a mandatory curriculum of homeownership classes designed solely by the
affiliate. Blueprint to Homeownership is a core curriculum of 30 classroom hours to help
prospective homeowners learn skills necessary to maintain homeownership. The
emphasis is on basic home finance such as setting a budget and opening a checking
account, but topics also include home insurance, being a good neighbor, home
maintenance and even landscaping. Not only does the classwork provide a base level of
knowledge on key topics for successful homeownership, but it also works to build new
relationships between partner families and Habitat staff, community volunteers and each
other. It is the relationships built between the applicant families that are perhaps the most
lasting:
I think they build a real sense of community when they go through the classes
together…They kind of become like a family even though they come from such
different backgrounds and they all probably speak different languages. But they
somehow build this bond, and it’s though they’ve come through this shared
experience and it’s kind of like putting them all on a bus and going on a trip
together. It makes this common bond and they become like a family. (personal
communication, P. Maurer, June 17, 2013).
The building of community through the group homeownership classes is an inadvertent
outcome, but one that comes as no surprise to Habitat staff. “I think it is just a natural,
residual outcome. It comes because they are all working toward the same goal. I think
because they all kind of come from that same starting point…and they can relate to each
other” (personal communication, P. Maurer, June 17, 2013).
Homeownership
Approximately 10%-15% of families who complete an application make it
through the program to homeownership. This process takes 12-18 months for most, but
the relationship with Habitat doesn’t end there. Because Habitat acts as the bank for their
homeowners, the financial relationship continues at least as long as the 20-year mortgage.
This works to the homeowners’ benefit as Habitat is more willing to work with their
partner families in times of financial change or stress. “We work with them, and a bank
would not necessarily work with our population…but our goal is to keep them, and they
will accept different payment plans to get it taken care of” (personal communication, P.
Maurer, June 17, 2013). The affiliate boasts zero foreclosures in their 28-year history and
at any one time claim to typically have less than 5% delinquent on mortgage payments.
They also boast other financial success for program participants in many ways other than
home ownership. “Typically when a homeowner or perspective homeowner comes into
our program their credit score will rise almost 100 points from the time they start the
application process to the time they purchase the home” (personal communication, P.
Maurer, June 17, 2013). The reason behind the success is part learning new skills and
knowledge and part relationship:
I think it’s what we do on the front end with them. I think it’s the blueprint to
homeownership classes that we go through with them. I think it’s because we are
diligent on the front end with our application process. And yes, I think it is
because we continue the relationship with them (personal communication, P.
Maurer, June 17, 2013).
But just as staff point to the relationships built with program participants as important to a
family’s success with Habitat and in homeownership, they point to the relationships and
partnerships built block by block through both the homeownership program and their
Rock the Block program as the key to neighborhood success.
Clusters & Neighborhoods
Though the Homeownership program remains the foundation of Greater Des
Moines Habitat for Humanity, the affiliate has distinguished themselves from other
affiliates with their neighborhood revitalization work. As discussed in the literature
review, Habitat supporters have long claimed that Habitat homes help revitalize
neighborhoods one house at a time. Some affiliates try to build several houses together
(clusters) to make more of a neighborhood impact, but that is determined largely by the
ability to obtain large sections of land together. The Des Moines affiliate does try to build
in clusters when possible, but that hasn’t been often in their history. They do have five
census blocks in the study area with more than five Habitat houses (considered a cluster
here) and their largest cluster has 10 homes together, however most of these clusters were
built up over time by completing infill projects in one area of several years. In fact cluster
building for the Des Moines affiliate has been more intentional for the ease of
construction than for the impact on a neighborhood or block.
The Des Moines affiliate, however, has been at the forefront of a more intentional
and larger scale revitalization initiative. In 2006 The Des Moines affiliate was selected as
one of two affiliates in the nation to be part of a pilot program called Thrivent Builds
Neighborhoods (TBN). The program was a partnership between Thrivent Financial for
Lutherans (a not-for-profit Fortune 500 financial services organization) and Habitat for
Humanity International. As part of the pilot, Des Moines Habitat became the leader of a
collaborative partnership between 28 different local agencies to revitalize urban
neighborhoods in Des Moines. The pilot was “sort of a way to test some of the theories
about community development that some people at Habitat International had with a
willing partner” (personal communication, B Shird, June 17, 2013).
Though the initial focus was more geared toward beautification, the affiliate
realized early on that more needed to be done to make a lasting difference:
It quickly became apparent that a lot more needed to happen than block clean up
days. Like, you can put flowers in somebody’s yard and you can clean their alley
and it fit what we called ‘neighborhood pride and perception,’ but the more we
did, the more we realized it’s wonderful for looks but it’s a bit like putting lipstick
on when the rest of you is falling apart (personal communication, B Shird, June
17, 2013).
Soon the affiliate began targeting home repair and improvement over more cosmetic
block clean-ups, though always with the goal of helping an entire neighborhood:
Instead of just saying we’re going to do home repairs with low income families or
improvements here there and everywhere, we wanted to say let’s focus it, focus
our resources and efforts in neighborhoods where we have strong partnerships
where we’ve either built or are planning to build and renovate a significant
number of homes. So that makes the neighborhoods better for the families we’re
serving when they’re moving in as well as for everyone already there (personal
communication, B Shird, June 17, 2013).
By 2008 Greater Des Moines Habitat realized their homeownership program
wasn’t enough to really change a neighborhood, and the lessons they were learning with
the TBN pilot were starting to have an effect on the direction of the affiliate:
We were only serving the families who were going through our home ownership
program and you know, you could look up and down the block. Maybe you put, in
a two block area, five new houses and you’ve renovated another one. That’s great
and you’d see residents starting to improve their home, those who had the means,
but what about the elderly woman on social security?
…I remember standing next to our Executive Director on one of our Thrivent
sponsored house builds and there was a woman who came out and said something
like “I sure wish somebody could help me trim my trees. My husband used to.”
He looked at me, and I remember him saying “We really should be able to do that.
You know, it really should fit into what we do. It’s about keeping people in their
homes, it’s important to the entire neighborhood.”
Now we go into specific neighborhoods and there are the home repairs and home
maintenance and all these different components…but I think our new families
moving in there, it’s everybody’s kind of got a piece of habitat now in their
neighborhood as opposed to only these new people who are coming in (personal
communication, B Shird, June 17, 2013).
In late 2008 the affiliate changed the name of the TBN pilot program to Rock the
Block to help foster excitement for neighborhood residents. The new direction for the
affiliate was simultaneous to new ideas forming at the national level and within many
other Habitat affiliates as well:
It’s important to realize that several years ago Habitat in general realized that
putting a home, a brand new home in a neighborhood or rehabbing a home in a
neighborhood is not enough…There’s a lot of missing links there. Dropping a
home into a neighborhood is one thing, but when you’re not helping the neighbors
next to them you might put in $100,000 worth of value…and if the home next to
it is only worth $25,000 that home is not actually worth $100,000. So you put in
all this work for a new home, and you might watch the next door neighbor work
on his house for the first time in a while, but that is still a small effect…we need
to do more (personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
By late 2009, the parent organization did just that by announcing the Neighborhood
Revitalization Initiative (NRI). The initiative, an outgrowth of the success from the TBN
pilot, was again geared toward home repair, maintenance and weatherization and
included 55 affiliates (Des Moines is one of them) in the program’s pilot stage. Home
repairs and maintenance remains a major portion of the NRI focus, but also important is
that Habitat affiliates are not alone in the work. The emphasis is on building partnerships
with other community organizations, local government and area residents to create a
“shared vision of revitalization” (Habitat for Humanity-c, 2014). This is exemplified in
the work that continues with Rock the Block.
Rock the Block
Though the Habitat homeownership program has a more indirect and inadvertent
effect on neighborhoods, the Rock the Block program is all about neighborhoods. The
program provides home maintenance and repair for low-income homeowners (not Habitat
homeowners) in an effort to help revitalize targeted Des Moines neighborhoods. The
repair and maintenance can range from a few hundred dollars to a ceiling of $5,000. The
work is largely exterior and focuses on critical home repair, weatherization and home
preservation. Typical repairs include adding ramps for accessibility, porch and siding
repair, painting, new roofing, adding attic insulation to lower utility bills, as well as
landscaping and driveway repair. Interior items often focus on the larger systems such as
new plumbing, electrical panels and wiring or even a more efficient furnace. And though
the work is geared toward individual homeowners, the emphasis is largely on blocks and
neighborhoods:
We start off when we’re trying to qualify families we go block by block, but we
are always thinking about the entire neighborhood. Here in Des Moines a
neighborhood itself might be 50 blocks by 20 blocks or something. So we’ll go
into that whole neighborhood and focus there for at least three years (personal
communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
Emphasizing “focus neighborhoods,” or neighborhoods the affiliate and its
partners have targeted for revitalization efforts due to Habitat presence and specific need,
staff members begin by going door to door to find out what repair needs might exist and
introducing the program to residents. Importantly, focus neighborhoods are also the
neighborhoods where the affiliate focuses their new construction. Focusing both
programs in the same neighborhood allows for maximum impact. Typically the affiliate
focuses on a neighborhood for 3-5 years and has 1-3 focus neighborhoods at any point.
Qualification is similar to the homeownership program, but more lenient as
participants don’t need to qualify for a full mortgage loan. This allows the affiliate to help
any family earning 60% of the Area Median Income and below, with no bottom threshold.
During the qualification process staff members perform a home assessment in order to
find the needs of each family, but also to begin building a relationship:
We go in and try to listen to the homeowner first. The biggest thing is building a
partnership with the homeowner where they trust you in their home. So it’s asking
them what they need help with first and then trying to find a difference between
their needs and wants (personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
Similar to the homeownership program, once the qualification process is complete new
partner families embark on earning sweat equity hours to cover the cost of the repair. The
sweat equity requirement is a sliding scale for Rock the Block families but all have a
minimum of six hours, which equates to one day working on their house or a neighbor’s.
And just like the homeownership program participants, sweat equity can be earned at the
Restore, Habitat office, or taking classes (though classes are not required). However,
because sweat equity is often performed at the time of construction instead of before, if
material costs exceed $1,000 families are given a forgivable loan until all sweat equity is
completed.
The relationships built with residents helps the affiliate establish goodwill in a
neighborhood they plan to work in for several years. This goodwill also helps the
transition for new Habitat homeowners moving into a new neighborhood. The small
amount of backlash the affiliate does receive often revolves around a fear of
gentrification:
When we first started getting into more neighborhood revitalization residents
wanted their neighborhood to improve, but they didn’t want their own bills to go
up. We kept hearing stuff like “we don’t want to be gentrified,” and “oh no my
taxes are going to go up.” Well if you have houses in your neighborhood instead
of abandoned places, it may go up a little, but you’ll also have less crime and a
better place to live (personal communication, B. Shird, June 17, 2013).
The affiliate has largely been able to dispel any worries of increased taxes or annoyances
with construction activity by talking with all residents on the blocks they work and
concentrating their presence in a handful of targeted neighborhoods. Another important
component of dispelling fear and gaining trust with neighborhood residents has been the
inclusion of community space projects in the regular work of the program. These projects
have included planting 27 trees in a neighborhood park, taking out fencing to create
baseball and soccer fields, and painting a gymnasium so it could be used for community
events. The community projects work to spread goodwill in the neighborhood as well as
form relationships with local organizations and neighborhood stakeholders:
To help the Grub YMCA we were putting down rock and clearing out sod so they
could move their bleachers. They had new bleachers for their ball fields that are
used by a lot of neighborhood residents but they had a lot of budget cuts, so they
had enough money for the equipment but not the installation. So we were able to
help them in that way. A year or two before that we had repainted and cleaned up
a room so they could have a GED classroom, because that’s a huge community
asset in that area (personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
The most visible public space projects have involved revitalizing parks:
As part of Rock the Block we had painted and cleaned up a bunch at Edna Griffin
Park, but it was still old park equipment. And finally the city came up with the
money for new equipment but not the labor. They didn’t know how to balance
that or get it done. Well, Habitat provided the volunteers and the leadership…I
mean I’ve had excited kids and residents but literally “Lady, are you here to help
build the park?” Little kids in fenced areas going “When will it be done?” And
when we finally had it done and took off the caution there’s like kids streaming,
rushing in. It made such a huge difference and for everybody in that
neighborhood it improved the quality of life. Whenever I drive by that park
there’s always some child or group playing or shooting hoops. And it’s pretty
awesome to see that because we understand that community space is a big part of
why a neighborhood is successful (personal communication, B. Shird, June 17,
2013).
The affiliate recognizes that community space projects foster goodwill with the area
residents, but they also realize that they need to build deeper relationships beyond these
projects in order to create and maintain lasting success for Habitat homeowners and their
neighbors. This speaks to the emphasis on “partnering” that is evident in all aspects of
Greater Des Moines Habitat for Humanity.
Focus on Partnerships
In many ways partnering for the Des Moines affiliate begins with families.
Participants in the homeownership program are given the title of “family partners” even
for single applicants (which are somewhat rare). Staff members emphasize that this is at
the heart of Habitat’s claim that the programs are a hand up not a hand out. Though it is a
nurturing relationship, the emphasis is on families as equal partners with the affiliate in a
shared goal of homeownership or neighborhood revitalization. This has also changed how
the affiliate discusses success and goals. Instead of the number of houses built or
repaired, the affiliate now measures the number of families partnered with and blocks and
neighborhoods served. The concept of partnership carries over to how the affiliate relates
to their focus neighborhoods, local government, other local organizations and sponsors,
but it begins with building neighborhood relationships.
Neighborhoods
Neighborhood partnering begins with focus neighborhoods. The affiliate currently
has five focus neighborhoods in which they concentrate their efforts to acquire land for
new construction or rehabs and perform Rock the Block repairs and maintenance along
with community space projects. Each focus neighborhood typically has at least 25 of
these various projects either being completed or planned for completion in the near
future. In one such neighborhood, for example, the affiliate completed eight new homes,
one rehab and 40 Rock the Block projects in 2013. The energy created by the
concentrated work often bleeds over to other neighborhood residents who want to get
involved in making their neighborhood better:
We’re doing a 3-house blitz build in one of our neighborhoods now and we’ve
had several of the neighborhood residents come out to help, many of whom have
benefited from Rock the Block on their houses…these elderly women are out
helping make sandwiches and serving lunch. One of them got her church together
to do lunch for over 100 people on Saturday. You know, that’s pretty cool
(personal communication, B. Shird, June 17, 2013).
However, word of these revitalization efforts also manages to spread to other low-income
neighborhoods that want Habitat to help them as well:
This latest neighborhood actually came to us. We had a couple, maybe three or
four Habitat houses, maybe five, scattered in their neighborhood over several
years but never a concerted effort there. They came to us for a letter of support
asking if they were selected by the city, would Habitat come in there…And as a
result our land development manager has been scoping, working with the city and
others in the community to purchase as much land as possible in that community.
So, boom, the new construction there is going to go on for a few years (personal
communication, P. Maurer, June 17, 2013).
Beyond the physical work of revitalization, the affiliate has also learned to build
relationships with neighborhood associations and local leadership. This has been as
simple as helping to provide ice cream and lemonade for neighborhood socials and as
involved as working with neighborhood committees and subcommittees in a long term
relationship. Many of the lessons in working with neighborhood leadership come from
the early days of the TBN pilot, where the affiliate learned to build up local leaders:
I think that’s one thing we learned from TBN. We kind of led that whole effort
and we learned that when we left we kind of took the leadership with us. So this
time when we went into MLK we went in and built up the leadership first. We
helped to identify the leaders, but they were all their own local people…they
weren’t Habitat families, they were within the neighborhood. So we started
talking with them and working with them so when we leave their leadership is
still in place (personal communication, B. Shird, June 17, 2013).
The affiliate’s willingness to build up local leaders allows for more sustainable
leadership; however this practice has also at times disrupted leadership already in place in
favor of more Habitat friendly leaders:
…We learned in two other neighborhoods that the leadership in place…they were
nice people but they didn’t want to continue the [revitalization] efforts so we
identified leadership that would help carry this effort forward, and I think that’s
what we’re finding is successful (personal communication, P. Maurer, June 17,
2013).
The comments above show the double-edged sword for Habitat. On one hand,
Habitat-influenced leadership can result in greater neighborhood change, but on the other
hand that may not be what is best for the neighborhood or what the residents really want
regardless of what is “good” for the affiliate. Habitat International promotes an
AssetBased Community Development model (ABCD) that focuses on uncovering the
strengths within communities as a path toward sustainable development. However, the
ABCD approach isn’t necessarily enforced or well communicated to each affiliate. That
knowledge is largely left to each affiliate to gain on their own, and many likely never
seek that understanding.
Local Government
One of the longest lasting partnerships for the Des Moines affiliate has been with
the city of Des Moines, and it has often revolved around land acquisition. A small portion
of land is donated to Habitat through estates or individual donations, but the majority of
land is bought through tax sales or agreements with land owners. Having a good
relationship with the city is important in order to find land in the areas the affiliate is
interested in purchasing. The city has also worked closely with the affiliate to identify the
neighborhoods with the greatest need. “We really work where the city wants us to focus.
We try to work with city planners in areas they’ve adopted for new projects. This helps us
build the momentum together” (personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
With the city’s help, Des Moines Habitat attempts to buy as many properties together as
possible or at least in close proximity to one another. This helps with the ease of
construction work, but also helps turn a blighted block around:
A lot of times we’re trying to buy properties adjacent to ours that are just in
horrible repair and often abandoned…we try to purchase those that are a blight to
a neighborhood. We’re not just trying to get those cleaned up, but rather than just
infill we’re trying to concentrate in a block by block effort (personal
communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
Besides land acquisition, Des Moines Habitat has also learned to partner with
several city departments and programs to further revitalize neighborhoods outside of
what the affiliate can accomplish on their own:
It’s the whole holistic approach to what is a neighborhood? What does it look
like? How can we all work together? The city of Des Moines’ emergency relief
program for homeowners a lot of times would look at a home and they would say
“This home is too far gone. We aren’t going to put any money into it.” Well, it’s
not going to change the neighborhood if they’re not able to do anything. That
home is going to sit there and those homeowners are still going to be there. The
home is just going to continue to deteriorate. So we’ve worked with the city of
Des Moines and Polk County where if they’re able to fix the roof maybe we can
fix the siding. So they might have determined that it was too much for them to do
but in that partnership we can work with them in order to get that fixed. So the
homes that have been neglected and forgotten because they wouldn’t qualify them
are now being qualified and we’re working with them (personal communication,
C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
Habitat has also worked with the police department in several neighborhoods to increase
patrols so residents feel safer using neighborhood parks and community open space, and
the affiliate has worked with the Parks Department on several joint projects including
some programming elements:
We worked with the Parks Department to paint some stuff and get rid of some
graffiti…a lot of different things but to also get programming in the park. There
was no programming. So if you went to the park, unless you had a basketball you
couldn’t play basketball…They have someone that staffs their wading pool, so we
got them to keep baseballs and bats and basketballs and soccer balls actually
there. So you can check them out now. It was just a simple easy thing and it was
like “Oh yeah, we can easily do that.” The Parks Department said “Yeah, that’s
not an issue…No one in the neighborhood has those things? Well, yeah, we can
put those there. That’s less than 100 bucks worth of stuff.” I think they’ve realized
now that they have more people using the park. It’s just those little things, I think,
talking to neighbors and seeing the trust build. It took about two years to build
trust in that neighborhood (personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
Building trust with neighborhood residents also allows the affiliate to help
connect residents to services other than Habitat:
When Chris is out knocking on doors with people one of the cool things is
sometimes it’s either not Habitat that needs to help the people…or it is Habitat
plus. So he’s telling them about programs at the county and city or other
organizations that might be able to assist them, and then he’s directing them to
that service (personal communication, P. Maurer, June 17, 2013).
In this way the affiliate works as both a catalyst for change and as a bridge to the needed
services or organizations that provide needed resources. This also allows for Habitat to
partner with many community organizations to serve a greater overall need.
Community Organizations
Partnering with community organizations has been an intentional part of the Rock
the Block program as well as the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative nationally. The
goal is a shared vision of revitalization with Habitat only being one part of that vision.
This leads Habitat staff to actively seek partnerships with community organizations:
We actually have a meeting monthly now with the partner organizations that are
working in the neighborhood. So for the youth aspect I sent emails, called, and
personally shook the hands of every organization that does anything with the
youth programming and said “Hey, come to this meeting. We need your help.” So
now four or five of those people come on a regular basis and are focusing on
youth programming…So YMCA on the best side of the river is now coming over
to this neighborhood and doing like a satellite outreach in the park there. So there
are a lot of things going on just by partnering with people (personal
communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
These new partnerships have led to new synergies as well; allowing similar organizations
to share resources such as survey results and needs assessments. The partnering has also
led to a more cooperative instead of competitive environment between several
organizations working toward similar goals:
I was in meetings with our executive director and people from the city and other
organizations, where we would be talking about pieces of land and things and
saying “Does that make more sense for Habitat or do you think Home Inc. or
another group would be a better fit for this?” And chatting back and forth about it
to try and find a solution, especially if it was a piece of property the neighborhood
had said they really wanted to see something done about (personal
communication, P. Maurer, June 17, 2013).
Sponsors
No discussion of partnering is complete without discussing the role of sponsors
within Habitat’s mission. Habitat relies on partnerships with sponsors in order to
accomplish their mission. Each house built is sponsored by a local business or group of
businesses or organizations who are responsible for the full cost of the house including
most of the labor. This allows the mortgage payments of each Habitat homeowner to fuel
more Habitat homes, while simultaneously fulfilling philanthropic goals of local
organizations and giving employees a tangible sense of helping their community. Habitat
has also recognized that Rock the Block provides new and different sponsorship
opportunities beyond the homeownership program, including a more immediate and
tangible impression of revitalization:
So when a sponsor is looking at “Okay, let’s see I can give this money to a family
or I can give this money and impact all of these people.” You try to tell them that
when you’re giving to a family actually you’re really impacting far more than just
one family…but it’s a little bit of a stretch for them to see that vision. But for
Rock the Block they can see “If I give this now I can see this now.” For new
construction you have to think about long term effect on the neighborhood and the
community. If you’re there volunteering every day you can start to see a
difference…but you have to be there to see the stories. With Rock the Block, if
you’re there, especially for three days, and anywhere from 10 to 20 properties are
being impacted, that’s very visible, very tangible and it happens in a short time…
And there’s a lot of energy in that when you get 150 volunteers every day there
for three days. You can feel the energy just running around (personal
communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
But beyond the tangible results there are also more practical draws to the program
for sponsors including cost, amount of volunteers and time commitments. Instead of
requiring the full cost of a new home, Rock the Block offers a scale of sponsorship
opportunities as each home repair typically has a ceiling of $5,000 and community
projects can range significantly as well. This allows organizations to sign on for as much
as they can afford without having to find partners on their own as is typical for new
construction sponsorship. But often more important to sponsors is the ability to bring out
large numbers of volunteers at once instead of small numbers over a longer period of
time:
It’s less money to begin with than a whole house sponsorship but it’s also higher
volunteer numbers on one day. So a lot of places are like “Oh, I can shut down a
department for a day. Then instead of having three volunteers over three months
per day, you know I can just get it done with. We can all go together. It’s a big
team building opportunity.” So a lot of times we’re doing 20 projects at a time.
We take up to 200 people a day…and often 500-600 in a three day period
(personal communication, C. Civitate, June 17, 2013).
Summary Table
Table 5.1 below summarizes the key characteristics for Greater Des Moines
Habitat for Humanity.
Table 5.1 Habitat Characteristics – Des Moines
Affiliate Characteristic Des Moines
Age of Affiliate 28 years (1986)
Houses built through 2013 221
Houses built in Study Area 150
New construction vs. rehab (2013) 23/4
Population served 30% - 60% AMI
Cost of new construction $106,500
Mortgage duration 20 years
Style and size of homes A dozen different plans, 3-5 bedrooms
mostly but have built 7 bedroom
Sweat equity requirement (hours) 400 (300 for rehab)
Length of program 12-18 months
Sweat equity breakdown Homeowner classes (30 hours),
construction, thrift store, office, others as
needed
Make it from application to homeowner 10-15%
Foreclosure rate 0%
Blocks with 5+ Habitat homes 5
Largest cluster in one census block 10 homes
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative Yes – Rock the Block (300+ families
through 2013)
Distinguishing Characteristics Neighborhood work, partnerships
Study Area Overview
Des Moines is one of the three Making Connections survey sites located in the
Midwest United States. Des Moines and Indianapolis, however, are the only two Midwest
sites investigated in the third wave of the survey that is used as a data source for this
dissertation. Des Moines is Iowa’s most populous city with a 2010 population of nearly
204,000 inside the city limits and 570,000 in the five-county Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA). This ranks Des Moines 88 among U.S. MSAs. It is the smallest MSA of the case
sites selected here and the only one outside the top 50 (U.S. Census, 2010). Figure
5.1 illustrates the Des Moines MSA and the placement of the city in regional context.
Figure 5.1 Des Moines MSA & Regional Context
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013
Besides representing the Midwest, Des Moines was also selected as a Making
Connections site because it represents a new American dynamic. Des Moines is a city
with several disadvantaged urban neighborhoods leftover from an industrial past, but it
also faces new pressure from an expanding immigrant population. The study area of
Central Des Moines East and Central Des Moines West includes many of these
disadvantaged neighborhoods. Figure 5.2 shows the study area in comparison to the Des
Moines city limits, and Figure 5.3 illustrates the two portions of the study area.
Though the study area surrounds a newly revitalized downtown and several of the
neighborhoods within this area enjoy National Historic District status, they still suffer
greater rates of poverty, crime and minority population, and lower rates of
homeownership and educational attainment than the surrounding city. This leaves these
neighborhoods with a concentrated disadvantage as seen in Table 5.2 below.
Figure 5.2 Des Moines City & Study Area
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013
Figure 5.3 Making Connections Study Area
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013
Table 5.2 Des Moines comparisons
Variables MSA City DM Central
West
DM Central
East
Total Population 569,633 203,433 17,207 13,812
White (%) 87.2 76.4 46.3 61.0
Black (%) 4.7 10.2 28.4 15.0
Total Hispanic (%) 6.7 12.0 22.9 28.8
Owner occupied (%) 71.4 62.8 41.7 59.9
Renter occupied (%) 28.6 37.2 58.3 40.1
Vacant (%) 7.1 8.3 14.4 11.4
Below poverty (%) 7.3 10.4 23.9 18.9
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013 & U.S. Census 2010
Table 5.2 shows the study area to have a higher concentration of minority
population, lower homeownership rates, more vacant property and more population living
under the poverty threshold than the city of Des Moines or the Des Moines MSA. This is
not a shock, but shows in part why this area was selected for the Making Connections
study. The Des Moines Central West section also proves to be the more disadvantaged of
the two study area sections with more minorities, more renters, and a higher rate of
vacancy and households in poverty. Figure 5.4 and 5.5 below show the income and
education discrepancy between the study area, the city of Des Moines and the Des
Moines MSA. The study area proves to have a concentration of low income households
in comparison to the surrounding context as well as a much lower percentage of adults
over 25 with a bachelor’s degree. Though not at the severe poverty levels discussed in the
literature, the table and maps presented here show that the Des Moines study area is
disadvantaged in comparison to the surrounding city context.
Figure 5.4 Median household income (Census 2000)
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013
Figure 5.5 Percentage of 25+ adults with a bachelor’s degree (Census 2000)
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013
Neighborhood Physical Characteristics
The Des Moines study area is approximately 17.94 square miles in size made up
of two sections: Central Des Moines West (7.41 sq. miles) and Central Des Moines East
(10.53 sq. miles). These two sections of the study area are separated by the Des Moines
River and surround downtown. Each section is described in detail below.
Central Des Moines West
Two recurring findings from field notes for the West section included a
comfortable feeling of safety and a lack of loitering, graffiti, and dilapidated housing
common in disadvantaged areas. In general most neighborhood streets in this section
included decent sidewalks and a mix of revitalized older housing stock and housing that
needed some maintenance but was still in good or fair shape. Housing stock of poor
quality or boarded up and abandoned homes were rare in the west section. Figures 5.6,
5.7 and 5.8 below provide a glimpse of the style, age and condition of the majority of
housing in the section.
Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Commercial centers were focused on arterial streets and at key neighborhood
intersections. Similar to the housing mix, some commercial areas showed signs of needed
repair and others had recently been revitalized. Figures 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 show the range
of commercial areas in the section.
Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10 Figure 5.11
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Observations also showed that key ingredients existed in the west section to
provide for feelings of safety and a lack of physical disorder. Specifically, the presence of
ethnic and income diversity coupled with the existence of several Historic Districts, the
placement of Drake University, and the distribution of parks and public spaces were
important factors.
Though ethnic diversity is discussed later with the other control variables, it was
obvious walking and riding the streets of the west section that the area was diverse in
terms of race and income. At least from a visitor’s perspective, this gave the impression
that no one race or income was out of place, and all were welcome. Safety was at least
perceived through anonymity. Residents from a mix of races/ethnicities and incomes
were regularly observed sharing the same commercial and public spaces (especially park
playgrounds) and interacting with one another, especially children. The reasons for the
diversity here are likely numerous and complex, however the existence of several
Historic Districts and the placement of Drake University within the boundaries of the
west section appear to play a significant role in terms of diversity.
Nine federally recognized Historic Districts exist in the west section of the study
area. Together the districts only account for approximately 13% of the land area in the
area, but buildings and public space within these districts were generally found to be in
better shape than surrounding areas. These districts have the largest homes in the section
and typically the best maintained homes and yards. Blocks within historic districts also
appeared to have more revitalization efforts ongoing and greater diversity of
race/ethnicity and income. Table 5.3 below provides the name and map code for each
district. Map codes correspond to symbols on Figure 5.21 found at the end of the section.
Images of homes found within these historic districts are also provided below in Figures
5.12, 5.13 and 5.14.
Table 5.3 Historic Districts in Central Des Moines West
Historic District Map Code
Bates Park A
Sixth & Forest B
The Oaklands C
Prospect Park Second Plat D
West 9th Streetcar Line E
Goddard Bungalow Court F
Chautauqua Park G
Newen’s Sanitary Dairy H
Drake University I
Source: National Register of Historic Places, 2013
Figure 5.12 Figure 5.13 Figure 5.14
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
The presence of historic districts suggests revitalization to the area as a whole due
to the array of rules and design guidelines that necessarily come with the federal
recognition and the attraction of those willing and wanting to live in and maintain historic
homes, adding to the income and ethnic diversity of the area. The historic districts
observed in the west section also provide symbols of defined community with signs
marking district boundaries and welcoming visitors and residents, as well as signs
warning of a low tolerance for criminal activity. Though similar symbols of community
cohesiveness existed in other neighborhoods throughout the section, they were generally
more prevalent in historic districts.
Located on the far west side of the section, Drake University also enjoys historic
district status for several of the older buildings on campus. However, Drake is also a
vibrant liberal arts university with more than 5,500 students and 280 full-time faculty
(Drake University, 2014). Drake’s campus anchors the west side of the study area
providing student housing, restaurants and night life, shopping, community events and
public open space. Though the university population only includes 9% minorities
(excluding international students), the largely white and middle-class student body, staff
and faculty add to the diversity of the section as a whole (Schmitt, 2010). The presence of
campus security, well maintained campus buildings and grounds, and college students in
general adds to the feeling of safety and vibrancy of the west section. Campus grounds
including athletic fields (likely intramural fields) also provide recreation space for area
residents. Area children were observed riding bicycles through the campus and adults
often used walking paths and the track for exercise. Figures 5.15-5.17 below provide
images of the campus.
Figure 5.15 Figure 5.16 Figure 5.17
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Finally, the amount and distribution of parks and public space within the west
section also appeared to be an underlying cause for feelings of safety and order. Several
neighborhood parks exist in the section and are well distributed so that residents don’t
have to travel far for park space. Evelyn Davis Park is also a large community park in the
center of the section located adjacent to a large public library branch. Surrounding the
section on the east along the Des Moines River are two linear parks and just past the
northern border of the section is Prospect Park, a large regional park. Collectively the
parks in and around the section provide for a diversity of uses including playgrounds,
basketball, splash pads, soccer and baseball, picnicking, fishing, and biking/walking
trails. Parks accommodated local residents, those working nearby as well as visitors from
outside the area. Figures 5.18-4.20 provide park images, and Table 5.4 provides a list of
area parks, the park type, and map codes corresponding to Figure 5.21 below.
Figure 5.18 Figure 5.19 Figure 5.20
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Table 5.4 Central Des Moines West Parks
Park Park type Map Code
River Hills Park linear, river 1
Union Park linear, river 2
Bates Park neighborhood 3
Royal Park neighborhood 4
Brian Melton Park neighborhood 5
Edna Griffin Park neighborhood 6
Prospect Park regional 7
Evelyn Davis Park community 8
Nash Park pocket 9
Joenna Cheatom Park neighborhood 10
Good Park neighborhood 11
Drake Park neighborhood 12
Figure 5.21 Central Des Moines West Composite Map
Source: Author
Figure 5.21 above is a composite map of the west section. The map shows the
west boundary as a thick black line. Area parks, historic districts and the Drake
University campus discussed above are all highlighted here. Figure numbers are also
provided to show the location of photographs. The boundaries for the
MondaminPresidential and King Irving neighborhoods are also provided here. These are
two wellestablished and well-bounded neighborhoods in the section. Overall, the housing
conditions in these neighborhoods are not as good as the historic districts, but they are
generally better than surrounding areas. These two neighborhoods also appear to have
somewhat active neighborhood associations and at least the appearance of positive
neighborhood identification and some sense of community.
The Mercy Medical Center campus is also highlighted here. In operation since
1893, this catholic hospital is highlighted because it stands as a major job center for the
section and Des Moines as a whole, employing more than 7,000 people (Mercy Medical
Center, 2013). The placement of the hospital campus is another avenue of diversity for
the section as well. The gray hatched section on the right side of the map indicates a
mostly industrial area with only a small amount of housing and the red cross-hatch area to
the upper left of the map indicates the area with the most visible signs of disorder and
dilapidated housing. In general the bare spots on the map illustrate the more
disadvantaged areas. The findings from the composite map lead to the theory that the bare
zones will be the most socially disorganized, but it also shows that in general social
organization should be relatively high overall due to the many positive physical
characteristics in the west section.
Central Des Moines East
The east section of the study area, though adjacent to the west section has a very
different feel from ground level. Unlike the west section, there is only one historic district
in the east section (Veneman’s Bungalow Court) and it only includes five homes.
However, there are several recognizable neighborhoods in the east section. In general the
homes are smaller than those in the west section with mostly single-story found
throughout the section, and there is more of a suburban or even rural development pattern
at times with more vacant land and industrial zones. One of the most consistent findings
from field notes is that the section functions in three relatively distinct zones or areas.
Figure 5.22 below illustrates the three separate areas.
Figure 5.22 Central Des Moines East Zones
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2014
The top section includes two established neighborhoods: Capitol Park
neighborhood and MLK Jr. Park neighborhood. These distinct neighborhoods are
separated from the middle section as well as downtown by Interstate 235, which acts as a
major barrier. Homes are typically larger and in better shape as they approach the Des
Moines River, and overall Capitol Park housing stock is in slightly better shape than what
is found in MLK Jr. Park, though both neighborhoods are “fair” overall. There were also
many homes actively being repaired throughout the neighborhoods at the time of
observation. However, there were significantly more boarded and abandoned homes and
vacant lots than were found in the east section and the most are single-story homes. But
similar to the west section very little graffiti, trash or loitering was found in either
neighborhood. Sidewalks and streets were also well maintained in general. The East High
School campus and Lutheran Hospital campus were bright spots for Capitol Park and
MLK Jr. Park is a well-maintained and well-used park for the area. Several parks in the
area also have “splash pads,” which are water features for children with soft, pervious
pads and fountains of water shooting from the ground. The splash pad at MLK Jr. Park
was a gathering spot for families with children from the surrounding community, similar
to others observed in the nearby area.
Interestingly, Capitol Park appeared to have a majority of white residents and
MLK Jr. Park a majority of African-American residents, and both were majority
lowincome neighborhoods. However, similar to the west section, both neighborhoods felt
safe to walk through during the day. Figures 5.23-5.25 are images from the top section.
Figure 5.23 Figure 5.24 Figure 5.25
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Figure 5.26 below is a map of the top section showing image locations,
neighborhood boundaries and key physical characteristics discussed above. Again, the
section is bounded by a thick black line. The Des Moines River is shown in blue on the
west border and Interstate 235 is shown on the south border in red.
Figure 5.26 Central Des Moines East – Top section
Source: Author
The middle section of Central Des Moines East is similar to the top section as it is
dominated by two main neighborhoods: Capitol East and Fairgrounds. Grant Park is also
a smaller neighborhood inside Fairgrounds, but all are relatively well bounded and
defined. Capitol east has more commercial areas throughout and the only two parks in the
section. Capitol East however, is not as well-defined as Fairgrounds and Grant Park. In
general, housing stock is in good and fair condition throughout the middle section. The
streets closer to the south of the section are more industrial and have many vacant lots,
and abandoned commercial or industrial uses. Housing near these areas is the worst in the
section. Again, this section is dominated by single story homes. Streets and sidewalks are
in good shape throughout, though there is a noticeable lack of park space in Fairgrounds
and Grant Park and both Ashland Park and Redhead Park in Capitol East are difficult to
access due to heavy traffic on the boundary roads. However, communal space appeared to
be found in the many churches throughout Fairgrounds – the neighborhood with the most
churches in the study area. In general the neighborhoods provided a safe walking
environment, however, Fairgrounds especially felt more isolated from the vibrancy of the
city and outsiders were more noticeable. Walking near the industrial sections bordering
the rail areas felt less safe and more signs of physical disorder were present such as trash,
some graffiti and large areas of vacant land and industrial buildings. Images 5.27-5.29
highlight some of these features.
Figure 5.27 Figure 5.28 Figure 5.29
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Figure 5.30 below illustrates the features of the middle section as well as the
boundaries for the various neighborhoods. Again, images are mapped according to their
placement in the section. Industrial zones within the study area are marked with a gray
hatch, though there is a large industrial section just to the south of the Fairgrounds
neighborhood outside of study area boundaries that still has an effect on the
neighborhood. Interstate 235 is in red on the north boundary of the section.
Figure 5.30 Central Des Moines East – Middle section
Source: Author
The bottom section of Central Des Moines East is dominated by industrial and
rural land. Highway 69 is also a major barrier through the middle of the section attracting
suburban commercial use. To the east or right of the highway is mostly light industrial
and rural land use. To the left or west of the highway is the somewhat bounded Demoine
neighborhood. The Demoine neighborhood has a very diverse population as well as
diverse housing stock. The older homes have a rural farmhouse style, but several homes
from the past several decades can also be found. Several new houses were also observed
under construction or recently finished. Homes were generally in “good” condition with a
few “fair” or “poor” condition homes. Sidewalks generally only exist continuously on the
newer blocks, and in general the neighborhood maintains a rural feel as well as being
somewhat isolated from the urban center of Des Moines just a few miles away.
Hawthorne Park is a large, well-kept and well-used community park for the area.
It is also the southern start point for the John “Pat” Dorrian bike/walk trail, which runs
north along the Des Moines River for 3.5 miles to Birdland Park just past the top section
of Central Des Moines East as defined here. Hawthorne Park has another popular splash
pad as well attracting a diverse community population. Again, the diversity of population
helped with feelings of safety while walking through the neighborhood. The new Youth
Center adjacent to Hawthorne Park also appeared to be a well-used community asset by
residents, and the back side of the Youth Center also accommodates a local police office
adding to the safety in the neighborhood. Figures 5.31-5.33 provide images for some of
these features.
Figure 5.31 Figure 5.32 Figure 5.33
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Figure 5.34 below provides a map of the bottom section. The Demoine
neighborhood boundaries are provided as well as the location of Hawthorne Park and the
adjacent Youth Center. Again, the gray hatch indicates industrial and rural land use where
very little housing exists. Images are also mapped as they are for the above sections.
Figure 5.34 Central Des Moines East – Bottom section
Source: Author
Habitat Development Pattern
The physical characteristics of the Study Area shed light on possible aids and
barriers to social organization, but also important for this study is the placement and
development pattern of Habitat for Humanity homes.
Central Des Moines West
Figure 5.35 is a map of the Central Des Moines East section of the Study Area.
Habitat homes are provided on the map with blue dots. The map shows 125 Habitat
homes scattered throughout the west section. The west section has the majority of Habitat
homes in the Des Moines study area, with most found in the Mondamin-Presidential
(peach colored zone) and King Irving (pink colored zone) neighborhoods. A small
amount of Habitat homes are found within Historic District (orange colored areas)
boundaries and several more are found in the area between Drake University and the two
established neighborhoods – the area observed to be in the worst physical shape. The map
also shows that though many of the Habitat homes are concentrated in the center of the
section, there are only four blocks with clusters of five or more homes based on census
block boundaries. This means that the majority of Habitat homes in this section are
considered either scattered sites or in small clusters. Figures 5.36-5.38 below provide
examples of Habitat homes in the west section. Each figure number is also provided on
the map to show the location of each image.
Figure 5.35 Central Des Moines West – Habitat homes
Figure 5.36 Figure 5.37 Figure 5.38
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Central Des Moines East
Figures 5.39-5.41 below provide maps for the top, middle and bottom sections of Central
Des Moines East. Again, blue dots are used to represent Habitat homes and figure
numbers from the images below are provided on the map for locating each image. Figure
5.39 Central Des Moines East – Top section Habitat homes
Figure 5.40 Central Des Moines East – Middle section Habitat homes
Source: ESRI Community Analyst, 2014
Figure 5.41 Central Des Moines East – Bottom section Habitat homes
Figure 5.39 shows that only 12 Habitat homes are located in the top portion with
two located in the Capitol Park neighborhood (pink) and 10 located in the MLK Jr. Park
neighborhood (peach). Again, scattered sites and small clusters dominate. Figure 5.40
illustrates the Habitat home distribution in the middle section. There are a total of six
Habitat homes in this section: three in Capitol East (pink) and three in the Fairgrounds
neighborhood (peach). Figure 5.41 shows the bottom section distribution. There are 10
Habitat homes located in one cluster within the Demoine neighborhood (pink) just north
of Hawthorne Park and the new youth center. The blue dots are hard to distinguish on the
map, but they show 10 homes located back to back on one block. This is the largest
cluster of Habitat homes on one block within the entire Des Moines study area. Figures
5.42-5.44 provide images of Habitat homes throughout the Central Des Moines East
section.
Figure 5.42 Figure 5.43 Figure 5.44
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Clustering
In general Habitat homes appeared to be well-kept and in good overall condition
in both the west and east sections. However, the top, middle, and bottom sections of
Central Des Moines East combined only include 27 Habitat homes compared to 125
found in Central Des Moines West, meaning there is a much greater possibility of
Habitat influence in the west section. Also of importance here is the influence of clusters
versus scattered sites. Table 5.5 below shows the number of blocks in the study area with
various numbers of Habitat homes present.
Table 5.5 Habitat Blocks and number of Habitat homes
Habitat Block Type Number of Blocks
One Habitat Home 33
Two Habitat Homes 15
Three Habitat Homes 8
Four Habitat Homes 6
Five or more Habitat Homes 5
Total 67
It is hypothesized in this study that clusters of Habitat homes will have more
influence on social organization than homes built in scattered sites, therefore it is
important to note that of the 67 total blocks with Habitat homes in the study area only
five have clusters of five or more homes (considered the most influential). Table 5.6
below again shows the discrepancy between clustered homes and scattered site homes by
providing the number of Habitat homes found in each cluster. The largest sized cluster in
Des Moines includes 10 homes, and three of the five large clusters only have five Habitat
homes each. The table shows that the five large cluster blocks combined include only 34
Habitat homes, and only one cluster of five or more homes is found in Central Des
Moines East, though it is the largest cluster. Both tables presented here show that of the
152 Habitat homes present in the Des Moines study area, 118 are considered scattered
sites or small clusters of 2-4 homes. Though this dissertation considers two or more
homes in a block a cluster, attention is also given to clusters of five or more homes
because the literature states this as a key distinction.
Table 5.6 Habitat Cluster Blocks
Census Block Section Number of Habitat Homes in
Cluster
11-1008 West 5
12-1007 West 9
12-1008 West 5
50-1004 West 5
52-4111 East 10
Total 34
Conclusions
The Habitat affiliate findings show that the affiliate is very active in the study area
with 150 of their 221 total houses being inside the study area boundary. The majority of
these homes are found in the Central Des Moines West section. The affiliate is also
actively engaged in neighborhood revitalization work, though this work is just starting to
penetrate the study area. The Rock the Block program has targeted the MLK Jr. Park
neighborhood for revitalization over the next three years. This likely adds to Des Moines’
Habitat families striving to better their neighborhoods and may influence greater overall
social organization. Unfortunately this work was not captured in the Making Connections
survey which was completed by the end of 2011. However, the growing saturation of
Habitat homes within Central Des Moines West should have an effect on overall social
organization for these blocks. The lack of Habitat presence within Central Des Moines
East may have detrimental effects, however, the presence of strong neighborhood
boundaries and many Historic Districts hint that context may play a significant role in
terms of social organization as well as Habitat presence.
The descriptive statistics in Table 5.2 earlier show that the East section of the
study area has fewer minorities, more homeownership, less vacancy and fewer residents
living in poverty than the West section. This hints that the East section will also have
higher rates of neighborhood social organization. However, the neighborhood
observations and GIS analysis show that there is much less Habitat presence in the East
section and only one small Historic District. The large presence of Habitat in the West
section as well as the presence of several Historic Districts, parks and Drake University
along with a greater connection to downtown may mitigate the statistical disadvantages.
And though the majority of Habitat homes are considered here to be scattered sites or
small cluster development, over time the effect of adding several scattered site Habitat
homes in the same area may be as effective as cluster development. This is due to the
longer overall presence of Habitat homes and families in the area. It is also important to
point out that overall the Des Moines study area does not include many areas of extreme
poverty or disorder from the ground level. This leads to the conclusion that one would
expect higher rates of social organization here than study areas with greater disadvantage.
This will be discussed further in Chapter 11.
CHAPTER VI
INDIANAPOLIS: CONTEXTUAL FINDINGS
Habitat Characteristics
Homeownership Program
Greater Indy Habitat for Humanity completed its 26 year of operations in the
summer of 2013. Since 1987 the affiliate has built 420 homes in the Indianapolis area
including 108 within the study area. They typically provide 25-30 opportunities for
lowincome homeownership each year. This is mostly through newly constructed homes;
however the affiliate typically has 4-7 rehab homes as well. The rehab homes are most
often Habitat homes that have been reclaimed due to foreclosure or other changes in
family situations. The recent financial crisis has increased the number of rehabilitated
homes, though not all of those have reached the point of foreclosure. In general, the
affiliate receives back about four Habitat homes per year, which they typically
rehabilitate and use for another partner family.
The Greater Indy affiliate focuses their homeownership program on the area
population making 30%-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This range meets the
local needs largely because the area Community Development Corporations (CDCs) have
several housing programs for incomes at 50%-80% AMI. Because they don’t compete for
the same population, this has allowed for a cooperative relationship between Habitat and
the CDCs where together they can meet the housing need for those with incomes at 30%-
80% of AMI. This includes having representatives for the area CDCs at all Habitat
monthly interest meetings so those wanting to apply that might be disqualified due to
high income can speak with CDC representative that may be able to help.
Greater Indy Habitat builds a handful of house plans, but all are between three
and five bedroom plans. The affiliate builds mostly single story but does build a handful
of two-story homes each in order to fit the specific neighborhood context. House costs
range from $70,000 to $120,000 though the average monthly mortgage payment is $350.
Like all Habitat affiliates the mortgage is a 0% interest mortgage, however the affiliate
offers between a 20-year and 30-year mortgage to accommodate different incomes.
In terms of entering the Homeownership program, this starts with the monthly interest
meeting where those interested can come and learn about Habitat and apply for the
program. The affiliate holds these in various locations central to the areas where they
typically build to try and accommodate as many of the local residents as possible. At the
meeting families can apply and find out in about 15 minutes if they have passed the first
round of qualifications, which mostly depends on fitting into the income range and then
passing minimum credit scores and debt to income ratios. Similar to the Des Moines
affiliate, applicants that do not qualify at first are counseled on how they can qualify and
are encouraged to apply again once they have done what is necessary.
The second step in the qualification process is what the Greater Indy affiliate calls
a “documents meeting.” In this meeting applicants provide W2 forms, tax forms and
other work history data, bank statements, or other documentation to verify income and
work history. The final step before entering the program is a home visit to determine the
need for Habitat housing, which can include many things but is most often either poor
quality of housing, cramped space or high rent. In general approximately 20% of those
that complete an application make it through qualification and into the program (personal
communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013). The next step is completing sweat equity.
Sweat Equity
Greater Indy Habitat requires a minimum of 300 hours of sweat equity for
participants in their Homeownership program. This is mostly made up of financial and
homeownership classes and construction though program participants can complete hours
working at the thrift store or Habitat office as well. One of the unique aspects of the
Greater Indy affiliate is the focus on coursework. The majority of sweat equity hours are
earned in the classroom through a series of classes focused on enhancing the financial
literacy of program participants. Classes provide guidance on developing household
budgets, managing finances and developing creditworthiness over time. In general
courses are intended to reduce the risk of default and foreclosure for Habitat families.
However there are also several courses focused on being a good neighbor, basic home
maintenance and basic construction. Most participant families earn more than 150 of their
sweat equity hours in the classroom (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14,
2013).
The remainder of sweat equity hours are earned on the jobsite performing various
construction duties. Greater Indy Habitat requires at least 100 hours building one’s own
home and a minimum of 30 hours building other Habitat participants’ homes. The affiliate
does address selection once per year and gives priority to participants with the most sweat
equity hours completed. Program participants select their top three choices for home sites,
but can elect to stay in the program and wait until the next year’s selection if they do not
receive any of their choices. The typical program participant completes their sweat equity
and moves into their new home in 8-12 months, however if they choose to wait for the
next year’s address selection it can take up to 24 months to complete the program.
Homeownership
The affiliate claims that 11%-14% of those that complete an application make it
through the program and into a Habitat home. Those that drop out of the program
generally do so because of life changes such as job loss or the addition of another child
that drops them below the income requirements in order to pay their mortgage. Families
do have up to 30 days to find another job and stay in the program and the affiliate will
help in any way they can to try and keep families in the program. “We try to work with
them to help them find another job…we try to work with everyone because we know life
happens” (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013).
Greater Indy Habitat doesn’t track foreclosures, however since the financial crisis
started in 2007 the affiliate has consistently received back about four Habitat homes per
year. These homes are typically rehabbed and provide new homeownership opportunities
for other Habitat families. To protect themselves legally and financially the affiliate
operates as similar to a bank as possible by sending out notices and legal letters as
homeowners get 30 and 60 days late on payments. However as long as the homeowner
communicates with Habitat during the process the affiliate will do everything possible to
keep a family in their home. “I would say we are not in the business of taking away
homes, we are in the business of building homes…so once someone is in the home, our
desire is to not have to take that home back” (personal communication, J. Brammer, June
14, 2013).
Clusters & Neighborhoods
Similar to the Des Moines affiliate, Greater Indy Habitat has not built many
clusters of Habitat homes. They have five census blocks within the study area with five or
more Habitat homes present. However, these have mostly been built up over time through
infill projects. The affiliate works with the CDCs to obtain much of their land and this
often comes as infill lots on several different streets. Though the affiliate is working to
obtain more land through donations, Sherriff sales and tax sales, they continue to depend
on CDCs for several lots each year because they have access to the local land bank and
then deed lots to Habitat in order to help revitalize targeted neighborhoods. Because
Habitat works closely with CDCs much of their neighborhood impact in the past has been
as one piece of a larger puzzle administered through the CDCs. Habitat has focused on
their homeowners instead of neighborhoods:
I think, inadvertently, we were helping out neighborhoods, but I think our focus
was always on the homeowner…making sure that individual was comfortable,
that individual felt safe, and had a safe, decent, and affordable home (personal
communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013).
Despite their focus on homeowners, the affiliate has always tried to build in
clusters when possible. The reason for cluster building, however, is first construction
efficiency and second having an impact on the neighborhood:
A lot of building in clusters is for construction efficiency – not having to have
resources spread all over Indianapolis…and then it also helps with resident feel.
We’re not necessarily building in neighborhoods that have strong neighborhood
associations or have that strong pull. And so, we do build in clusters to make a
significant impact on that street that then could help with at least our block
(personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013).
The one exception has been a 22-home Habitat subdivision in the study area made
possible by a large land donation to the affiliate. This subdivision also includes the only
Greater Indy Habitat community space project – a playground located in the middle of the
subdivision. The playground provides communal space for the Habitat families, but has
also had the drawback of figuring out how to maintain it:
So one of the missteps that we did when we built the subdivision is that we didn’t
establish a homeowner’s association. And so, we have had to be the ones who are
responsible for keeping up the park and the sign in front of the subdivision. We
are still taking about how to empower them to do the upkeep for their own
neighborhood (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013).
The struggles with the subdivision have led Habitat staff to question building Habitat
subdivisions in the future, and more broadly whether the affiliate should be worried about
neighborhood revitalization at all. However as a new Neighborhood Revitalization
Initiative (NRI) affiliate in 2012, Greater Indy Habitat is learning how more intentional
revitalization work can actually aid their homeownership program.
NRI
Greater Indy Habitat actually signed on as an NRI affiliate in November of 2011,
but by the summer of 2013 they were just starting to implement some of the strategies. It
took time to hire staff equipped for neighborhood work and to educate or train staff
already in place on new neighborhood services. “It is a different beast. I just think there is
a mind shift that needs to happen throughout the entire affiliate that we’re all still
working through” (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013). This mental
shift is largely about looking beyond the homeowner and what Habitat can do and
looking instead to what impact Habitat homeowners can have on their surroundings:
NRI has given us permission to think differently. So now we can look at where we
did eight or nine houses in a row, and we can look at it differently and say, “We
did touch lives of eight homeowners but we also changed the dynamics of an
entire block.” We’re taking eight vacant lots and putting new tax base in there,
and now you have people invested in their neighborhood. There is still the focus
on the homeowner, but it’s looking at how they can impact their entire
community…not just how we can impact them (personal communication, J.
Brammer, June 14, 2013).
The affiliate has decided to start small with their neighborhood revitalization by
focusing on a six block area in the Martindale-Brightwood neighborhood. Greater Indy
Habitat has built 49 homes over their history in the neighborhood and has strong
relationships with many local churches and the CDC for the neighborhood. Their focus
section includes the local community center and several Habitat homes built in the last
few years. This meets the Habitat International NRI strategy of focusing on a small
section in order to show a real impact.
Another aspect of the national program embraced by the Indianapolis affiliate is
partnering with other organizations in the area to revitalize together. This allows Habitat
to focus on their strengths while depending on other organizations to fill in the gaps. This
also eases the worry over “mission drift” or performing activities and services outside the
Habitat mission to build safe, decent and affordable homes for those in need. One
example of using partnerships to avoid mission drift has been the affiliate’s partnership
with Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, the local affiliate for Keep America Beautiful. Greater
Indy Habitat partnered with them and the local neighborhood organization to clean up
sections of the Martindale-Brightwood neighborhood during their scheduled
beautification days in the month of April:
We have made sure to get a good balance of not doing any sort of projects that
lead us to mission drift. We are trying our hardest to align ourselves with
organizations that are already doing these things in the neighborhood and giving
them the boost they need rather than trying to go out and organize a cleanup on
our own (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013).
Partnering with other organizations has helped transition the affiliate into more
intentional neighborhood revitalization by easing staff concerns as well:
One thing our board and some of our staff were concerned about was “we’re a
housing organization, why are we sponsoring an afterschool program,” or “we’re
housing, why would we worry about beautification?” It is even written into the
guidelines of NRI that we are not supposed to do everything; we are supposed to
find partners that can come alongside while we still focus on housing…it’s
making sure that when we do our builds we are integrating people into the
neighborhood (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013).
In terms of actual revitalization work, the affiliate offers home repair and
maintenance to homeowners in the focus area. The homeowner has to pay some of the
cost, though very minimal ($50 of $5,000 cost) and perform sweat equity. This sweat
equity includes performing as much of the repair or maintenance activity as possible
alongside Habitat volunteers and staff as well as an additional 24 hours. Staying true to
their classroom heavy sweat equity for the homeownership program, the additional hours
include 4 mandatory homeownership classes in order to make sure participants receive
some financial education. Depending on the size of the project, participants are also asked
to perform a certain amount of community service hours. This can be teaching Sunday
school, volunteering at the Boys & Girls Club or any number of activities, but the point is
to help residents invest in their community.
Despite just beginning much of their neighborhood revitalization work, Greater
Indy Habitat has already had promising results, but not necessarily in physical
transformation. Instead the positive results have been in terms of new and better
relationships with neighborhood residents. This is especially important in the
MartindaleBrightwood neighborhood where residents have long felt ignored by the city
and organizational help regardless of the nearly 50 Habitat homes present:
Because there has been so much disinvestment in the neighborhood for the last 50
years they have kind of become an insular community in the sense that they just
don’t want anyone else coming in. They’d rather have a vacant lot or abandoned
house than have new people moving in (personal communication, J. Brammer,
June 14, 2013).
However, NRI activities have given Habitat staff reason to start talking with
longtime residents about their wants and needs. Established relationships with CDCs have
also helped in connecting Habitat staff with key neighborhood leaders who have helped
introduce Habitat to skeptical residents through church meetings and neighborhood
gettogethers. Because the affiliate can offer repair and maintenance, residents who are
angered that others receive a new house can at least get needed repairs done and learn
more about Habitat’s mission in the process. In general the affiliate is learning that
revitalization and community development are slow processes that begin with patiently
building relationships:
People receive us differently and they are more open to us now. Even just a few
months has made a difference. There is still a little tension, but people now feel
more comfortable to come up to us and talk rather than passive-aggressively
retaliating against us…so I think even little wins like that we need to take into
account (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2013).
Table 6.1 below provides a summary of Greater Indy Habitat for Humanity
characteristics.
Table 6.1 Habitat Characteristics – Indianapolis
Affiliate Characteristic Indianapolis
Age of Affiliate 27 years (1987)
Houses built through 2013 420
Houses built in Study Area 105
New construction vs. rehab (2013) 20/5
Population served 30% - 50% AMI
Cost of new construction $70,000 - $120,000
Mortgage duration 20-30 years
Style and size of homes 3-5 bedrooms mostly, occasional 2-story
Sweat equity requirement (hours) 300 hours
Length of program 8-24 months
Sweat equity breakdown
Financial & Homeowner classes,
construction (130), thrift store and office
Make it from application to homeowner 11 - 14%
Foreclosure rate No rate, but receive back approx. 4/year
Blocks with 5+ Habitat homes 5
Largest cluster in one census block
22 homes
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative Yes – just started in 2012-2013 in
Martindale-Brightwood
Distinguishing Characteristics
Act more like a bank, partner with CDCs,
heavy classroom hours, working to change
mindset for neighborhood revitalization
Study Area Overview
Indianapolis is the second Midwest case city examined here. Similar to Des
Moines, Indianapolis is the capital city and largest city in its state Indiana). The
Indianapolis MSA is the 34th largest in the country with a 2010 population of 1,756,000,
and the city of Indianapolis is the 12th largest in the U.S. with a population of 820,445
(U.S. Census, 2010). Figure 6.1 shows the Indianapolis MSA in its regional context.
Figure 6.1 Indianapolis MSA & Regional Context
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Not unlike many American cities, Indianapolis had to cope with industrial
deconcentration in the latter half of the 20th century. This left many disadvantaged
neighborhoods within the core of Indianapolis. Many of these neighborhoods are located
in the study area sections of Martindale-Brightwood and Southeast. The study area
sections are illustrated in comparison to the Indianapolis city limits in Figure 6.2 below
and alone in Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.2 Indianapolis City & Study Area
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Figure 6.3 Indianapolis Study Area
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
The two study area sections touch and surround a vibrant downtown Indianapolis.
The southeast section especially includes some pockets of revitalizing neighborhoods in
the northwestern corner of downtown. However, these areas still suffer greater rates of
poverty with more minority population and a lower rate of education attainment and
homeownership than the city or surrounding metropolitan area. Table 6.2 below
illustrates the disadvantage found in the study area sections compared to the city as a
whole and the larger MSA.
Table 6.2 Indianapolis comparisons
Variables MSA City Southeast Martindale-
Brightwood
Total Population 1,756,241 820,445 25,697 6,001
White (%) 77.0 61.8 71.6 6.2
Black (%) 15.0 27.5 15.1 89.4
Total Hispanic (%) 6.2 9.4 13.6 3.2
Owner occupied (%) 66.5 55.8 43.2 53.0
Renter occupied (%) 33.5 44.2 56.8 47.0
Vacant (%) 10.2 12.5 23.1 27.6
Below poverty (%) 8.3 11.0 24.1 27.8
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013 & U.S. Census 2010
Table 6.2 shows that in general the Indianapolis study area has more minorities,
fewer homeowners, more vacancy and more poverty than the city of Indianapolis or the
surrounding metro area. It is also apparent that while Southeast has a greater white
population than the city, Martindale-Brightwood is dominated by 89% black population.
Southeast is also the only section with more renters than homeowners, which is likely due
to more density from apartment buildings near downtown. Also of note are the high
vacancy rates for both sections of the study area compared to the city and metro area. But
the most obvious indicator of disadvantage is the rate of households below poverty in
each section. The 24.1 % for Southeast and 27.8% for Martindale-Brightwood are each
more than double the city rate of 11.0% and approximately triple the MSA rate of 8.3%.
Figures 6.4 and 6.5 show the discrepancy in income and educational attainment
between the study area sections, the city and the metro area. In general these figures
provide further evidence of the disadvantage found in the study sections and the core of
the city. But again, this area also shows some signs of revitalization, which is included in
the Southeast section. Similar to Des Moines, the advantage for the study area sections is
their proximity to a revitalizing downtown.
Figure 6.4 Median household income (Census 2000)
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Figure 6.5 Percentage of 25+ adults with a bachelor’s degree (Census 2000)
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Neighborhood Physical Characteristics The Indianapolis
study area is the second largest of all case cities at approximately 23.25 sq. miles in
size and made up of two sections: MartindaleBrightwood (6.98 sq. miles) and
Southeast (16.27 sq. miles). These two sections of the study area surround downtown
Indianapolis and have many similarities, but as the table and maps above show there
are also important differences. Each section is described in detail below.
Southeast
Figure 6.6 below is an outline map of the Southeast section. This map shows the
intersection of two major Interstates Highways (I-65 and I-70) as well as several areas of
intersecting railroads throughout the section. The Pleasant Run Creek also travels several
miles through the section. Together these features present both barriers and connectors
and provide for many contrasts in the larger and more diverse of the two study area
sections. In general the Southeast section has many safe areas where revitalization is
taking place and there is a feeling community pride and vibrancy. However, there are also
several sections with graffiti, trash and loitering present. During observation in the
Southeast section one fight was witnessed between a teenage boy and teenage girl as
neighbors watched, and several homeless or nearly homeless were witnessed sleeping on
sidewalks and vacant lots.
Figure 6.6 Southeast Outline Map
Source: Esri Community Analyst 2014
In general the areas directly adjacent to the rail sections are more industrial in use
and somewhat dilapidated and abandoned showing signs of disorder such as trash and
graffiti. Figures 6.7-6.9 below represent images from these areas.
Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
In somewhat surprising contrast, several areas adjacent to the interstate highways
present pockets of revitalized housing and commercial buildings. The most noticeable of
these areas is Fountain Square, a vibrant commercial and entertainment district located
adjacent to the I-65 and I-70 intersection. Fountain Square is a tourist destination and
employment center providing patrons to local restaurants and shops as well as jobs for
area residents. The popularity of Fountain Square has also influenced revitalization on
neighborhood streets surrounding the district. Figures 6.10-6.12 provide illustrations of
Fountain Square and the surrounding area.
Figure 6.10 Figure 6.11 Figure 6.12
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Though several neighborhood streets as well as the interstates connect the
Southeast section to downtown Indianapolis, the section also includes two greenways that
act as connectors. The Indianapolis Cultural Trail is the longest at eight miles in length.
Though it is a paved walking, running and biking trail, unlike other greenways the
Cultural Trail connects six cultural districts that border or are within downtown
Indianapolis including Fountain Square. This provides tourists and residents alike the
ability to commute from Fountain Square into and around downtown without using a car.
Figure 6.13 below is a map of the Cultural Trail. The trail is represented in orange and its
connection to Fountain Square is just off the map to the bottom right. Figures 6.14-6.16
below the map provide images from the trail within the Southeast section and close by.
Figure 6.13 Indianapolis Cultural Trail map
Source: indyculturaltrail.org, 2014
Figure 6.14 Figure 6.15 Figure 6.16
Source: Author Source: indyculturaltrail.org Source: indyculturaltrail.org The Southeast
section also includes the Pleasant Run Trail, a more traditional greenway running seven
miles along the Pleasant Run Creek. The Cultural Trail does connect into the Pleasant
Run Trail, which connects several neighborhoods throughout the section to Fountain
Square and several parks along the trail. The trail ends in Garfield Park, a large
community park just south of the section’s border. Together both greenways provide
commuting and recreation opportunities for residents in the Southeast section.
Figures 6.17-6.19 below provide images of the Pleasant Run Trail and its pocket parks.
Figure 6.17 Figure 6.18 Figure 6.19
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Beyond the paths of circulation through the section, observation found a mix of
good, fair and poor quality housing and commercial structures throughout the section.
There was also a contrast in the feeling on the ground between rural and urban as the
southeast corner of the section is much more rural than the northwest where Fountain
Square is located and more density as the section approaches downtown. These contrasts
are highlighted in Figures 6.20-6.25 below.
Figure 6.20 Figure 6.21 Figure 6.22
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author Figure 6.23 Figure 6.24
Figure 6.25
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Figures 6.20 and 6.21 show the contrast between “good” quality multifamily
housing and “poor” quality multifamily housing, and Figure 6.21 especially illustrates the
more rural feel in the southeast portion of the section. Figure 6.22 is an example of a
“good” quality single family home, but it also illustrates the more suburban or even rural
density of parts of the section. Figures 6.23-6.25 show the contrast between good, fair
and poor quality housing found in the section. Figure 6.25 also shows that poor quality
housing is typically accompanied by vacant land in close proximity.
It is also important to note the signs and symbols throughout the section as a
determinant of the condition of public space and willingness for residents to keep that
space in good condition. Figures 6.26-6.28 below give examples of these symbols.
Figures 6.26 and 6.27 give evidence of neighborhood organization, boundaries, and pride,
but the graffiti also points to the presence of disorder and perhaps a lack of youth
programming. Figure 6.28 shows again the presence of pride through public art, but it
also shows the age and disrepair of the infrastructure.
Figure 6.26 Figure 6.27 Figure 6.28
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Finally, though there is not an abundance of parks in the section, both Bethel Park
and Willard Park are bright spots for their surrounding communities. Both have an
assortment of equipment and amenities including pools that appeared very popular, and
Bethel included an adjacent community center with youth and adult programming. Both
parks were well used and well-kept, and in combination with several pocket parks along
the Pleasant Run Trail through the middle of the section there appeared to be ample
opportunities for recreation throughout the section. Figures 6.29-31 provide images of
Bethel Park and the Bethel Family Center (community center).
Figure 6.29 Figure 6.30 Figure 6.31
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Figure 6.32 below is a composite map of the Southeast
section. All figure numbers from the discussion above are included on the map along with
key notes from observation. The yellow areas represent structures and infrastructure of
“good” quality while orange and red areas represent “fair” and “poor” quality
respectively. The gray areas represent industrial or largely vacant land use. Railroad
tracks have also been outlined to highlight their influence as a barrier to neighborhoods
and communities in the section. The Cultural Trail is outlined in purple and the Pleasant
Run Trail is drawn in green along the Pleasant Run Creek.
The map shows that the poorest quality of housing and building stock follows the
railroad lines in general, and the south and east parts of the section have more abandoned
and industrial land due to the concentration of rail lines and rail yards. However, Fountain
Square and the revitalization near downtown provide an anchor for the section that spills
over to neighboring streets.
Martindale-Brightwood
Martindale-Brightwood is the smaller of the two study sections located just
northeast of downtown Indianapolis. The section encompasses the two previously
independent settlements of Martindale (the west portion) and Brightwood (the east
portion) shown in figure 6.33 below. Formed in the late 1800s by railroad employees,
both Martindale and Brightwood were once thriving working class suburbs of
Indianapolis with a diversity of white, African American and European immigrant
families (The Polis Center, n.d.). However by the 1950s the railroads had left along with
many manufacturing jobs and the now annexed community of Martindale-Brightwood
suffered several decades of disinvestment and disrepair. The construction of Interstate 70
in the 1960s and 1970s severed the southern portion of the community and displaced
many neighborhood residents. The desegregation of the public schools along with
mandatory bussing during the same time period separated neighborhood residents from
neighborhood schools causing further detachment within the community. By the 1980s
and 1990s crime, drugs and gangs were a major concern for the area, jobs were scarce
and most of the white and European immigrant population had been replaced by
inmigration of low-income African Americans (The Polis Center, n.d.).
The history of disinvestment in the area and a long standing feeling of being
forgotten by the city of Indianapolis have made it hard for community partners such as
Habitat to enter into the community and work toward revitalization. However, with the
help of local churches, CDCs and local stakeholders, the area has started realizing
positive change in the recent past (personal communication, J. Brammer, June 14, 2003).
There was a general feeling of uneasiness and a lack of safety during observation
in Martindale-Brightwood. This was largely due to the presence of groups “hanging out,”
especially on front porches and front stoops. This did show some sense of community for
the area, and provided “eyes on the street” and social interaction for residents, but it also
appeared to be an exclusive group where outsiders were not welcome. The heavy
presence of African Americans in the section added to this feeling as other
races/ethnicities “stuck out” including that of the observer. Residents throughout the
section were also very suspicious of the observation and a general lack of trust for
outsiders to the neighborhood seemed present. One drug deal (likely) was witnessed
during observation as several residents in the area oversaw, giving the impression that
they knew it was happening but they were protecting their own residents by not calling
the police. Overall the findings from observation provided evidence to the history of the
area and show that there are still lingering feelings of distrust for anyone from outside the
neighborhood.
Figure 6.33 Martindale-Brightwood Outline Map
Source: Esri Community Analyst, 2014
One of the major themes from observation was the existence of both amenities
and barriers that exist from prior decades. The most dominate amenity is Douglas Park
located in the northwest corner of the section. This park maintains a well-kept public golf
course and public swimming pool as well as basketball courts, playing fields and several
playground areas. The park also includes a family center established in 1921 that still
offers youth and adult programming throughout the year. The park appeared to be well
used by nearby residents of all ages. The neighborhood streets directly to the west of the
park are also a bright spot for the section with many well-kept cottage homes from the
area’s founding, tree-lined streets, and well maintained sidewalks and yards. This largely
Black, working-class neighborhood is the sole area of “good” housing stock found in the
section as a whole. Figures 6.34-6.36 below provide snapshots of Douglas Park and the
adjacent housing stock.
Figure 6.34 Figure 6.35 Figure 6.36
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
The only other area of building stock in “good” condition within
MartindaleBrightwood is a relatively new light manufacturing and industrial park located
in the middle of the section. The industrial park provides employment opportunities to
local residents, but is also surrounded by several acres of vacant land that could be better
utilized for neighborhood land uses. Similarly, Oscar Charleston Park located on the east
side of the section presents a mixed bag of positive and negative for
MartindaleBrightwood. The park includes several baseball fields, playground areas,
picnic shelters and a walking trail, but it appeared poorly maintained and not well used
providing more space for antisocial activities. The park is also directly south of the much
larger and better maintained George Washington Park located just north of the section
border. George Washington Park also included several areas of new park equipment
including playgrounds, playing fields and basketball courts. With newer equipment and
more space George Washington Park likely attracts residents away from Oscar
Charleston. Figures 6.37-6.39 illustrate the new light manufacturing facilities in the
center of the section and the conditions of Oscar Charleston Park.
Figure 6.37 Figure 6.38 Figure 6.39
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
The major barriers within Martindale-Brightwood include Interstate 70 running
along the bottom of the section and the ralroad tracks running east-west through the heart
of the section as well as the tracks running north-south that form the western edge of the
section. The blocks along both the interstate and railroad are largely industrial, but most
include streets of “fair” to “poor” housing as well. There are several old and partially
vacant manufacturing facilities on these blocks or vacant land that creates un-walkable
streets and a feeling of danger. The industrial zones along with the railroad and interstate
also create separate insular areas within Martindale-Brightwood where outsiders feel
threatened and out of place. Several residents questioned the work and intentions of the
observer during observation within these areas, which showed a sense of community
pride as well as a fear of “others” coming into the area. These findings were supported by
interviews with local Habitat for Humanity staff (see chapter 4). Figures 6.40-6.42 below
illustrate the “poor” quality of housing found in the industrial zones and adjacent streets.
Figure 6.40 Figure 6.41 Figure 6.42
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Figure 6.43 is a composite map of the Martindale-Brightwood section with key
field notes included and all photos mapped for location. Once again the yellow areas
represent “good” quality of housing or building stock while orange represents “fair”
quality and red represents “poor” quality. Gray is used to show industrial or vacant areas
and parks are colored in green. The composite map of Martindale-Brightwood shows the
effects of both the amenities and barriers. The best housing is located adjacent to the
largest and nicest park while the worst condition of housing and building stock is located
adjacent to the railroad, interstate and industrial zones.
Figure 6.43 Martindale-Brightwood Composite Map
Source: Author
Habitat Development Pattern
Both the Southeast section and Martindale-Brightwood prove to have many
physical characteristics that may aid or hinder community social organization. It is also
theorized here that the amount and pattern of Habitat homes within the study area plays a
role in this social organization.
Southeast
Figure 6.44 below illustrates the distribution of Habitat homes within the
Southeast section. Habitat home locations are given with blue dots.
Source: Author
The map above shows that of the 105 total Habitat homes in both sections of the
study area 60 are found in the Southeast section with several clustered together in the
lower corner of the map and smaller clusters of 2-3 homes appearing in several locations.
The map also shows that all Habitat homes are located in what are considered the “fair”
condition areas noted by orange color on the composite map discussed previously and
here shown without color for more clarity. Importantly this illustrates that Habitat homes
are not found on the worst blocks or the best blocks in terms of housing quality. Habitat
homes were generally found in good quality during observation. They are comparable to
other well-kept or revitalized cottage homes found throughout the section. Figures
6.456.47 below provide snapshots of Habitat homes in the section. Each photo is mapped
to figure 6.44 above. Figure 6.47 shows the playground built within the only Habitat-only
block in Indianapolis. The condition of the playground also illustrates the difficulty of
maintaining public space projects built by the affiliate as opposed to the city.
Figure 6.45 Figure 6.46 Figure 6.47
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Martindale-Brightwood
Figure 6.48 below shows the Habitat home distribution and development pattern
for the Martindale-Brightwood section. The map shows the remaining 45 Habitat homes
in the study area distributed in several small clusters throughout the section. Unlike the
Southeast section nearly all Habitat homes are found in the red areas representing “poor”
housing quality though one is also found in the “good” quality section adjacent to
Douglas Park.
Figure 6.48 Martindale-Brightwood Habitat Distribution
Source: Author
Figures 6.49-6.51 below provide photos of Habitat homes
from the section. Once again all photo locations are mapped to figure
6.48 above.
Figure 6.49 Figure 6.50 Figure 6.51
Source: Indyhabitat.org Source: Author Source: Author
Clustering
Habitat homes are somewhat evenly split between the two study area sections
with 60 homes in Southeast and 45 homes in Martindale-Brightwood. But also important
Key
Parks
Good
Poor
Vacant/Ind.
Habitat Home
for this dissertation is how many of those homes are found in clusters and how many are
considered scattered sites. Table 6.3 below shows the number of Habitat blocks in the
study area (blocks with at least one Habitat home) and how many Habitat homes are
present on those blocks.
Table 6.3 Habitat Blocks and number of Habitat homes - Indianapolis
Habitat Block Type Number of Blocks
One Habitat Home 16
Two Habitat Homes 6
Three Habitat Homes 2
Four Habitat Homes 5
Five or more Habitat Homes 5
Total 34
The table above shows that nearly half of all Habitat blocks are one-house blocks
and of the 34 total blocks only five have clusters of more than five houses. This gives
evidence to the interview findings that the Indianapolis affiliate has not specifically
targeted building in large clusters in the past. Table 6.4 below shows the number of
Habitat homes in each cluster of five or more homes. Again, it is theorized in this
dissertation that larger clusters may provide more Habitat influence on community social
organization. The table shows again that clusters are somewhat even between the two
sections with two clusters of five or more homes in Martindale-Brightwood and three in
Southeast. However the Southeast clusters combine for 41 Habitat homes and Martindale-
Brightwood only combine for 10 cluster homes. It should be noted that though the
Southeast clusters are separate in terms of census block, the 28 homes from blocks 4022
and 4023 are along the same street facing each other and the 13 homes from block 4024
are one street over providing a close community feel for all 41 homes. These findings
suggest that there will be greater Habitat influence within the Southeast section clusters
than those of Martindale-Brightwood. However, the tables also hint that overall Habitat
presence and influence may be greater in Martindale-Brightwood because of a broader
distribution of Habitat homes. This will be discussed further with survey findings in
Chapter 11.
Table 6.4 Indianapolis Habitat Cluster Blocks
Census Block Section Number of Habitat Homes in
Cluster
21-1004 Martindale-Brightwood 5
21-2012 Martindale-Brightwood 5
74-4022 Southeast 22
74-4023 Southeast 6
74-4024 Southeast 13
Total 51
Conclusions
The emphasis on educational classes along with a relatively high requirement in
sweat equity hours likely adds to the motivation of Indianapolis Habitat families to better
their lives. However, these families also have greater challenges to overcome based on
the context in Indianapolis compared to Des Moines. The Greater Indianapolis Habitat
affiliate is just beginning neighborhood revitalization work in the Martindale-Brightwood
neighborhood that was not captured in the Making Connections survey. However, the
affiliate’s long history in both sections of the study area and relatively equal distribution
of homes between the two leads to similar findings in terms of Habitat influence and
development patterns. Again, the context surrounding the Habitat homes may play a large
role in terms of their influence over social organization.
Investigating the physical characteristics of the Indianapolis study area helps in
understanding the social organization present on the ground in each section. Though
Martindale-Brightwood has a much higher percentage of minorities than Southeast, both
sections suffer from relatively high poverty rates and areas of dilapidation and
disinvestment. Unlike Des Moines, the Indianapolis sections each contain large areas of
“poor” quality housing and industrial or vacant land uses providing space for antisocial
behavior and general disorder to occur. However, the bright spots for each section
including Fountain Square and the Pleasant Run Trail in Southeast and the
wellmaintained cottages and streets along with Douglas Park in Martindale-Brightwood
provide anchors for renewal and hope for the future.
The similar Habitat influence also provides hope for both sections. The clustering
present in the Southeast section provides stability for the areas further from the vibrancy
of Fountain Square and the breadth of Habitat influence in Martindale-Brightwood
steadily works to build trust with area residents. However, it is theorized here that the
racial and economic diversity present in Southeast allow for greater community social
organization than that of Martindale-Brightwood, but this will be further discussed along
with the survey findings in chapter 11.
CHAPTER VII
LOUISVILLE: CONTEXTUAL FINDINGS
Habitat Characteristics
Homeownership Program
Habitat for Humanity of Metro Louisville has been in operation since 1985. In
their 29 years of operation, the affiliate has built 400 single family homes in the
Louisville area alongside partner families and 75 of those are located in the study area.
Though it took the affiliate 24 years to build their first 300 homes, they are on pace to
build their next 300 in 10 years. Currently Metro Louisville Habitat builds 25-30 new
homes each year including 4-5 rehabilitated homes (personal communication, R. Locke,
June 7, 2013).
Louisville Habitat focuses on area residents with incomes at 28%-70% of AMI.
This is a larger range than some other affiliates partly due to the difficulty the affiliate has
finding qualified families. In 2012 the affiliate received more than 1000 applications, but
only 77 met the minimum credit score and debt requirement. Of those 77 that went
through the full application process, 33 were selected to enter the program:
Folks have never gotten a credit report; they don’t know what their credit looks
like. They don’t really fathom the depth of hell they are in due to the five figure
debt they racked up on their credit card. And so a lot of people apply two or three
times. My hope is that the discernment process is helping many more people than
those who get in (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013).
The good news for the 33 that are accepted is that the affiliate works very closely with
each participant to guide them through the program and into homeownership. This
process takes participants anywhere from nine to eighteen months, though the typical
duration is about a year.
The typical Habitat house in Louisville costs $80,000 and is appraised somewhere
between $90,000 and $120,000. Participants generally pay a 20-year mortgage though the
affiliate will go up to a 25-year mortgage to help affordability. Typical Habitat
homeowners in Louisville pay about $180 less for their mortgage than they were paying
in rent elsewhere. The affiliate builds two, three and four bedroom homes and all are built
to Energy Star standards saving homeowners even more in utility costs. In terms of
sustainability, the affiliate also boasts the state’s first LEED for Homes Platinum rated
home, and several other LEED homes in their portfolio (personal communication, R.
Locke, June 7, 2013).
Sweat Equity
The affiliate requires 400 hours of sweat equity, though participants only have to
complete 25 hours before being eligible to select their home site. Similar to the
Indianapolis affiliate, Louisville Habitat emphasizes educational classes for the sweat
equity component. Participants are required to complete eight weeks of intensive
financial coaching performed in small groups. The curriculum comes from the Center for
Financial Literacy and focuses on preparing first time home buyers as well as teaching
basic budgeting and home finance. And perhaps because the Executive Director is a past
Construction Department Director, participants also complete intensive workshops on
construction and home maintenance training. These workshops are specifically meant to
break the renter mentality of depending on a landlord or maintenance staff for small
home repairs and maintenance.
Together the educational component of sweat equity is approximately 150 hours.
The remainder of the hours can be performed on the construction site working on one’s
own house or other participants’ homes. However, participants can also work at any of the
three Habitat restores (thrift stores) or the Habitat office in order to fulfill hours. These
options provide flexibility for participants with different work schedules. But beyond
learning new skills and simply fulfilling the program requirements, the affiliate
understands a community building aspect of the sweat equity component as well:
The process of building community begins with modeling it, which happens in
class…and because of building community in class together families show up at
each other’s dedications and ground blessings. I mean there’s a huge component
for us that is the harder measuring stick of quality, not just quality of the house,
but quality of the relationships (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7,
2013).
Homeownership
Continued success as a homeowner also often depends on relationships built at
Habitat. Besides the skills learned during sweat equity, Habitat staff and volunteers also
provide a nurturing relationship with homeowners to guide them through times of
financial difficulty. “There’s a lot of energy required to be a good bank…When families
are delinquent, you’ve got to follow-up, if you don’t, they’re going to fail almost
certainly” (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013). The process of followingup
with families includes helping family members find a new job, re-organizing mortgage
payments during times of job loss, or connecting families to other community resources
meant to help families stay in their homes.
Louisville Habitat staff credits the educational component of sweat equity as well
as the program as a whole with maintaining less than 2% foreclosures over the affiliate’s
history. However, the affiliate also admits that Habitat is not set up just like a bank, and
so does not move as quickly as banks in the foreclosure process. This can and has
allowed some homeowners to stay delinquent on their mortgage payment up to three
years. This also hints at a larger problem for Louisville Habitat – attracting enough
qualified families to maintain building and sponsor demands. In other words the affiliate
has more demand than supply of qualified families. “So at times we have had to do a lot
of hand-holding for families that probably shouldn’t have made it this far” (personal
communication, J. Temple, June 7, 2013).
The influx of African immigrant families into Louisville’s low-income population
has also helped the affiliate keep the foreclosure number low. Approximately 20% of
Metro Louisville’s partner families are African immigrants. None of these families has
foreclosed and none have ever been delinquent on mortgage payments. Immigrant
families also account for the majority of two-parent families that have gone through the
program. Overall the majority of Habitat families in Louisville are single moms and their
kids, and the majority is African-American, which reflects Louisville’s low-income
population as a whole.
Clusters & Neighborhoods
The vision statement for Metro Louisville Habitat is “building community one
block at a time” (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013). This speaks to the
affiliate’s approach to clusters and neighborhoods. Though the affiliate only has two
clusters of more than five Habitat houses on a block in the study area and the largest
cluster is 10 homes, this has more to do with the fact that only 75 of the 400 Habitat
houses in Louisville are in the study area as opposed to the direction of the affiliate. Since
about 2007, Louisville Habitat has actively sought a neighborhood focus while working
for a “strategic difference” and “sustainable lasting change” (personal communication, R.
Locke, June 7, 2013):
We know that building is what we do, but the reason we do it is to change lives.
We build homes because they are great building blocks for families and
communities; especially when coupled with strong relationships and healthy
neighborhoods (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013).
The first strategy for Metro Louisville Habitat was to acquire chunks of vacant
and abandoned property, a persistent problem for the city. The affiliate focused on three
neighborhoods where they already had several homes and had built some momentum
(only one is in the study area – Smoketown). Over the next several years the affiliate
created strategic plans for each neighborhood and acquired as much land as possible in
those neighborhoods, but always tried to obtain land in chunks or close together. “I told
the staff, ‘find where we got some concentration. I mean go as few as two, but I really
would like to see a chunk where we could do a dozen homes together’” (personal
communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013). The goal for the affiliate was always to acquire
enough land on each block to make a real difference for that block as opposed to just the
individual homeowners. “The strategy has always been if you can impact 20% of the
units on a block, the economics ought to take over” (personal communication, R. Locke,
June 7, 2013).
NRI
Besides acquiring land for Habitat investment projects (traditional Habitat new
construction homes) in each neighborhood, the affiliate has also somewhat embraced the
Habitat Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI) over the last few years. However,
the affiliate has a self-proclaimed “rebel alliance” with NRI. Habitat International asks all
NRI affiliates to embrace Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) and therefore
not to engage in development work:
International sent a consultant down to us and told us, “If you are going to do NRI
you have to do ABCD. If you don’t do ABCD, you’re doing it wrong.” And one
of the core concepts as we were told of ABCD is you cannot be doing
development work, period! That smacks against our core value of action. So it’s
really difficult for us to just sit on our hands and do nothing when there is such a
glaring need (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013).
The affiliate performs somewhat of a hybrid form of NRI. They facilitate repair
work with low-income homeowners in targeted neighborhoods, but instead of doing the
repair work themselves, they partner with a local neighbor works organization who does
the actual repair work. Habitat’s responsibility is marketing and outreach oriented
because they have a trusted name in the community. The affiliate finds the families and
does some training with them on home maintenance. This allows the affiliate to have
some relationship with these families and help targeted neighborhoods and blocks
without changing the model that works for them already. “A full rehab to us, works with
the program. We can gut the house; we can get it to Energy Star standards, so we’re sure
that what we’re doing is sustainable…Repairs don’t always work that way” (personal
communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013). NRI repairs are encouraged to stay below
$5,000, which the Louisville affiliate sees as short term help that doesn’t allow for lasting
change. “You’re just band-aiding a problem. And we don’t band-aid problems. That’s not
what we do. We create sustainable lasting change” (personal communication, R. Locke,
June 7, 2013).
Repair work also presents the challenge of exciting volunteers and sponsors for
short term work where they don’t get to know the homeowner as well as when building
traditional Habitat homes. “We’re a partnership program, and that partnership and
relationship that is built isn’t just important to the staff, but also the volunteers and
sponsors who work alongside you every step of the way” (personal communication, R.
Locke, June 7, 2013). Finally, NRI repair work still calls for sweat equity and a loan from
Habitat. This means that the affiliate must create a new scale for sweat equity on very
small jobs and still has the work of qualifying the partner for the loan and then managing
that loan. This can be a cumbersome task for an organization set up to do new
construction and mortgage loans. “It’s really hard to go through all the challenging bank
work for a $1,500 loan…repairs just aren’t a good fit for us” (personal communication,
R. Locke, June 7, 2013).
Collaboration
Regardless of who performs the repair work, the partnership between Habitat and
the neighbor works organization has provided needed repairs in these targeted
neighborhoods. “We’ve been able to make this happen for the neighborhood that we’re
invested in, and that’s the biggest win” (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7,
2013). But the homeowner repair work is just one part of a much larger revitalization plan
for each of the three neighborhoods Habitat is currently targeting. The Portland
neighborhood plan is the first one to begin implementation. The plan calls for a
collaborative effort between Habitat, other non-profits and even private developers to
affect more than 80 families over the next three years. This is on top of the 70 homes
Metro Louisville Habitat has already built in the neighborhood. As part of the plan
Habitat has bought and started renovations on a new campus in the neighborhood for the
organization’s office, education space, and a thrift store. They have also acquired 13
parcels for new Habitat homes over the next three years and continue to perform the
outreach and marketing for home repairs, which will last at least the same three years.
The plan also calls for some private development of market-rate housing. The
affiliate has been involved in some mixed-income projects in the past few years where
Habitat homes are not the most expensive on the block, but the strategic plans are the first
time the affiliate has led the development and it seems to be working. One investor has
plans for eight such homes to be completed over the next year and ultimately plans for
$20 million worth of investment in the neighborhood. By creating the plan and seeking
collaborative partners, the affiliate also views their role as catalysts for investment above
and beyond what they could do on their own. “I don’t know that the only reason he’s
coming here is because we’ve put this plan together and that we are here, but it certainly
helped” (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013).
The idea of being a catalyst for revitalization has also crossed neighborhood
borders. The JP Morgan Chase Foundation asked Habitat to create a strategic plan for the
Smoketown neighborhood (in the study area) based on what they witnessed in the
Portland neighborhood. JP Morgan Chase has already invested more than $1 million in
the neighborhood and partnered with Habitat on a few houses, but asked for more from
the affiliate: “They said, ‘You’re not thinking big enough. We want you to come to us
with a six figure proposal that talks about a block-by-block housing strategy.’ We did.
They bought it, and now we’re working on it” (personal communication, R. Locke, June
7, 2013).
Each strategic plan the Louisville affiliate has created relies heavily on
collaboration from both non-profit and for-profit partners. This necessarily involves
maintaining and at times massaging these relationships, including allowing others to get
credit and making sure the local media knows it isn’t just Habitat, but several
organizations working together:
Collaboration is hard. It is really tough in terms of relationships. We’ve learned
that we can do whatever we want as long as we don’t care who gets the credit. So
if the answer is that habitat brings people together and then needs to let them get
the credit, that’s okay (personal communication, R. Locke, June 7, 2013).
The Louisville affiliate realizes their development ideas and strategic plans in some ways
contradicts the NRI vision of Asset-Based Community Development, but they feel their
core value of action is more important than worrying about what they might be doing
wrong. “Part of this is built in faith, and you don’t really know what’s going to happen.
But you got to aim for something or you’re bound to miss” (personal communication, R.
Locke, June 7, 2013).
Table 7.1 below provides a summary of Metro Louisville Habitat for Humanity
characteristics.
Table 7.1 Habitat Characteristics – Louisville
Affiliate Characteristic Louisville
Age of Affiliate 29 years (1985)
Houses built through 2013 400
Houses built in Study Area 75
New construction vs. rehab (2013) 22/3
Population served 28% - 70% AMI
Cost of new construction $80,000
Mortgage duration 20-25 years
Style and size of homes 2-4 bedrooms
Sweat equity requirement (hours) 400 hours
Length of program 9-18 months
Sweat equity breakdown Financial & Homeowner classes (100-150),
construction, thrift store and office
Make it from application to homeowner 4% that apply begin program
Foreclosure rate 2% approx.
Blocks with 5+ Habitat homes 2
Largest cluster in one census block 10 homes
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative Yes – and do some development
Distinguishing Characteristics Partner with others for repair work,
2bedroom homes, large income range,
development with partners
Study Area Overview
Louisville, KY is the only site for the Making Connections survey and dissertation
located in the South. Unlike Indianapolis and Des Moines, Louisville is not the capital of
its state; however it is the largest city in Kentucky with a population of 597,337 inside the
city limits and 1,283,566 in the Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) that includes parts of Indiana. This ranks Louisville 42 among U.S. MSAs and
27th among U.S. cities in terms of total population (U.S. Census, 2010). Figure 7.1 below
illustrates the Louisville MSA and the placement of the city in regional context.
Figure 7.1 Louisville MSA & Regional Context
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Similar to Indianapolis, Louisville’s poverty areas are largely a result of industrial
deconcentration during the second half of the 20th century. The neighborhoods of
California, Phoenix Hill, Smoketown and Shelby Park that make up the study area for
this dissertation and the Making Connections survey represent some of the inner city
areas hit hardest by the loss of manufacturing jobs, out migration of the middle class, and
subsequent in migration of low-income families. Figure 7.2 below shows these
neighborhoods in relation to the Louisville city limits.
Figure 7.2 Louisville City & Study Area
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Figure 7.3 is a close-up of the four neighborhoods within the Louisville study area. The
figure shows that Phoenix Hill, Smoketown and Shelby Park are all adjacent to one
another while California is slightly west of the others. Figure 7.3 also shows that the
neighborhoods surround downtown Louisville with sections of Phoenix Hill considered
in downtown.
Figure 7.3 Louisville Study Area
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Table 7.2 below shows that compared to the MSA and city of Louisville the study
area neighborhoods have many more signs of disadvantage. As a whole the study area
neighborhoods have a much higher minority population than the city or MSA. There is
very little Hispanic influence in the area in general, but the percentage of Black
population in the study area ranges from approximately 50% in Shelby Park to almost
90% in the California neighborhood. Homeownership rates are also much lower in the
study area neighborhoods compared to the city and MSA, and once again this fluctuates
widely between 11% in Phoenix Hill and almost 40% in California. City and MSA rates
are much closer to national averages at 61.6% and 68.2% respectively. Phoenix Hill is
similar to city and MSA rates for vacancy at 9.6%, while the other study area
neighborhoods are all above 20% vacant. But perhaps most telling are the high rates of
population living below poverty in the study area compared to the surrounding areas.
Shelby Park has the lowest rate of the study area at 34.1% while more than 55% of those
in Phoenix Hill are living in poverty. But more than 40% of the residents in three of the
four study area neighborhoods are living in poverty, which illustrates extreme poverty as
discussed in the literature in chapter two.
Table 7.2 Louisville comparisons
Variables MSA City California Phoenix
Hill
Smoketown Shelby
Park
Total Population 1,283,566 597,337 4,446 4,308 2,377 2,840
White (%) 80.8 70.6 7.1 32.9 15.5 43.4
Black (%) 13.7 22.9 89.5 61.6 80.4 50.3
Total Hispanic (%) 3.9 4.5 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.8
Owner occupied (%) 68.2 61.6 39.4 11.0 25.4 32.0
Renter occupied (%) 31.8 38.4 60.6 89.0 74.6 68.0
Vacant (%) 8.1 9.0 26.1 9.6 21.3 21.2
Below poverty (%) 11.1 18.2 40.7 55.2 43.7 34.1
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2013 & U.S. Census 2010
Further illustrating the disadvantage found in the study area, figures 7.4 and 7.5
show that in terms of median household income and educational attainment the study area
is at a disadvantage compared to the surrounding context. In general the areas to the east
and north of downtown Louisville are more affluent and educated. Figure 7.5, however,
does show that Phoenix Hill has a more educated population than the other study area
neighborhoods. Along with the low vacancy rate and high renter rate this may hint at a
large student population. Regardless, the area still shows signs of disadvantage in
comparison to the city and MSA as a whole.
Figure 7.4 Louisville Median household income (Census 2000)
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Figure 7.5 Louisville Percentage of 25+ adults with a bachelor’s degree (Census 2000)
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
Neighborhood Physical Characteristics
The Louisville study area is the smallest of all the cities based on area and
population. The total area of 6.76 square miles includes four sections or neighborhoods:
Phoenix Hill (1.5 sq. miles), Smoketown (1.01 sq. miles), Shelby Park (1.06 sq. miles)
and California (3.19 sq. miles). Each section is described in detail below.
Phoenix Hill
The Phoenix Hill neighborhood is characterized by the variety of components
within its well defined borders. Figure 7.6 below shows these neighborhood borders and
notes some of the major components discussed below.
Figure 7.6 Phoenix Hill Outline & Notes
Source: Esri Communiy Analyst, 2014
The building footprints visible in figure 7.6 show that many buildings in Phoenix
Hill are commercial, industrial, institutional or multifamily. The most important finding
from observation reveals only a selection of blocks on the east side of the neighborhood
that are dominated by single family homes. The neighborhood is therefore a mix of many
different uses. The northernmost blocks are largely commercial with revitalized
downtown buildings housing boutique shops, restaurants and office space. To the east of
the commercial blocks are more industrial uses such as machine shops, car repair, and
light manufacturing. This section also includes several historic downtown churches and
urban single family homes in various conditions. Figures 7.7-7.9 below illustrate the
character of these blocks. Figure 7.7 shows on street parking and the commercial
buildings behind. Figure 7.8 is a snapshot of residential and neighborhood commercial
buildings and figure 7.9 shows one of the historic downtown churches present along
Market street, the northern border of Phoenix Hill.
Figure 7.7 Figure 7.8 Figure 7.9
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Just west of the revitalized commercial area is Liberty Green, an approximately
six square block HOPE VI development currently under construction, but with several
units already occupied. Liberty Green is a $200 million mixed-use development replacing
the 1940’s era public housing development once known as Clarksdale (Louisville Metro
Housing Authority, n.d.). The areas within Liberty Green that are occupied are new,
walkable and appear to promote safety and community with front porches and sidewalks.
This is likely a vast improvement on Clarksdale. However, the blocks that will be built
out in future phases are currently vacant with litter, graffiti and in general space for
antisocial activities. Many beer and liquor bottles were found during observation in this
section along with a good bit of loitering. The loitering was likely compounded by the
nearby homeless ministry found a block away from Liberty Green. However, the HOPE
VI project has also brought in some new commercial that appears in good shape and
helpful to the area, though more areas need to be occupied for the development to have
the greatest impact. Images of the good and bad components of Liberty Green are
provided in figures 7.10-7.12 below.
Figure 7.10 Figure 7.11 Figure 7.12
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Also within the Phoenix Hill borders is the University of Louisville Hospital. The
hospital itself takes up approximately four square blocks with several more blocks
affected by parking lots and ancillary services including a children’s hospital. The
hospital is large and supplies a job source for local residents as well as residents for the
new apartment and condominium projects present in the area. However, though the
hospital buildings are in good shape with heavy usage during the day and into the night,
the surface parking areas and industrial support areas again create unsafe pockets where
signage indicates unsafe walking and car theft. Figures 7.13-7.15 provide images for the
less safe areas around the hospital.
Figure 7.13 Figure 7.14 Figure 7.15
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
A second commercial section is found along the southern border of the
neighborhood at Broadway Avenue. This section has a little less downtown feel and has
undergone less revitalization, but still houses many neighborhood commercial uses as
well as some institutional use including churches and schools. This section shows signs of
once vibrant department stores that have been repurposed into warehouse use and
business services. Convenience stores and light industrial uses are also sprinkled
throughout the section detracting from the more historic, walkable sections. Figures 7.16-
7.18 below provide images of the variety found along Broadway.
Figure 7.16 Figure 7.17 Figure 7.18
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Housing throughout Phoenix Hill is predominantly multi-family though single
family homes are found along several blocks on the east side of the neighborhood
especially. These blocks have a mix of homes in need of repair, newly renovated homes
or small new developments, and multifamily buildings. The east section of Phoenix Hill
also includes a handful of historic churches and a working convent. These institutional
buildings act as somewhat of an anchor and provide neighborhood cohesion to housing
found throughout. Figures 7.19-7.24 provide images for the east section.
Figure 7.19 Figure 7.20 Figure 7.21
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author Figure 7.22 Figure 7.23
Figure 7.24
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Finally, the amount of litter and graffiti found throughout the neighborhood are
worth noting. In general these two signs of disorder were more noticeable than what was
found throughout Des Moines or Indianapolis. Road signs, mail boxes, building sides and
fencing were all commonly tagged with graffiti, and though some of the graffiti may be
viewed as urban public art it was prevalent enough to feel more like disorder. The amount
of both litter and graffiti in the neighborhood is likely due to the mix of land use and lack
of “eyes on the street” more common on residential streets, but both signs of disorder
were also found in the predominantly residential sections. Figures 7.25-7.27 below
provide a sampling of the graffiti found throughout Phoenix Hill.
Figure 7.25 Figure 7.26 Figure 7.27
Source: Author Source: Author Source: Author
Figure 7.28 is a composite map of Phoenix Hill neighborhood. Once again yellow
areas represent “good” quality housing and commercial structures, orange areas represent
“fair” quality and red denotes “poor” quality. Gray is used to show heavily industrial or
vacant areas. Figure numbers are present in black to show the location of images
discussed above and notes are given in blue to help orient the discussion above.
Figure 7.28 Phoenix Hill Composite Map
Source: Author
Smoketown
The smallest of the four study area neighborhoods is Smoketown. Smoketown
shares the border of Broadway Avenue with Phoenix Hill, which is the major commercial
outlet for the neighborhood. In general loitering, litter, and vacancy were major findings
for Smoketown during observation. The neighborhood did not feel as much a part of the
city as Phoenix Hill and several areas felt unsafe while walking in the middle of the day.
Several abandoned cars and boarded up and abandoned homes were recorded during
observation. At least one drug deal was likely witnessed and several homeless men and
women were observed collecting recycling and sleeping in vacant areas throughout the
neighborhood. However, there were also bright spots throughout Smoketown. The area
around a small park near the southern end of the neighborhood showed signs of
revitalization with many homes under construction and under repair. A new child
development center, a new community center and a large new three square block
development all acted as signs of hope for Smoketown. There were also several streets
with well-kept older homes and yards, and several small development projects by a
handful of organizations throughout the neighborhood. Figure 7.29 below provides an
outline of Smoketown with key notes provided on the map.
Figure 7.29 Smoketown outline map
Source: Author
Though Phoenix Hill had some unsafe and challenging areas, this appeared to be
the norm for Smoketown, which is more residential in character with old industry found
largely on the east and west edges of the neighborhood. But vacancy was the major theme
for Smoketown during observation. This included vacant lots as well as boarded and
