The physical redevelopment of Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) communities has been accompanied by efforts to remake the people who live in them. Through a variety of community and supportive services (CSS) programs, residents are offered job training, homeownership classes, and support to develop savings accounts with the goal of moving them toward fuller participation in the private housing market. By examining how CSS have been offered in Nashville and Atlanta, we make the claim that HOPE VI has had limited impacts in its people-based goals fundamentally because the overall CSS concept focuses on driving residents to participate more fully in labor and housing markets. Supportive services are insufficient in scope and resources to buffer the effects of the market on residents, except for a small number who come into the program already well positioned to succeed. As such, HOPE VI’s failures are not a problem of implementation but of design and conception.
Atlanta Housing Authority. 2004. “FY 2004 MTW Annual Implementation Plan.” Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta.
2.
Atlanta Housing Authority. 2005. “FY 2005 MTW Annual Implementation Plan.” Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta.
3.
Atlanta Housing Authority. 2011. “FY 2011 MTW Annual Implementation Plan.” Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta.
4.
Atlanta Housing Authority. 2012. “FY 2012 MTW Annual Implementation Plan.” Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta.
5.
BoldonHope. 2011. Testimony of Hope Boldon, CEO of the Integral Youth and Family Project, A division of Integral, Atlanta, GA, before the Congressional Subcommittee on Financial Services (Housing Policy) (Serial No. 112-74), http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/112-74.pdf
6.
BostonThomas D.2005. “The Effects of Revitalization on Public Housing Residents: A Case Study of the Atlanta Housing Authority.” Journal of the American Planning Association71 (4): 393–406.
7.
BrennerNeilTheodoreNik. 2002. “Cities and the Geographies of ‘Actually Existing Neoliberalism.’” Antipode34 (3): 349–79.
8.
CastellsNina. 2010. “HOPE VI Neighborhood Spillover Effects in Baltimore.” Cityscape12 (1): 65–98.
9.
CollinsMary E.CurleyAlexandra M.ClayCassandraLaraRita. 2005. “Evaluation of Social Services in a HOPE VI Housing Development: Resident and Staff Perceptions of Successes and Barriers.” Evaluation and Program Planning28 (1): 47–59.
10.
CurleyAlexandra M.2010. “HOPE VI: A Viable Strategy for Improving Neighborhood Conditions and Resident Self-Sufficiency? The Case of Maverick Gardens in Boston.” Housing Policy Debate20 (2): 237–94.
11.
DeFilippisJamesFraserJames C.2010. “Why Do We Want Mixed-Income Housing and Neighborhoods?” In Critical Urban Studies: New Directions, edited by DaviesJ. S.ImbroscioD. L.StoneC. N.135-146. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
12.
FraserJames C.2008. “The Processes and Outcomes of the Durham.” North Carolina HOPE VI Project, Durham Housing Authority, Durham.
13.
FraserJames C.LepofskyJonathanKickEdward L.WilliamsJ. Patrick. 2003. “The Construction of the Local and the Limits of Contemporary Community Building in the United States.” Urban Affairs Review38 (3): 417–45.
14.
Georgia State University Urban Health Initiative.2011. “Is the Grass Any Greener on the Other Side of the Projects? Destination Characteristics and Residents’ Views Six Months After Relocation.” Georgia State Univ. Urban Health Initiative, Atlanta.
15.
GillStephen. 1995. “Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies24 (3): 399–423.
16.
GloverRenée L.2009. “The Atlanta Blueprint: Transforming Public Housing Citywide.” In From Despair to Hope: HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities, edited by CisneroH. G.EngdahlL.145-168. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
17.
GoetzEdward. 2003. Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
JosephMark L.2010. “Creating Mixed-Income Developments in Chicago: Developer and Service Provider Perspectives.” Housing Policy Debate20 (1): 91–118.
20.
JosephMark L.ChaskinRobert J.WebberHenry S.2007. “The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty Through Mixed-Income Development.” Urban Affairs Review42 (3): 369–409.
21.
LevyDiane K.KayDeborah R.2004. “How Are HOPE VI Families Faring? Income and Employment.” Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center, Washington, DC.
22.
LevyDiane K.McDadeZackDumlaoKassie. 2010. “Effects from Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families.” Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
23.
LevyDiane K.WolleyMark. 2007. “Relocation Is Not Enough: Employment Barriers Among HOPE VI Families.” Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
24.
LoganJohn R.MolotchHarvey. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
25.
MeadLawrence, ed. 1997. The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority. 1997. “Vine Hill Homes: HOPE VI Application.” Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority, Nashville.
27.
Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority.1999. “Preston Taylor Homes: 1999 HOPE VI Application.” Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority, Nashville.
28.
Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority. 2002. “Sam Levy Homes HOPE VI Application.” Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority, Nashville.
29.
Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority. 2003. “John Henry Hale Homes: FY2003 HOPE VI Application.” Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority, Nashville.
30.
OakleyDeirdreBurchfieldKeri. 2009. “Out of the Projects, Still in the Hood: The Spatial Constraints on Public-Housing Residents’ Relocation in Chicago.” Journal of Urban Affairs31 (5): 589–615.
31.
PeckJamie. 2002. “Political Economies of Scale: Fast Policy, Interscalar Relations, and Neoliberal Workfare*.” Economic Geography78 (3): 331–60.
PopkinSusan J.2010. “A Glass Half Empty? New Evidence from the HOPE VI Panel Study.” Housing Policy Debate20 (1): 43–63.
34.
PopkinSusan J.KatzBruceCunninghamMary K.BrownKaren D.GustafsonJeremyTurnerMargery A.2004. “A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges.” Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
35.
PopkinSusan J.LevyDiane K.BuronLarry. 2009. “Has HOPE VI Transformed Residents’ Lives? New Evidence from the HOPE VI Panel Study.” Housing Studies24 (4): 477–502.
36.
PopkinSusan J.RichMichael J.HendeyLeahHayesChristopherParillaJoe. 2012. “Public Housing Transformation and Crime: Making the Case for Responsible Relocation.” Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
37.
ReidCarolina K.LiebowEdwardO’MalleyGabrielle. 2006. “Building Community During HOPE VI Redevelopment: Lessons from a Seattle Case Study.” Human Organization65 (2): 192–202.
38.
RoseNicholas. 1996. “The Death of the Social? Re-figuring the Territory of Government.” Economy and Society25 (3): 327–56.
39.
RuelErinOakleyDeirdreWilsonG. EltonMaddoxRobert. 2010. “Is Public Housing the Cause of Poor Health or a Safety Net for the Unhealthy Poor?”Journal of Urban Health87 (5): 827–38.
40.
Tennessee Development and Housing Authority. 2010. Tennessee Housing Market at a Glance. Nashville: Tennessee Development and Housing Authority.
41.
TheodosBrettPopkinSusan J.GuernseyElizabethGetsingerLiza. 2010. “Inclusive Public Housing: Services for the Hard to House.” Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
42.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2010. “Moving to Work Interim Policy Applications and the Future of the Demonstration.” Report to Congress, PD&R, Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.
