Skip to main content

Confronting Concentrated Poverty

Evidence Matters Banner Image

Spring 2013   


        Confronting Concentrated Poverty With a Mixed-Income Strategy
        Mixed-Income Community Dynamics: Five Insights From Ethnography
        Inclusionary Zoning and Mixed-Income Communities

Confronting Concentrated Poverty With a Mixed-Income Strategy


      • Mixed-income strategies have become increasingly important as the United States confronts growing income inequality and residential segregation by income.
      • Various factors, including income and tenure mix, design, location, amenities, access to services, and property management, are critical to building successful mixed-income developments. Mixed-income developers face the challenge of combining multiple funding sources while complying with the conditions of each source.
      • Relocated low-income residents living in mixed-income communities praise their new living spaces and environments; higher-income residents tend to cite their communities' locations.

A confluence of socioeconomic trends and significant historical events has led policymakers to develop a mixed-income housing strategy to support diverse communities and eliminate the effects of concentrated poverty. This article discusses these factors and policy responses, as well as the assumptions and expectations for mixed-income housing, the strategy's outcomes and effectiveness in addressing the barriers to opportunity that low-income families face, and the strategy's implications for research and policy.

Mixed-income residential development is a deliberate strategy of mixing housing units with rents and prices at a variety of levels, including market-rate and subsidized units. Mixed-income communities can be as small as a single building or as large as master planned communities and neighborhood revitalization projects. The mixed-income strategy has been used in four different contexts: special federal housing programs, state and local housing programs, density bonuses and other land-use regulation, and nonprogrammatic private investment.1 The strategy gained nationwide momentum in the early 1990s with the authorization of HUD's HOPE VI program, and since then it has increasingly been used as a tool to reduce concentrations of public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods and combat the effects of poverty on families.2 A recent Brookings Institution analysis concludes that concentrated poverty has five wide-ranging impacts: it limits educational opportunity for children, leads to increased crime rates and poor health outcomes, hinders wealth building, reduces private-sector investment and increases prices for goods and services, and raises costs for local governments.3 To the extent that intentional mixing of incomes can counter these effects and enhance residents' quality of life, HUD aims to use the mixed-income strategy to improve the economic viability of multifamily housing — particularly former public housing developments — and strengthen neighborhoods.4


Figure 1. Change in After Tax Income, 1979--2009
The convergence of several social and economic trends has intensified the nation's focus on mixed-income housing as a pathway toward upward mobility. U.S. cities have become more racially integrated; between 1960 and 2010, the percentage of the U.S. black population living in neighborhoods where at least 80 percent of residents were also black dropped from 50 to 20 percent.5 This decline in residential segregation by race coincides with a rise in income inequality and residential segregation by income. William Julius Wilson first called attention to a dynamic relationship between race and income in The Declining Significance of Race.6 Wilson's analysis of the widening gap between higher- and lower-income black families revealed that higher-income blacks had increasing access to racially and economically diverse neighborhoods over time, whereas the economic situation for blacks in the lowest income quintile, who were unable to be upwardly mobile, deteriorated after 1975.7 The divergent experiences of black households are part of a larger trend in income inequality in the United States. From the end of World War II until the 1970s, household incomes grew rapidly and at about the same rate for all income groups. After this point, income growth for middle- and lower-income groups slowed significantly while incomes at the top continued growing strongly (fig. 1).

This trend has coincided with greater segregation by income. A Pew Research Center analysis found that between 1980 and 2010, upper-income households living in majority upper-income census tracts doubled from 9 to 18 percent while the percentage of lower-income households in majority low-income census tracts grew from 23 to 28 percent.8 Researchers found in longitudinal studies (1970–2000) that income segregation increased with the growth of income inequality, largely due to upper-income households practicing self-segregation by moving away from low-income neighborhoods as well as declining income among poor and middle-income families.9 The recession of the late 2000s exacerbated this trend. Kneebone et al. recently reported that the population in extreme-poverty neighborhoods — those in which 40 percent of residents live below the federal poverty level — rose by one-third between 2000 and 2005-09 to 10.5 percent of the U.S. population.10

In addition to these socioeconomic trends, a succession of public housing law and policies, court decisions, and local regulatory practices led policymakers to consider mixed-income housing as an effective way to deconcentrate poverty, revitalize struggling neighborhoods, mitigate the negative effects of gentrification, and alleviate affordable housing shortages in high-demand areas (see "Emergence of the Mixed-Income Strategy," p. 5).

Why Mixed-Income?

In 2007, the Social Science Research Council coordinated a Mixed-Income Research Design Group (MIRDG) comprised of scholars who identified broad rationales for the mixed-income strategy.11 A fundamental question confronting housing policymakers is whether poor people can be helped more through dispersal to better neighborhoods or by improving their current housing and neighborhoods.12 MIRDG reasoned that although relocating poor families from public housing to lower-poverty neighborhoods has shown some positive results, as in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program, the neighborhoods to which these families moved were also isolating. They tended to be income-segregated neighborhoods with poor and middle-class families living in separate buildings, restricting the kind of social exchange that could lead to greater opportunity. Families in mixed-income communities, however, live closer to economically diverse neighbors who own or rent.13

One of MIRDG's expectations for mixed-income housing was that lower-income residents who had lived in poverty with limited access to opportunities would benefit from proximity to higher-income, employed neighbors who would model opportunity pathways. MIRDG also noted that dispersal strategies such as MTO remove poor families from neighborhoods where their social ties and support systems are strongest, whereas mixed-income strategies enable families to "remain in familiar neighborhoods where they have long-time kin and friendship ties as well as access to public transportation." A third rationale in favor of a mixed-income strategy, MIRDG decided, is the effort the mixed-income development team and its local partners make toward "creating a stable, high-quality community that is home to residents of very diverse backgrounds." Because this team is composed of stakeholders responsible for all phases of a development from design to operation, it is able to facilitate neighboring, ensure equal access to services and amenities, and encourage residents to become involved in their community.14

Mixed-Income Strategy

Developers planning a mixed-income community must first decide what income and tenure mix, location, amenities, access to services, and design are consistent with market demand. Current research does not identify an ideal configuration of these elements. Factors that shape these initial decisions about a planned development include policy interests, financial resources, location and land costs, market conditions, and construction schedules.15 Adhering to the basic tenets of real estate development and management that attend to these factors increases the chances that a mixed-income housing project will be successful, according to Brophy and Smith's research.16

Well-designed and attractive common areas, such as this garden, provide opportunities to relax, enjoy the outdoors, and socialize at Via Verde, a mixed-income development in the South Bronx. Photo by David Sunberg/Esto
Design elements are important for marketing, for the integration of units (affordable, market, rental, homeownership), and for facilitating social interaction and community building among a diverse resident population. Affordable and market-rate units are generally indistinguishable from the exterior, but developers may or may not choose to use different materials in unit interiors. Good interior and exterior design features that are visually appealing and able to attract market-rate residents are essential; landscaping, soundproofing, common area decor, balconies, and amenity packages all encourage potential residents to want to live there.17 Paul Freitag, managing director of Rose Development for Jonathan Rose Companies, suggests that to be competitive, these features "have to be what you provide to market-rate projects in that particular market. Once you have a sizeable market-rate element in a building, it has to function like a market-rate building." Freitag also stresses that amenities accessible to everyone; identical units for all; and shared features such as elevator banks, a unique green building, and community gardens provide common bonds among residents.18 Proximity to public transit, retail businesses and services, and recreation areas also make a development attractive to potential renters and competitive with other housing options.19 Mark Joseph, associate professor at Case Western Reserve University and director of the National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities, emphasizes that "whatever configuration you choose entails pros and cons. [These decisions] require being as savvy and cognizant as possible about the benefits and challenges of particular designs and configurations for attracting and sustaining residents in a mixed-income community."20

An interior view of a unit in Tapestry, Harlem's first mixed-income residential building with LEED Gold certification. Units feature low-flow fixtures, Energy Star-rated appliances, and other amenities with market appeal to a wide range of incomes. Photo by Ruggero Vanni
A mixed-income developer must also successfully combine multiple funding sources while complying with the conditions of each funding source.21 As the HOPE VI program began redeveloping and revitalizing distressed and aging public housing stock, policymakers soon realized that even very large federal grants could not cover the full costs of such projects and that they needed the participation of private investors. In 1998, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act officially codified mixed, or public/private, financing for HOPE VI mixed-income projects. As Turbov and Piper explained, this action effectively "changed the role of Housing Authorities from producers, managers, and owners of low-income housing to that of lenders, partners, and regulators."22 Thus, developers were allowed to use HUD funds to leverage private-sector debt and equity, other federal grants, capital financing, and contributions from philanthropic organizations to cover costs and build larger numbers of units.23

The greatest challenge for developers of mixed-income housing is "inherent in the complexity of layering together the necessary funding," according to Freitag.24 Among the useful funding tools in this complex layering are state and local linkage fees and incentives such as low-interest financing, cash subsidies and grants, land use policies, finance and tax incentives, density bonuses, and expedited permitting. Developers have also combined local tax abatements, tax-increment financing, government funds, and low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs).25, 26

One example of what leveraging makes possible is Boston's Mission Main development. Here, HOPE VI funds accounted for only about 31 percent of the project's total cost of approximately $159 million. The mixed-financing approach allowed developers to build 535 public housing, tax-credit, and market-rate rental units in a stable, lower-income residential community with a large student population. Mission Main has 120 one-bedroom units in a 7-story building, and the remaining 415 units consist of a combination of rowhouses and walkups; 83 percent of the units are affordable and 17 percent are market rate. The project was financed with a combination of city capital funds for infrastructure, a HOPE VI grant of $50 million, $28 million in local grant funds, and private funds obtained through the use of 4 percent and 9 percent LIHTCs. The first phase was completed using 4 percent tax credits and tax-exempt bond financing through the state's housing finance agency. The bonds were collateralized by HOPE VI funds used for that phase. Phases 2 and 3 were financed with 9 percent tax credits allocated by the state's Department of Housing and Community Development.27

A natural foods grocery store within walking distance of Highlands' Garden Village appeals to residents of this mixed-income community in Denver. Photo by Perry Rose
Despite the potentially broad range of funding sources and requirements, "the challenge is similar to that of any affordable housing project," Freitag says, "except that it increases the complexity at least times two, and maybe more." Developers with expertise and templates that help them through the planning and decision process for affordable housing need to modify their models to develop mixed-income housing. "For instance, one of the most powerful tools for developing affordable housing is the LIHTC, which is strictly income-capped," Freitag explains. "People who earn over 60 percent of AMI cannot live in LIHTC housing. So if you want to do a project that combines LIHTC and market rate housing, by nature you have to create a building that has essentially two projects so that credits can flow into just the affordable units." Mixed-income development also entails other demands that developers must anticipate, says Freitag, including "checks by people making sure that the dollars are going to the units for which they were appropriated, closings that require much more complex legal structures, bringing along all of the private and public investors and other stakeholders so that they can understand a complex project, and risks of delay due to the added complexity."28

Finally, the mixed-income developer must secure sound property management to safeguard the attractiveness and marketability of the project — and to take care of security, resident relations, trash collection, tenant selection, and lease enforcement.29 Mixed-income properties are managed in various ways: onsite or offsite, by the developer's staff or a property management company. The property manager is in a key, day-to-day position to shape the expectations of potential residents, facilitate constructive relationships among residents, and manage social interaction in a way that builds community.30 Managers often create formal and informal opportunities for residents to meet and interact around shared interests, recreation, governance, and activities for youth, and they need to be skilled at building bridges between people with differences.31 Research confirms that management practices constitute a significant influence on residents and suggests that the property manager's role must be clearly articulated.32 Lazar and Wilkins emphasize that a good property manager has deliberate strategies for achieving positive outcomes, and Joseph underscores the importance of "having a strategy for promoting a successful mix that includes strong supports for building community and positive neighbor relationships. It's not the case that social dynamics will take care of themselves naturally, that once you get people there, they will organically figure it out. Real intentional thought and action in how to help people to navigate a mixed-income community is necessary."33 Joseph also stresses the importance of the property manager's role as a "mediator, connector, convener, and networker" with the most regular, ongoing contact with residents. Consequently, property managers need to have support, training, resources, and insight into how to build community.34

Outcomes for Residents of Mixed-Income Communities

Relocated low-income residents living in mixed-income communities report benefits that mostly concern improvements in their living spaces and environments; by contrast, higher-income residents tend to praise the communities' locations.35 In interviews, Chicago residents who had moved from public housing to a mixed-income development described the physical quality of their housing units and the immediate environment as markedly better than that of their previous residences. Most felt more secure and less stressed in their new or improved housing, reported psychological benefits, and appreciated the peace and quiet. Such benefits have positive implications for physical and mental health. Other stressors, however, have also emerged.36 Many interviewees from three mixed-income sites told McCormick et al. that their relief in shedding the stigma of living in disreputable public housing projects was replaced with the sense of being stigmatized by their higher-income neighbors and by property management's "intrusive screening and vigilant monitoring." Whereas former public housing residents feel excluded and unwelcome, higher-income residents tend to be disappointed in their neighbors and in the social atmosphere.37

Property managers are key to facilitating constructive social interactions and community building experiences, as shown in this outdoor movie event on the commons of Highlands' Garden Village. Photo by Dressel-Martin Photography
The mixed-income strategy is about housing, but it is also about the dynamics of building community. Although some hypothesized that mixed-income settings would improve socioeconomic opportunities for the poor through social and cross-income interaction and behavioral modeling, research finds that most resident interaction is casual, instrumental, and more likely to occur among those who share common socioeconomic backgrounds and housing tenures.38 Joseph explains that "what we're looking for is a standard of effective neighboring, in which residents know their neighbors well enough to work together constructively to solve problems. We're not there yet, in large part."39 To prevent social cleavages, Joseph stresses that it is important to "anticipate the realities of 'us vs. them' dynamics that emerge quite quickly and readily in these new environments. For people coming in, it's almost readymade that they will identify who is part of 'our' group or who is in 'that' group. We are primed, unfortunately, in American society to have a sense of our group affiliation and a sense of stigmatization about the other, whoever that other might be."40

Research shows that low-income residents who formerly lived in public housing have realized little or no economic or educational benefit from living in a new mixed-income setting.41 If more job opportunities exist due to the mixed-income strategy, Briggs has noted there is no certainty that low-income job seekers will be able to access them or that the jobs will be of the type that will help families become more self-sufficient. The evidence of sustained educational gains for children who have moved into a mixed-income community is also slight.42 However, the role-modeling hypothesis may hold for children who have formerly lived in public housing in that they see a broader range of adults in their community. "I think if you'd talk to the parents in a mixed-income community, they'd say they like the fact their kids see lawyers and doctors and a range of people and races," says Joseph.43

Without evidence that mixed-income housing significantly improves economic well-being or stimulates social ties and behavioral modeling, Goetz suggests that the assumptions underlying the mixed-income model fail to recognize the complexity of the sought-after social and economic objectives. "Changes in employment, income, health, and social interactions involve systems that are complex and not fully determined by environment," notes Goetz.44 Stakeholders, policymakers, and researchers continue to suggest, however, that mixed-income approaches have potential for promoting effective neighboring relationships and creating new opportunity trajectories for low-income residents.45 The mixed-income housing strategy is successful in providing a safe environment with good quality, affordable housing in lower-poverty neighborhoods near desired resources, amenities, and services. In this sense, the strategy provides a stable platform from which low-income families may be able to improve their life chances.46 Researchers tend to agree that these families will need additional support to be able to change their economic and social trajectories — deep supports and services that will help equip these families with the necessary tools to enhance their self-sufficiency.47

Moving Forward

The mixed-income approach has deconcentrated poverty at sites and in neighborhoods where poverty rates were generally at their highest. Thus far, market demand for units in mixed- income developments has continued, and there is optimism that these communities will remain viable and marketable.48 Low-income residents who have relocated to these neighborhoods enjoy affordable housing, better living spaces and environments, improved health, and markedly increased feelings of safety and security. Although the mixed-income housing approach may not resolve all the barriers to self-sufficiency, it appears to be an important component of the response to concentrated poverty and to have potential for positively affecting the affordable housing supply, in addition to local economies and revenue bases.49 As Alan Mallach suggests, "While the advantages of integration are uncertain, the disadvantages of residualization and poverty concentration, which are the inevitable by-product of the absence of spatial integration in a market-oriented polity, are compelling."50 To what extent social cohesion and a sense of community may occur across different types of residents who rent or own, have low or high incomes, live in subsidized or nonsubsidized units, and represent a variety of races and ethnicities is uncertain. To what degree this sense of community is necessary for low-income families to gain the opportunity for economic self-sufficiency and a better life is also unclear.51

After a thorough review of the available research on the effects of the mixed-income strategy, Levy et al. concluded that more and better research is badly needed. Many unanswered questions persist about the strategy, along with a lack of data on all the mixed-income developments and redevelopments that would make the pursuit of a cross-site, comparative research agenda possible. These data would allow rigorous comparisons, for example, of the effects of different income and tenure mixes, resident governance structures, educational outcomes for children, and design impacts on resident interaction.52 This agenda could also inform housing policy by testing and refining assumptions about combating severe poverty and clarifying how mixed-income strategies can be most effective in that battle. Efforts to expand this knowledge are ongoing. The National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities, for example, is collecting data on social dynamics in 30 mixed-income developments nationwide and planning a centralized database of information on mixed-income communities.53 In another research initiative, the Urban Institute is conducting a multisite Housing Opportunity and Services Together demonstration designed to test models for improving the life chances of low-income residents of public and mixed-income housing communities.54

While policymakers and researchers are evaluating outcomes and underlying assumptions of the mixed-income model, HUD is taking lessons learned from HOPE VI beyond the focus on mixed-income housing to HUD's Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, a holistic strategy that enhances housing and neighborhoods and coordinates positive outcomes for the people who live there. Choice Neighborhoods is the logical next step in transforming distressed public and assisted housing projects into viable and sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods. Within this broader approach to concentrated poverty, local governments, nonprofits, and for-profit developers are joining public housing agencies to link housing improvements with appropriate services, schools, public assets, transportation, and access to jobs.

Related Information:

Emergence of the Mixed-Income Strategy

The National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities


  1. Alex Schwartz and Kian Tajbakhsh. 1997. "Mixed-Income Housing: Unanswered Questions," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 3:2, 71–92.
  2. Comptroller General of the United States. 1979. "Serving a Broader Economic Range of Families in Public Housing Could Reduce Operating Subsidies," U.S. General Accounting Office; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2003. "Mixed-Income Housing and the HOME Program," Office of Community Planning and Development.
  3. Elizabeth Kneebone, Carey Nadeau, and Alan Berube. 2011. "The Re-Emergence of Concentrated Poverty: Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s," Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution.
  4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1997. "FHA's Mixed-Income Housing Underwriting Guidelines," Notice H 97–12 (HUD).
  5. Edward Glaeser and Jacob Vigdor. 2012. "The End of the Segregated Century: Racial Separation in America's Neighborhoods, 1890–2010," Civic Report 66, Center for State and Local Leadership at the Manhattan Institute.
  6. William Julius Wilson. 2011. "The Declining Significance of Race: Revisited & Revised," The American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
  7. Ibid.; U.S. Census Bureau CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Table F-2, "Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Black Families: 1966 to 2010."
  8. Richard Fry and Paul Taylor. 2012. "The Rise of Residential Segregation by Income," Pew Research Center.
  9. Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff. 2011. "Income Inequality and Income Segregation," American Journal of Sociology 116:4, 1092–1153; Tara Watson. 2009. "Inequality and the Measurement of Residential Segregation by Income in American Neighborhoods," Review of Income and Wealth 55:3, 820–44.
  10. Kneebone et al.
  11. Xavier de Souza Briggs, Greg Duncan, Katherin Edin, et al. 2009. "Research Designs for the Study of Mixed-Income Housing," California Center for Population Research, University of California-Los Angeles, 14.
  12. Sheila Crowley and Danilo Pelletiere. 2012. "Affordable Housing Dilemma: The Preservation vs. Mobility Debate," National Low Income Housing Coalition.
  13. Briggs et al.
  14. Ibid.
  15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2003, 55–7; Diane K. Levy, Zach McDade, and Kassie Dumlao. 2010. "Effects From Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families," Urban Institute.
  16. Paul C. Brophy and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. "Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 3:2, 3–31.
  17. Levy et al.
  18. Paul Freitag. 2013. Seminar presentation for "Dynamics of Mixed-Income Communities," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, 20 March.
  19. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003.
  20. Interview with Mark Joseph, February 2013.
  21. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003.
  22. Mindy Turbov and Valerie Piper. 2005. "HOPE VI and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Neighborhood Renewal — A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Program," Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law 15:1, 27–103.
  23. Susan J. Popkin, Bruce Katz, Mary K. Cunningham, Karen D. Brown, Jeremy Gustafson, and Margery A. Turner. 2004. "A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges," Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.
  24. Interview with Paul Freitag, February 2013.
  25. Schwartz and Tajbakhsh; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003.
  26. Available federal resources include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program dollars, both of which local communities use in implementing their local affordable housing plans. HOME and CDBG, as with all funding sources, have their unique administrative requirements that effect planning for a development. HOME dollars, for example, only apply to affordable units for low- or very low-income households that retain their identity as HOME-assisted units and remain affordable over time. If CDBG funds are layered into a financing package, a development's income mix also has to be such that 51 percent of CDBG-rehabilitated rental units are reserved for low- or moderate-income households with incomes at or below 80 percent of area median income. In newly constructed rentals, the mix of incomes can be set according to the proportion of the total project cost borne by CDBG funds, as long as 20 percent of the new units are affordable. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003.
  27. Mary Joel Holin, Larry Buron, Gretchen Locke, and Alvaro Cortes. 2003. "Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program Cross-Site Report," Abt Associates; Boston Housing Authority, "Mission Main" website ( ). Accessed 26 February 2013.
  28. Interview with Paul Freitag.
  29. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003.
  30. Erin M. Graves. 2011. "Mixed Outcome Developments: Comparing Policy Goals to Resident Outcomes in Mixed-Income Housing," Journal of the American Planning Association 77:2, 143–53; Naomi J. McCormick, Mark L. Joseph, and Robert J. Chaskin. 2012. "The New Stigma of Relocated Public Housing Residents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed-Income Developments," City & Community 11:3, 285–308.
  31. Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph. 2010. "Building "Community" in Mixed-Income Developments: Assumptions, Approaches, and Early Experiences," Urban Affairs Review 45:3, 299–335.
  32. Graves; McCormick et al.; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003.
  33. Ellen Lazar and Charles S. Wilkins. 2003. "Framing Mixed-Income Housing's Greatest Challenges," The NeighborWorks Journal, edited proceedings of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, 4 April; Interview with Mark Joseph.
  34. Interview with Mark Joseph.
  35. McCormick et al.; Brophy and Smith.
  36. Mark Joseph and Robert Chaskin. 2010. "Living in a Mixed-Income Development: Resident Perceptions of the Benefits and Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago," Urban Studies 47:11, 2347–66.
  37. McCormick et al.
  38. Ibid.; Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph. 2011. "Social Interaction in Mixed-Income Developments: Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality," Journal of Urban Affairs 33:2, 209–37.
  39. Mark Joseph. 2013. Seminar presentation for "Dynamics of Mixed-Income Communities," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, 20 March.
  40. Interview with Mark Joseph.
  41. Levy et al.; Edward G. Goetz. 2010. "Better Neighborhoods, Better Outcomes? Explaining Relocation Outcomes in HOPE VI," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 12:1, 5–32.
  42. Levy et al.; Chaskin and Joseph. 2011.
  43. Interview with Mark Joseph.
  44. Goetz.
  45. "Dynamics of Mixed-Income Communities." 2013. Seminar hosted by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, 20 March; Graves.
  46. Alistair Smith. 2002. "Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality," Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
  47. Ibid.; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh; Mark Joseph seminar presentation.
  48. Joseph and Chaskin. 2010.
  49. Mark Joseph. 2006. "Is Mixed-Income Development an Antidote to Urban Poverty?" Housing Policy Debate 17:2, 209–34.
  50. Alan Mallach. 2010. "Inclusionary Housing and the goal of social inclusion: policy choices in cross-national perspective." Presentation at Comparative Housing Research - Approaches and Policy Challenges in a New International Era," TU Delft, the Netherlands, 24–25 March.
  51. Lynne C. Manzo and Douglas D. Perkins. 2006. "Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning," Journal of Planning Literature 20:4, 335–50.
  52. Levy et al.
  53. National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities. 2013. "Overview," Case Western Reserve University, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences. Accessed 21 March 2013.
  54. Urban Institute. 2013. "HUD Partner Reports: The Housing Opportunity and Services Together (HOST) Demonstration," PD&R Edge. Accessed 20 March 2013; Susan J. Popkin. 2012. "Testimony for Hearing on the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative: A New Community Development Model," U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Housing Transportation, and Community Development.


Evidence Matters Home              Next Article

The contents of this article are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.