: 5:
o . :s k. ‘2' t
5.5.9 2 . x
.r. .
. ‘ . Icon...
in. :nfin‘it
32A: . litth LP
13‘ ..v!..\lv in
3"! i$il§l:!l ltlA
, , .0 $13.01“! A" AIDIA
.“ (I. i! (N. 5
. , , . fi.=§t‘.lfi
.hLIStr . . .
1.: . 5.1,.- , .

2.... .7. ..
Title . .1 V.

iii 2,1...“ I .7
£33“? . .: . ll‘

9. -
mun”; mfiituuuvz;
. .. .92.):

 

tan-.1.

V .0031}.
.. 9. Bung

.u

4.1;
I...

A: 11?: :2
vévyvil Ln...
.3. $1

51“.: 5.1.. 1! ..L
3.1!; .a .9...)
V 3125213.“:

 

 

tv Ii
1A {opuitu
.. ....t‘ ‘ ‘ . .. . u . vI~
lot], 14..'|I9..4€'12.£(.}V«. ”Uh.” Luv) ..
‘ . '1 A. ~I Y .| .n C ‘
.\.:.v.l..\. ‘ . ‘ ., . ‘ . .

 

 

IllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllll

l
’0“ 31293 01823 8

1

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Tenant Management in Public Housing:
An Evaluation of It's Empowering Potential

presented by

Angela Marie Jackson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Masters Jegree in Sociology-Urban Studies

M .ng

Major professor

Date Sfll‘i”cio£

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/” WWW“

TENANT MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC HOUSING:
AN EVALUATION OF ITS EMPOWERING POTENTIAL

by

Angela M. Jackson

A.Thesis
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology and Urban Studies

1999

ABSTRACT

TENANT MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC HOUSING:
AN EVALUATION OF ITS EMPOWERING POTENTIAL

by

Angela M. Jackson

Discussions around tenant management suggest that it
can empower low—income disenfranchised public housing
residents. In theory, residents are empowered through
tenant management by actively participating in the
management of public housing sites. This study highlights
the experiences of several Michigan public housing
residents to try to evaluate the empowering value of
tenant-based leadership initiatives. Evaluations of
residents' experiences are examined within the framework
of empowerment literature that discusses empowerment in
terms of personal, economic, social, and political
dimensions.

Interviews with residents in this study indicate
that through the efforts of the CUA-CEDP at Michigan
State University, Michigan residents are, in limited
ways, empowered through their participation in public
housing leadership initiatives. Public housing residents
feel empowered socially and politically, but economic
self-sufficiency still illudes many residents who

struggle to improve their financial status.

Dedication
For my Mom,
Gwendolyn Jackson,
who's determination, selflessness, strength,
and spirit

still carries me today.

-iii-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A project like this is never written in isolation.
All the folks who have touched, influenced, inspired, and
even hindered me have helped me to produce this paper. In
the same way that it takes a village to raise a child, it
has taken much of my educational, professional, and
personal supports to write this paper. These supports
mostly come in the form of people far too many to name
all here.

I must first thank and honor my Mother, who though
she has passed to the next world, still remains with me
here on Earth in many ways. Mom fiercely fought life's
struggles to plant me firmly in my own life. She
instilled in me values and principles that created all
that I am today. Without her remarkable presence in my
life, I can safely say that life endeavors like this
would not have the substantive meaning and value that
they have. My brothers Fareed (Benny) and David have both
made indelible marks in my life—their lifeblood continues
to run through all that I am, do, and will become. Their
love keeps me strong. To Aunt Edith, too for her stubborn

love and dedication.

‘iV-

I am also grateful to other family members who,
though scattered around the country, are there for me in
many ways.

This paper would have been mission impossible
without the input of my interviewees—the many public
housing resident council leaders and residents who
devoted lots of hours of their time to create this
masterpiece.

Thanks to various folks at Michigan State
University's Sociology Department and to others in the
Urban Affairs Program, and to MSU, Center for Urban
Affairs, Community and Economic Development Program to
whom I thankful to for the innumerable gestures of
support that went into making this project a success. I
am thankful to my graduate committee, Dr. Steve Gold, Dr.
Rex LaMore, Dr. Christopher Vanderpool, and to Dr.
William Ewens for their long—standing patience and
assistance. To Dr. Kenrick ("Kennie") Pierre~thank you
for reading this paper a zillion times and for putting up
with all my changes. Muchisimos gracias! to Jennifer
Wallace for being a true mentor.

Thanks to Fran Fowler, Tammy Dennany, Kathy Smith,
and John Duda who often made the challenges of being a

student bearable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
National Picture of Public Housing . . . .
Social and Structural Conditions Affected Public
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Job Loss and Spatial Isolation . . . . . . . . .
Role of Race? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t/What is Empowerment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vPsychological or Personal Empowerment . .
xEconomic Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vSocial and Political Empowerment . . . . .
VTenant Management as an Empowering Experience .

Method . . . . . . . . . . .

Interviews With Resident Council Members . . . .
Participation and Observation of Michigan State
University’s Public Housing Resident Leadership
Development Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interviews with Resident Council Members
Why Leaders Became Involved . . . . . . . . . .
The Challenge: Involving Residents . .
Why Lack of Participation . . . . . . . . . .
Psychologically Disempowered . .
Socially and Politically Disempowered . .
Michigan State University's Public Housing
Leadership Development Initiatives . . . . . .
Housing Commission Survey . . . . . . . .
Community Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Local Resident Leadership Training
Programs and Technical Assistance . . . . .
The Michigan Resident Leadership Network .

DiSCUSSion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Economic, Psychological, or Personal Gains?
Political Power? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . .

Social Implications and Recommendations . . . .

"Vi-

28
29
29
31
33
35
35
38

39
39
41

42
42

47
48
51

53
55

Appendices
Appendix A. Public Housing Leadership Survey . . 61
Appendix B. The Face of Public Housing Leadership:
Summary of Case Study Interviews . 65

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

-vii-

INTRODUCTION

Tenant management is presented as a premier resident
leadership initiative in the discussions about public
housing communities across the nation. One of its stated
goals is to "empower" low-income residents who have
traditionally represented a disenfranchised community.
Residents are empowered through tenant management by
actively participating in the management of a public
housing site. In theory, by managing their own
communities, tenants can provide more and better
services. Tenants also "have more input into the way
funds are spent, have greater involvement, and therefore
have more pride and take better care of their
communities" (Fuerst, 1988). Considerable debate
surrounds tenant management in public housing. The
empowering techniques of tenant management seem ambiguous
and narrowly defined. Beyond collecting rent or
delegating maintenance responsibilities, discussions of
empowerment in the literature on public housing appear
limited and vague.

Neoconservatives like Jack Kemp, former secretary of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), say that tenant management provides a way for
public housing residents not only to transform housing,

1

but also to "unleash a spirit" that will empower poor
people to excel in school, seek jobs, and start
businesses. The process of tenant management is
problematic because it seems to limit the types of power
tenant managers have. National examples of tenant
management indicate that tenants have varying degrees of
power as leaders in their public housing sites. Some
tenants in cities like St. Louis and Chicago seem to be
involved in many aspects of tenant management, including
community mobilization, while residents in other cities
have more limited roles. How do these experiences compare
with those of public housing residents in Michigan?

For this purpose, we examine several Michigan public
housing residents who share their experiences as active
participants in community-based activities and reveal
whether these experiences are meaningful. Does active
participation hold significant meaning for those
residents who participate? If so, in what ways does their
participation influence their lives in the larger

society?

Problem Statement
We often see public housing communities depicted as

unwanted places rife with high unemployment, crime, and

other social problems. Problems are compounded by the
fact that the physical conditions of public housing are
deteriorating and housing officials are slow to respond
to the complaints of residents and requests for repairs
and improvements. Despite complaints about declining
conditions in public housing communities, the voices of
residents become lost in the din of administrative
activity and political power struggles. These problems
often combine with the residents' own feelings of
helplessness and hopelessness to create a self-
perpetuating system of economic and social difficulties
with continued missed opportunities for change. Some
argue that the active participation of residents in their
community, especially tenant management, empowers them.
Residents say they participate in their resident or
tenant council to help improve conditions in their lives
and their communities. But does resident participation
really help to empower them? Does their participation
work to build capacity in their lives? Does the public
housing community deliver opportunities for residents to
better their lives and the lives of those around them? Do
residents benefit from strategies designed to help them
take advantage of opportunities for improvements in their

lives?

National and local level public housing leaders and
organizations claim their work improves conditions by
drawing attention to public housing communities through
capacity building. Residents are empowered by
participating in forums that give them opportunities to
share information about employment, education, political,
and other issues. Resident leaders claim residents can
and do change their lives for the better through their
networks and newfound resources. But can resident
leadership organizations really help residents improve
their lives by working within the community of public
housing? How might the broader social forces affect this
struggle? Is true empowerment really possible within a
broader context of social factors that affect their
lives? What adaptive or creative perspectives or ways
have public housing residents developed to cope with the

challenges of residing in public housing?

Purpose of Research
The purpose of this research is:

(l) to highlight the experiences of some public housing
resident leaders here in Michigan for the purpose of
exploring the empowering value of tenant-based

initiatives, particularly tenant management and

resident organizations and how this might affect
resident’s lives in the larger society.
(2) to point out the creative and positive ways in which
public housing residents View and live their lives.
The results from this study cannot necessarily be
extrapolated to all public housing residents. However, by
analyzing these experiences, the researcher hopes to show
that resident-based initiatives do have some empowering
value and do increase the capacity of residents to
improve their lives. This research hopes to help inform
the debate surrounding the empowering value of resident
participation in public housing community initiatives.
Urban policy makers, scholars, politicians, and others
who have an interest in this subject might benefit from

this research.

Brief History

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) began its existence with the general mission "to
provide an adequate supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing for all Americans" (McFarland, 1978). When
America's public housing program was launched with the
passage of the Housing Act of 1937, 12 to 14 percent of

the population was unemployed and millions were working

for depressed wages. Following the passage of the Housing
Act of 1937, World War II spurred the opening of existing
public housing projects and the construction of new ones.
This initiative created both jobs and housing for war—
industry workers and the families of servicemen (Huth,
1981). One of the objectives of the act was to stimulate
the economy by creating jobs. Also, slums were to be
replaced with safe, decent, and sanitary low-cost housing
in stable, working-class neighborhoods.

When first created, the transition into public
housing was seen as a preferable alternative to slum
housing (Darden, 1987; Thomas, 1992; Vergara, 1995). But
after a period of years of neglect, many public housing
developments succumbed to abandonment, disintegration,

and demolition.

National Picture of Public Housing

Between the mid 19305 and the 19505, HUD constructed
1.5 million public housing units in cities around the
country. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
applauded the arrival of public housing developments as a
badly needed chance to get rid of “hopeless old” slums
and replace them with housing that provided a chance to

live in “reasonable comfort and healthful, worthwhile

surroundings” for those who normally could not afford to
(Shogren, 1995). Public housing was considered a way to
address two social concerns: the shortage of decent,
affordable housing, and a way to provide construction
jobs for post-wartime workers. Good social resolve, in
time, gave way to physical decay and changes in housing
practice. Until the 19605, many sites were segregated by
race. At the same time that blacks were being admitted to
many public housing sites, laws were passed to prohibit
housing officials from continuing the once-common
practice of barring single mothers and welfare recipients
from their complexes (Shogren, 1995). By 1994, public
housing's 1.5 million units housed more than 3 million
residents—most of them children and their single mothers.
Another 30 percent of residents were elderly and 15
percent were disabled. (HUD, 1994)

In 1972, the St. Louis housing development Pruitt-
Igoe was demolished. Once home to more than 10,000
residents, the destruction of Pruitt—Igoe's 33 eleven—
story buildings marked the beginning of a series of major
scheduled public housing demolitions. In 1973, President
Richard Nixon ordered a freeze on new public and
subsidized housing construction. The Nixon Administration
also did not make plans for ridding the nation of

troubled and deteriorated existing sites. Further plans

7

for public housing improvements would not take place for
another two decades. In 1995, the nation's oldest
complex, the Techwood Homes in Atlanta, was demolished.
The 1,081 units razed were to be replaced by 900 modern,
townhouse—like units, of which only half would be
available to subsidized tenants. The rest would be rented
to anyone willing to pay the prevailing rates. This same
year, Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, personally
attended the demolition ceremonies of the 40-year old
Raymond Rosen Apartments in Philadelphia (530 units) and
the Vaughn Apartments in St. Louis (656 units), and was
scheduled to attend the demolition of public housing
sites in Milwaukee, Baltimore, Newark, Chicago, San
Antonio, New Orleans, Puerto Rico, and Washington
(Shogren, 1995).

In October 1996, HUD announced plans to demolish
100,000 units of substandard public housing—a significant
proportion of the existing 1.4 million units—by the year
2000 (Husock, 1997). That year, Cisneros awarded $716
million in grants to 74 communities nationwide for the
demolition of public housing, new construction, and
rental assistance for displaced families. Two-thirds of
these grants-$477 million—were awarded to housing
authorities through Hope VI, a program Cisneros said was
transforming public housing by encouraging local

8

officials to demolish vacant units and replace them with
less dense, mixed—income developments (Loeb, 1996). The
Hope VI Revitalization Program created by Congress in
1992 provides grants to local public housing authorities
to apply for funds that revitalize and transform the
infrastructure of severely distressed public housing
developments (HUD, 1998a). By the end of 1997, the
administration had already funded the demolition of
46,000 units with plans for more to be demolished or
improved nationwide. For fiscal year 1998, HUD requested
$524 million, but Congress awarded only $441 million for
the Hope VI Program (HUD, 1998b).

Many have criticized public housing as the
contemporary “poorhouse” that is a failed experiment of
utopian environmental determinism. Public housing was to
be a form of income redistribution since many Americans
would never earn enough to purchase their own safe and
sanitary housing. Public housing would then maintain the
same importance as public education. (Husock, 1997)
Fairly quickly, public housing became the province of
only the poorest as the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) fueled the exodus of many low and moderate income
home owners to outlying areas and the economic climate of
inner cities changed. In addition, the controversial
Brook Amendment of the 19703, which was deemed the “good

9

intention (initiative) with bad results,” pushed out low-
and middle-income working families. (Davis, 1997) Others
like former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, contend that
public housing was certainly successful for a time.
Public housing has just reached a point where it needs
new infrastructure and initiatives that encourage mixed-
income communities. Residents across the country have
expressed mixed feelings about the demolition/replacement
of their homes. (Bivins, 1990; Shogren, 1995; Mozingo,
1998; Walker, 1997) Tenants in Detroit formed Short End
of the Stick, a resident-based activist organization, to
protest the elimination of Brewster, the city’s oldest
public housing site. The group argued that plans to
demolish the 1,000 units didn’t make sense since the
units were not going to be replaced and there was a list
of more than 1,300 people waiting for public housing.
(Bivins, 1990) Long-term Atlanta residents bid farewell
to sites with hopes for new and better housing. (Shogren,
1995) National public housing advocates emphasize the
time has come to improve conditions in housing that has
existed for as long as 60 years, just as they had once
argued for public housing to replace the old urban slums.
HUD and the local housing authorities that manage public
housing sites continue to struggle to maintain and
upgrade physical conditions as fluctuating Congressional

10

and legislative support combine with other political and
social conditions to create constant challenge to a

changing public housing community.

Social and Structural Conditions.Affecting Public Housing
Advancements in technology, a shift from an economy
dominated by manufacturing to one dominated by the
service sector, capital flight, and increased
globalization are factors that have contributed to a
structural transformation of American society, (Eitzen,
1992) Some of the nation's largest public housing
development sites in cities like Chicago, New York, and
Newark, however, are anything but safe and decent.
Elderly tenants in high-rise complexes wait patiently in
entryways for someone they trust to come along and
accompany them on the elevators to their apartments.
(Vergara, 1995) Oftentimes, the elevators don't even
work. Furthermore, the most energetic and conscientious
residents move out at the first opportunity. The social
isolation inherent in public housing reflects the same
economic and social crisis of the larger urban
society.(Vergara, 1995) Once revered as the structurally
sound preference to slum housing, public housing in many

urban areas now suffers from mismanagement, lacking

11

physical upkeep, and a hyperconcentration of destitute
families who lack the energy or resources to move
elsewhere. These conditions combined with other social
phenomena, like suburbanization and capital flight, to
create what some scholars term as the

"hyperghettoization" of urban societies.

Job Loss and Spatial Isolation

Vast increases in international trade and investment
and significant technological change have profoundly
affected the nature of work and urban economic
conditions. As activities in the manufacturing sector
declined during the 19705 and early 19805, most major
cities lost well-paying blue collar jobs. Jobs that were
not eliminated were often relocated to suburban and
nonmetropolitan areas. Jobs that remained in the central
cities were either high—level service-sector jobs
requiring advanced education, or low-level, low wage
service jobs. (Holloway et al., 1998) Futhermore, urban
central city unemployment rates have all increased while
unemployment rates in almost all suburban and
nonmetroplitan areas have declined. Between 1980 and
1990, metropolitan areas in the southern regions of the

United States experienced a 30 percent increase in the

12

number of unemployed, while suburban area unemployment in
this same region increased by less than 10 percent. In
other regions, unemployment in suburban communities
declined by as much as 30 percent while America’s urban
areas saw unemployment rise an average of 10 percent.
(HUD, 1996) Increasingly, Americans are working for
multinational corporations that have gained increasing
freedom to relocate jobs to areas of lowest cost and
maximum profit, these mainly being nonmetropolitan areas
in the United States and in other countries.

Decreased employment opportunities for America’s
urban dwellers have been accompanied by
hyperconcentration of poor (both working and nonworking)
in metropolitan areas. During the last two decades, both
population and employment grew far more rapidly in the
suburbs than in most central cities. In the 19805 alone,
the growth rate of the suburban population was 16.1
percent—triple the rate of central cities. (HUD, 1996)
Poor individuals are much more likely to live in a poor
urban neighborhood today then they were two or three
decades ago. Thus significant job loss is compounded now
by spatial isolation.

Detroit, Michigan, for example, once a city of
immeasurable wealth and uncharted potential, became a
city whose economic power disappeared quickly, leaving it

13

isolated, fragmented, and nearly bankrupt (Thomas et al.,
1992). In 1968, the year after the riots, the city lost

208,000 jobs, one-third of its total employment. By 1990,
about one million people lived in the city—about half of
its 1950 population, and nearly 25 percent of these were

on welfare (Vergara, 1995).

Role of Race?

The need for unskilled labor for the expanding
factories in the northern United States along with the
mechanization of agriculture in the South, fueled large
migrations of poor southern blacks to the North during
the earlier part of the century. Agricultural
mechanization, continuing overt racial oppression,
diminished opportunities for blacks in the South, and
“promised” industrial opportunities for blacks in the
North all encouraged their northward migration (Darden,
1987; Marks, 1996; Thomas, 1992).

The social isolation of racial minorities in many
urban areas ignited a literature that addressed the role
of race in public housing. Race worked to exacerbate and
facilitate the hyperghettoization in some cities. The
Federal Housing Authority (FHA), the Veteran's

Administration (VA), and city administrations

l4

deliberately or inadvertently encouraged white flight
from the cities and the growth of suburbanization while
keeping blacks in the urban core areas by denying them
access to mortgage and home ownership programs. (Darden,
et al., 1987; Thomas, 1992). Baum (1991) argues that
public housing did not singularly create a black
underclass. Midway through the postwar era, however, it
functioned to isolate socially and spatially a growing
segment of the black poor. Generally speaking, race has
historically worked alongside other factors to limit life
choices for blacks in the United States—namely in the
areas of employment, social relationships, politics, and
choice of residence.

Racial segregation characterized most public housing
sites until the 19505. (Jenkins, 1950) Today the
population of public housing includes a disproportionate
number of blacks and other minorities. Race alone,
however, cannot account for the residual underclass left
behind by the middle-class flight to the suburbs and the
increasing proportions of poor single female-headed
families in urban areas. Discrimination has contributed
to the increasing social and economic disparities of the
urban underclass. But these problems have been due also
to a complex web of other factors that include structural
changes in the American economy mentioned earlier and the

15

historic flow of unskilled migrants who help to suppress

wages. (Wilson, 1987)

What is Empowerment?

When empowerment is mentioned, it is often discussed
in monolithic terms, citing either its economic
challenges (Hula, 1990; Monti, 1989) and victories
(DeParle, 1992), or its psycho-emotional significance
(O'Brien, 1995). Researchers, pOpular writers, community
developers, and policymakers have debated the economic
and social value of resident management in public
housing. Resident participation is too narrowly defined
and critiqued as an empowering tool with little
consideration of the wider social phenomena that govern
the lives of many peOple. But what is empowerment? To
empower is defined as “to give official authority to: to
delegate power to; to commission, to authorize; to give
faculties or abilities to: to enable” (Gove, 1971).
Kurata (1994) says empowerment involves “not only a
single aspect but multiple aspects of power.” In other
words, we should “analyze empowerment from multiple
dimensions" (Gove, 1971). These dimensions are the
individual, the social, and the psychological with the

potential for the economic and the political. The effects

16

of powerlessness seem to occur on many levels, thus the
approach to empowerment should be based on a combination
of theories that emphasize three different levels of
intervention and change: personal, interpersonal, and
political, (Dodd & Guiterrez, 1990; Guiterrez, 1991;
Lowe, 1997). Below we will discuss each of the factors of
empowerment and how these are reflected in public housing

residents.

Psychological or Personal Empowerment

Proponents of tenant management claim that it has
significant psychologically empowering value in the way
that it is able to provide a socially uplifting
experience for poor people. Kimi Gray, president of the
Kenilworth—Parkside Resident Management Corporation
(Washington, D.C.) explained, “There were nights I cried
myself to sleep because people wouldn't listen, didn't
trust me or themselves" (Cramer, 1988). Evidence abounds
that "poverty can drive out hope" in communities like
public housing, which tend to have a high concentration
of poor people. In some communities, the
hyperconcentration of poor, low-spirited, mostly single
women with children seemed to cast such an oppressive

spell that some public housing community leaders

17

“wondered" at the possible success of integrating their
public housing community to include a mix of economic
types. Even Cochran Gardens in St. Louis, which boasts
one of the most successful tenant management
corporations, admitted that it has difficulty overcoming
the "destructive effects of having so many poor people
living in close proximity to one another" (DeParle,
1992).

O'Brien (1995) interviewed African-American women
who had been long-term residents of public housing and
found that “obstacles in public housing communities
reinforced residents' resilience and that their roles as
mothers and their own spiritual beliefs gave their lives
meaning.” The empowering potential of tenant management
epitomizes the strengths perspective and challenges the
notion that overwhelming obstacles prevent the
disadvantaged from improving their lives. Allowing tenant
participation in the management of public housing
complexes “inculcates an interest in social services
among women and improves community life” (O'Brien, 1995)
at the psychological or personal level. The focus is on
ways in which individuals develop feelings of personal
power and self-efficacy. While tenant management "gave
many tenants a genuine feeling of doing for themselves"
(Fuerst, 1988), writers noted that it has not necessarily

18

transformed the economic nor the political capacity of

poor people.

Economic Empowerment

Improving the financial status of poor people is a
critical element in empowering them. However, any
inclination to achieve measures of individual economic or
financial success in society may be threatened by free
labor market forces that dehumanize and diminish economic
potential for many. When workers participate in the free
labor market, their needs as human beings are largely
ignored in the efforts to commodify labor and in the
pursuit of greater individual economic benefits (Daly et
a1, 1991).

Paradoxically, a worker’s pursuit of personal
satisfaction may compromise their chances of economic
success. Public housing resident leaders may feel a
heightened sense of satisfaction as they carry out work
in their communities, but their economic situation may
not necessarily improve much. At St. Louis's Cockran
Gardens residents were employed in the tenant management
corporation, but shortcomings were recognized: not only
was the corporation's chairman not paid for serving on

the tenant management corporation, but also she “presides

l9

over a five-member board of directors and a paid staff of
47, including repairmen, grounds keepers, and clerks and
is not paid" (DeParle). Tenant management, particularly
board members and resident councils, expended innumerable
hours of hard work and tireless energy to carry out the
endless tasks involved in tenant management. Their labor
services, such as on-site maintenance, provided by the
tenant management corporation, are paid, but the long
hours of administrative work are not. Moreover, while
many extol the work in St. Louis as at “the cutting edge
of anti-poverty strategy...virtually everyone (residents)
there is still poor” (DeParle, 1992). Some explained this
as an exploitation of residents by government forces.
Others argue that while residents, may not make tangible
economic gains through their participation, they can
possibly gain in other ways. Their group and community
participation in the design, development, or
implementation of programs, for example, is one approach
to enhancing power (Lowe, 1997). Residents are said to
experience more and better services by being involved in
the management of their own communities. Tenants "have
more input into the way funds are spent, have greater
involvement, and therefore have more pride and take care
of their communities" (Fuerst, 1988). By granting the
poor increased participation in the decision making of

20

agencies that allocate goods and services, their access
to goods and services increased (Gulati, 1981).
Kenilworth—Parkside Resident Management Corporation in
Washington, D.C., managed to secure enough funding "to
send nearly 600 academically gifted youngsters from
public housing to colleges throughout the United States
(Gulati, 1981). Successful mass movements need not
contain great measures of economic capital. But it is
necessary then, that their missing economic reserves be
supplemented with strong measures of social capital. The
most active and fervent participants of the 19605 welfare
rights movement were many hundreds of thousands who were
drawn from “the very bottom of the black
community—neither integrationist nor nationalistic; this
movement welled up out of the bowels of the northern
ghettos so densely packed with the victims of
agricultural displacement and urban employment that they

were bound to emanate power” (Pivens, p.265).

Social and Political Empowerment

The very existence of tenant management is due, in
part, to political struggles during the early 19605.
During the rent strike of 1969 in St. Louis, public

housing residents withheld their checks for nine months

21

to protest rising rents and deteriorating conditions.
Fearing possible violence, the city replaced its Housing
Authority's director and board, and granted tenants new
rights to share power, including the right to manage
their own properties (DeParle, 1992). Settlement of the
strike involved giving the councils considerable
responsibility, although not much authority (Peterman,
1989).

Social and political power are considered close
partners in the business of improving communities.
Effective social empowerment seems to link or lead to
political empowerment. Some call this an “interpersonal
approach to power” with an emphasis on the development of
specific skills, such as training in problem-solving,
assertiveness, and/or learning how to influence systems
(Lowe, 1997). Partnership-building between residents,
housing commission staff, and community organizations was
said to have a favorable outcome for tenant management
groups who were involved in such efforts. However, only
to the extent those residents were able to negotiate
effectively the limited power and control, were they able
to determine the success of building a partnership.

The link between social and political empowerment is
perhaps the most important component within the general

topic of empowerment because it means that residents may

22

further individual skill development by using it to
develop group and community social and political power to
promote change (Lowe, 1997). Some collective efforts by
tenant management have successfully countered community
decisions that threatened their communities—instances
when social empowerment has led to real political change.
Tenants in Kansas City, Missouri, for example, succeeded
in keeping their public housing site from being
demolished (Burgess, 1992). In fact, networking and
information-sharing among resident groups often led to
successful victories in protecting their community from
outside efforts to harm it. The mobilization of residents
against strong political forces that threatened to
demolish or sell a public housing site characterized most
socially empowering experiences (Burgess, 1992; Kane,
1990; Krislov, 1988). Recently, the rising protest of
residents against the historical exclusion of residents’
voices in decisions that affect them has fostered
resistance and pressure to require housing authorities
and HUD to include tenants in the management of public
housing (Burgess, 1992; Fuerst, 1988; Kane, 1990).
Tenant Management as an Empowering Experience
Controversy surrounds the issue of empowering public

housing residents and whether initiatives like resident

23

participation in resident councils and tenant management
really empower residents. Proponents argue that tenant
management empowers by giving voice and control to low—
income residents within their own communities. Residents
experience empowerment by managing their public housing
sites. Tenants thus "have more input into the way funds
are spent, have greater involvement, and therefore have
more pride and take better care of their communities"
(Fuerst, 1988).

Tenants have a voice in local site operations as
well, their "meaningful" participation in policy
decisions that have impact on their lives might be
considered as one indication of the degree of political
involvement or empowerment of residents. Tenants involved
in the management or other leadership initiatives in
public housing are empowered to the extent that they are
able to translate successfully their community
participation into social, economic, political, or
psychological forms for themselves. This could mean
empowerment in terms of life's tangibles: food, clothes,
shelter, etc. It may also mean the enhancement of certain
interpersonal skills or capacity that enable them to

achieve in other ways.

24

METHOD

This study focuses on in-depth, personal interviews
with five public housing resident council members who
agreed to share their experiences as resident council
leaders in their public housing communities. This study
also includes observations I made while working with
Michigan State University, Center for Urban Affairs,
Community and Economic Development (MSU-CUA-CEDP) public
housing research and development initiatives for almost
four years. Observations include input from MSU-CUA-
CEDP's Statewide Advisory Committee, a mailed survey to
Michigan public housing commissions, community-based
interviews conducted by MSU-CUA—CEDP in several Michigan
public housing communities, quarterly Michigan Resident
Leadership Network (MRLN) newsletters, workshops, and
meetings, MRLN's annual conferences, more than a dozen
public housing resident council meetings, and innumerable
informal conversations with individuals and small groups
of residents. MSU-CUA-CEDP, as a community outreach
component of Michigan State University, works to increase
the capacity skills and resources of communities like the
public housing community around the state of Michigan.

With the assistance of HUD, MSU-CUA-CEDP founded MRLN to

25

help address the needs of public housing residents. The
purpose of this study is consistent with the general
intent of this research. I assess the value of resident
councils and resident participation as an empowering
dynamic in the lives of residents. And I also examine the
larger social implications of empowerment for public

housing residents.

Interviews with Resident Council Members

Subjects were duly elected and officially recognized
resident leaders of their resident councils, thus
recognized as formal leaders of their respective public
housing resident councils. Leaders were all elected in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that
govern the way resident leaders are selected and
recognized in public housing communities. All subjects
interviewed in the case-study research had five or more
years of involvement as leaders in their respective
resident councils or tenant organizations, aside from any
previous, nonresident council experience.

Each subject was interviewed by me personally
question and answer session period lasting approximately

45 minutes to an hour. One to two resident council board

26

members were interviewed in each of the following
communities: Saginaw, Pontiac, and Lansing. A total of
five resident leaders were interviewed as case-study
subjects. Resident council leaders in these cities were
actively involved in statewide resident initiatives,
including those activities facilitated by Michigan State
University's Center for Urban Affairs Community and
Economic Development Program (MSU-CUA-CEDP). Participants
were assured of anonymity.

Subjects were asked to discuss their experiences as
public housing leaders. What were the positive aspects as
well as the challenges of their experiences? Subjects
were also asked to describe some of the activities and
programs that are available for the residents in their
communities. They were asked to characterize what they
felt their roles as leaders in their communities were;
and what propelled them to become involved in their
leadership capacities. Interviews with residents were
also intended to gain some sense of how experience as a
community leader may influence other areas of their

lives.

27

Participation and Observation of Michigan State
university‘s Public Housing Leadership Development
Initiatives

Under the direction of Dr. Rex LaMore, statewide
director of the Michigan State University Center for
Urban Affairs Community and Economic Development Program
Office (MSU-CUA—CEDP), I served as a research assistant
for this community outreach component for almost four
years. I actively worked in all areas of public housing
initiatives at MSU-CUA-CEDP. I served as program
coordinator for the Resident Initiatives in Public
Housing Advisory Committee and later as a cofounder and
coprogram leader for the Michigan Resident Leadership
Network (MRLN), which was established after almost four
years of research and community-based meetings and
discussions with residents and local housing officials.
MSU-CUA—CEDP worked to develop and implement research and
empowerment strategies designed to improve the quality of
life for public housing residents. My active
participation and observation lasted from the program-
planning stage of problem identification through the
implementation phase during which we worked with

residents to develop a leadership training forum.

28

Interviews with residents and work with community-
based initiatives of Michigan State University's
community outreach office gave me an opportunity to
evaluate the significance of public housing resident
participation and partnership building in the empowerment
of public housing residents. This examination should help
us pinpoint the issue of empowerment in public housing
and the strategies employed by resident and resident
organizations to combat challenges associated with living

in their communities.

Findings
Interviews With Resident Council Members
Research note: This research relied on results from a
case study that included five subjects—all public housing
leaders. While I cannot claim this sample to be
representative of all public housing leader experiences,
these findings at least provide insight into the
experiences of resident leaders in Michigan public
housing.

For purposes of anonymity, details concerning the
exact time period of interviews is not revealed in the
research results. Annual resident elections have usually

changed most of the resident leaders interviewed in this

29

study. However an exact time might reveal a subject’s
identity. Interviews did occur sometime between 1995 and
1997. All subjects were women. All but one subject
claimed "African-American" or "Black" as race. The one
who did not claim African-American claimed her race to be
a mixture of "Indian" (Native American) and "Black."

At the time of this research, subjects had a vast
array of time commitments and experiences as leaders.
Subjects had served anywhere from 2 years to 10 years as
resident leaders in their public housing sites and all
had previous leadership experiences so that the total
years of leadership involvement ranged from 8 years as
the least amount of time served to 20 years as the most
time served in community leadership involvement. All
subjects were not only active as public housing leaders,
but also played active roles in church and their in
children's school.

Subjects have lived in public housing for as much as
30 years and as little as 4 years. Political mobilization
and capacity-building was an agenda item for some and not
for others. However, whether leaders worked to promote
community improvement through fund raising or social
events or whether leaders worked to protest unfair policy
and conditions, all residents shared the common cause of
working as leaders dedicated to improving the quality of

30

their lives and the lives of the residents they
represented. All subjects were actively involved in both
local and statewide public housing resident initiatives
designed to improve the quality of life for public
housing residents. All are actively involved in the
Michigan Resident Leadership Network (MRLN), although for

most, their leadership experience preceded MRLN.

Why Leaders Became Involved

Each subject's reason for becoming involved in
resident leadership was closely linked to the role she
believed she should serve in her community. All subjects
became involved either because they were recruited by
others already involved in the community or because they
had an interest in being aware of and being involved in
the community's activities. All said that they were
involved in order to improve social, political, or other
conditions in their communities. Consistent with
literature citing experiences of public housing leaders
nationally, the experiences of these resident leaders
demonstrated that public housing communities comprise a
disempowered community whose persistent lack of economic

resources threaten to limit initiative and motivation.

31

While a few leaders envisioned a need to provide
leadership for purposes of political mobilization, a few
others discussed their leadership role in terms of
creating social programs and activities for the resident
community. Most expressed disappointment about the lack
of support from other residents. Most subjects felt a
sense of personal obligation to get involved and work
towards change in their respective communities. By far,
the single most common reason for getting involved was a
personal sense of community ownership and commitment to
helping others. As two subjects said,

RESIDENT LEADER #2: (to) know what's going on

in public housing; should take information from

tenants and e.g. if (the residents) have

problems etc... take (the problems) to the

housing commissions and try to get the problems

solved at that level

RESIDENT LEADER #4: try to help others

(residents) at all times; Clean drugs from the

community; get residents out to meetings; help

the (residents) get into school; do needs

assessment of community
Residents were eager to share their views when

interviewed individually, but were often cautious and

32

concerned about the ways in which their perspectives

would be used in this and other research projects.

The Challenge: Involving Residents

The social dynamics of the public housing community
can be contrasted with the dynamics of other urban
neighborhood or communities. Rubin (1995) notes that in
large cities there is only "modest contact between
neighbors and limited knowledge about neighbors..."
Social isolation and discouraged inhabitants characterize
urban dwellers in most large cities around the country
(Vergara, 1996). The same type of disassociation and lack
of interaction is found among public housing resident
populations here in Michigan. Discussions with resident
leaders constantly emphasized the lack of participation
and low levels of motivation among residents. When asked,
"What are some of the difficulties you face as a resident
leader?" subjects responded with answers such as,

RESIDENT LEADER #1: trying to get people

involved

RESIDENT LEADER #5: getting the people

(residents) to respond;(to) anything you want

to do

33

Not only did residents not respond to leadership
initiatives, but also they showed no interest in other
community programs and activities.

RESIDENT LEADER #2: trying to get (residents)

involved in programs especially with their

children like those programs at learning

centers (is hard)

Guidelines under some federal policy create rules
that conceptualize a shared-power vision by increased
participation and representation of residents in housing
commissions. However, the lack of cooperation from the
housing commission seemed a major obstacle for many
resident organizations. This was cited as second only to
"low resident participation" as a difficulty for resident
leaders working in their communities.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) has policy provisions and regulations that require
cooperation and partnership building at the local level
between residents and housing commission staff. But the
lack of participation among residents make community
organizing, at a social level, particularly challenging
for these leaders. However, the formal organizing efforts

of the Michigan Resident Leadership Network (MRLN) did

34

enjoy some success, the details of which are discussed

later.

Why the Lack of Participation?

Psychologically Disempowered
Resident leaders cited widespread apathy among

residents as the reason for lack of participation.
RESIDENT #1: general apathy; people only care
when it involves them; (they) don't care to a
certain point if (it) doesn't affect them
personally—they don't get involved or don't

care

Asking the questions, "Why do you think residents
are supportive or nonsupportive?" and "What are some of
the challenges facing residents living in public housing
right now" added another perspective. Subjects' responses
suggested that they, as leaders, are witnessing
widespread feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness
among public housing residents.

RESIDENT LEADER #3: they don't care what you

can say because they don't have the motivation

unless it's something to be seen in

RESIDENT LEADER #4: because they just don't

want to get involved; residents believe that

35

the housing commission is gonna do what they

wanna do anyway

Residents don't get involved sometimes because they
don't think their input will make a difference. Leaders
emphasize that residents' belief about their ability to
influence the housing commission from having
disappointing and disempowering experiences.

RESIDENT LEADER #2: (Some of the challenges

facing public housing residents are) the

negative stigma/stereotypes; when you start

working, they (housing commission) raise your

rent; when you need maintenance repair to come

fix something, you wonder if it’s worth calling

themm

Rubin (1995) calls such widely felt futility,
"learned inefficacy." Learned inefficacy is a causal
factor of disempowerment. "Disempowerment occurs because
society is structured in such a way that those who are in
dominated groups, who are less successful, end up blaming
themselves and (more importantly) accepting the
situation" (Rubin & Rubin, 1992, p. 265). The last
response by RESIDENT #2 above especially points to the

notion that disempowerment occurs because people learn

36

inefficacy. Rubin explains, "By believing they will fail,
they fail. People are taught that if they try to fight
back, to make decisions for themselves, thevaill not
succeed."

This literature also suggests that the media
reinforces the notion of learned inefficacy. Besides
showing imagery that reinforces negative stereotypical
beliefs and showing America's poor stigmatized in a
negative way: "They don't tell stories about people who
are unemployed getting a job or single mothers getting a
degree a course at a time at a local community college."
Rubin says that this is not a plot by media to destroy
people's sense of worth, but merely, "reporters just
trying to sell stories....the result is that people with
socially caused problems see their groups portrayed as
lower on the social scale or less acceptable than they
really are." Thus people learn not to challenge. Rubin
clearly admits that underlying attitudes and assumptions
on the part of those in power readily and sometimes
unknowingly influence the difficulty of achieving
cooperation from them: "...a housing agency staff has an
image of poor minority group members lacking managerial
skills. They are unlikely to air such views in public,
but their negotiations with tenants about cleaning

buildings, achieving social order, etc... may be

37

influenced by these assumptions" (Ruben & Ruben, 1992).
So the resident who has had the experience of finding
employment and increasing his/her income only to be hit
with an increase in rent is discouraged by a perverse

incentive system.

Socially and Politically Disempowered

Dialogue with residents and resident leaders also
reveals that residents are, in general, unaware of the
organizational structure and dynamics of public housing
management agencies. Residents, many times, felt
intimidated and feared the unknown. This is consistent
with the literature which informs us that the "obscurity
of power relationships makes it difficult to see when
dominance based on low status is denying a group
legitimacy" (Rubin & Rubin, 1992). However, subjects'
discussion about “the positive things” they had
experienced revealed that they possessed fairly well-
established social relationships with both informal and
formal institutions, although they mainly interfaced
informally. One subject told of her child being involved
in the Police Athletic League (PAL) and of her own
participation in a local church—based theater program.
Another talked about religious programs at the church
where she was active. Fund raisers, exercise groups,

38

community field trips, and nursing home visits, also were
listed as things residents thought of as the positive
things in their communities. One resident leader did name
her community's resident-managed substance abuse center
as the positive aspect of her community.

While residents in this study had established good
ties with community resources, most had not found a way
to translate these beyond a social connection in their

lives.

Michigan State University's Public Housing Leadership
Development Initiatives
Housing Commission Survey

In 1992, MSU—CUA-CEDP distributed a mailed survey to
public housing commissions in Michigan. The purpose of
this survey was to learn more about the nature and
organization of public housing authorities, to find out
about current and planned resident initiatives, and to
identify staff and residents who are involved in working
with tenant councils. The survey had an 81 percent
response rate. Rehabilitation of units, supporting
resident initiatives, recreation, and crime prevention
were the highest priority areas with 25 percent or more

of respondents reporting that they were “very active” in

39

these areas (n=108). The principal investigator for the
project, Dr. Ric Hula, concluded, "In all cases,
commissions reporting resident councils or staff assigned
to resident initiatives have higher levels of activity in
all priority areas.... (Although) it is impossible to
infer causality from these data, it may be that active
commissions make staff assignments to resident
initiatives and support resident councils as part of a
general process of activism" (LaMore & Radtke, 1994).
Later, MSU-CUA-CEDP formed the Michigan State University
Resident Initiatives in Public Housing Statewide Advisory
Committee to help identify key issues, concerns, and
strategies for meeting the needs of the public housing
community. Among others, the committee consisted of
residents, housing commission representatives, state and
local officials, university outreach office personnel.
The committee undertook the task of identifying public
housing concerns by a two-tiered process. The first stage
involved research and problem identification through
community interviews. The second stage consisted of
empowerment strategies designed to increase the skills

and capacity of public housing residents.

40

Community Interviews

In 1993, the Michigan State University Resident
Initiatives in Public Housing Statewide Advisory
Committee conducted community-based surveys of public
housing residents around the state in order to highlight
and address key concerns and issues for public housing
community members. Interviews with residents revealed a
pervasive sense of “hopelessness” and “helplessness.”
Consistent with findings from my own personal interviews,
residents wanted to improve their community but were
often frustrated by apathy among residents,
administrative red tape, and a general lack of technical
knowledge and skills on the part of the resident
organization to access and utilize resources. The results
of the committee’s interviews with residents concluded
that although there was general support for the idea of
resident participation, many residents expressed concern
that resident participants would not have the skills
needed to implement programs. Thus, they supported the
idea of resident participation as long as such

participation included some type of training.

41

Local Resident Leadership Training Programs and Technical

Assistance

In 1994, the advisory committee held the Lansing
Resident Leadership Conference, designed to provide
technical assistance and develop training programs for
resident council members in Lansing and Saginaw. The
session included a presentation about HUD resident
initiatives and a strategic planning session for members
of the Lansing Housing Commission City—Wide Resident
Council. One resident participant at the conference held
in March 1994 noted, "I think it was very informative...I
was glad to see that even though we live at different
places, we have some of the same problems." Overall
sentiment among participants at the conference was that
residents did not have enough input in public housing
decisions as well as a need to address growing problems

in public housing communities.

The Michigan Resident Leadership Network

In continued efforts to find effective ways to
address the needs of Michigan's public housing
communities, MSU-CEDP-CUA's advisory committee applied
for and was awarded the Tenant Opportunities Program

(TOP) Grant through HUD. Michigan State University (MSU)

42

was one of only a handful of recipients in the nation and
the only university nationwide to receive funding. MSU
was unique in its status as a university applicant with a
long history of demonstrated collaboration and
relationships with community—based organizations and
citizens in public housing and other areas. Most or all
other grant recipients were resident councils in public
housing communities around the country. MSU-CEDP-CUA had
proposed the development of a formal network to address
actively the needs of public housing residents. Through
the TOP grant, the Michigan Resident Leadership Network
(MRLN), a statewide leadership network, was further
developed. MRLN had begun as an informal partnership of
residents, housing commission staff, and others
established to help strengthen resident councils. The
initial three-year leadership period was supported
through the TOP funding and coordinated through the MSU-
CUA-CEDP office with the ultimate goal to build a self-
sustaining organizational structure to address ongoing
needs of public housing residents. MRLN's mission is to
address the disempowered and isolated circumstances of
public housing residents (LaMore & Radtke, 1994). MRLN
does this, in part, by providing opportunities for
residents and others to network and share information,

offering access to technical skills training, and in

43

general, by facilitating the participation of residents
in the decisionmaking that governs their lives and others
in their communities.

MRLN launched its efforts with a statewide
leadership conference in Saginaw, Michigan, on August 24,
1994. More than 295 residents, housing commission staff,
HUD officials, community leaders, and others who worked
with the public housing community participated. John
Shuldiner, assistant secretary of HUD, served as keynote
speaker for the event. Workshops and other sessions
focused on personal, organizational, and community
empowerment. Evaluations from residents who attended the
conference indicated that one of the most valuable
aspects of the conference was the opportunity it afforded
them to share information and ideas with other public
housing residents from around the state. MRLN continued
its program schedule after the first year by providing
statewide quarterly workshops and meetings that gathered
residents from several Michigan public housing
communities at meeting sites around the state. Pontiac,
Detroit, Saginaw, Albion, Marquette, Muskegon-Muskegon
Heights, Lansing, and Benton Harbor were just some of the
communities that volunteered to host a quarterly workshop
or meeting. Workshops and meetings provided technical

skills training as well as opportunities to meet with

44

local, state, government, and public housing officials.
As a formal organization with a membership of more than
500 statewide today, MRLN successfully pursued passage of
Public Act 338 Section 4 Provision 2, which now requires
formal resident representation on housing commission
boards at housing developments with 250 or more
residents.

Further, MRLN has bloomed into a four-pronged
organizational structure that includes a communication
and newsletter committee, organizational committee,
program planning committee, and fund raising committee.
All committees are comprosed of mostly residents, then
housing administration, local and state officials, and
MSU—CUA-CEDP representatives.

MRLN’s communication committee provides periodic
newsletters and informational correspondence in order to
encourage and enhance networking and information-sharing.
The program planning committee organizes the statewide
workshops and meetings. And just as the residents in the
face-to-face interviews eagerly shared positive examples
of their communities, workshop participants were also
often eager to share highlights of successes in their
communities during the “Community Showcase” program
segment. Overall, residents involved in MRLN are

encouraged to register to vote; to contact their local,

45

state, and national representatives to voice their
opinions on various issues pertinent to them and their
families; share information about employment, family, and
educational issues; engage in entrepreneurial
initiatives; and otherwise to build a conscientiousness.
regarding important issues in order to benefit themselves
and their communities. Residents and university program
coordinators hope that MRLN's momentum and ultimate
resident-based leadership will continue to move its

members toward social and political mobilization.

46

DISCUSSION

This study combines a comparative analysis of
opposing literature and a case-study report that
discusses the empowering significance of resident
participation and leadership. Through portraits of five
Michigan public housing resident leaders, we assess the
issue of empowerment within the context of resident
leadership and participation and combine this with an
analysis of Michigan State University's Center for Urban
Affairs Community and Economic Development Program (MSU-
CUA-CUA-CEDP) public housing research and education
initiatives. This research tries to analyze the
relationship between empowerment and resident
participation.

The conceptual framework provided in this research
paper is not meant to serve as an absolute gauge for
determining the empowering potential of public housing
resident activity. Social theories are merely ways of
understanding social life, providing possible methods of
interpreting the human experience in society, but they,
too, are limited in their capacity. Nevertheless, it is
through the literature that we begin to understand the
various ways that we can conceptualize empowerment and
its relationship to resident participation. Lowe,

47

Kurarta, Piven, Rubin, and Vergara, and others do provide
a framework within which to consider our Michigan-based

initiatives.

Economic, Psychological, or Personal Gains?

Some literature has opposed the notion of tenant
management, regarding it as a cause for caution rather
than celebration because tenant management participants
rarely gained financially or in any fiscal way (McIntyre
& Hall 1993; Hula 1990; Fuerst 1988; Diaz 1979). True
enough, tenant leaders in interviews did not cite the
presence of programs that address the economic needs of
residents directly (e.g., cash job skills training,
employment locators) when asked about programs available
to help them in the community. Their discussions tended
to focus on educational programs for adults and children
and environmental beautification programs.

The frustration and discouragement of resident
leaders about the apathy and learned inefficacy of their
fellow residents threatened prospects of personal or
psychological empowerment. The key to consider here is
how, if at all, did examples of personal empowerment
translate into greater economic empowerment?

The economic perspective used in this research has
its shortcomings because it is difficult to assess any

48

real economic empowerment. It speaks strictly from the
standpoint of short-term cost analysis and largely
ignores the socially and politically empowering
implications of tenant management as well as the long-
term potential of economic gain. Vergara (1995), for'
instance, provides a window through which to consider the
qualitative significance of the experiences of public
housing residents. Through his descriptions, public
housing can be seen as the embodiment of the human
experience—little known and little told—thus, an
important event to document. Visual imagery in the form
of graffiti, national symbols of pride like flags, etc.,
display the innermost feelings, motivations, hopes, and
dreams of the people who live there. Through his work,
Vergara shows us that poor urban dwellers struggle to
maintain interest and pride in their community
surroundings despite some of the harsh realities of their
environment.

Michigan public housing resident leaders revealed
that one of their greatest concerns centered on achieving
a better degree of economic self-sufficiency for
themselves and their children. Additionally, residents
noted that they felt psychologically disempowered largely
because of the financial and economic challenges they

face on a daily basis. Resident leaders were constantly

49

 

discouraged by the small numbers of active residents in
their neighborhoods and the obstacles presented by their
housing management. But they also felt encouraged by the
solidarity they found within MRLN. MRLN's function of
interactive information-sharing and networking may
provide a useful strategy for combating the inefficacy
against which residents commonly struggle. Psychological
empowerment is certainly essential in moving poor peOple
into greater economic autonomy. But that, combined with
developing social resources (capital) is even more
valuable. Residents who improved their financial
circumstance felt impelled to move from their public
housing sites; the move was a symbol of success for them.
Nevertheless, residents cling to the notion that
resident-based leadership in public housing is necessary
both in providing a spiritually and socially uplifting
experience for residents as well as opening channels to
the structures of opportunity for residents. While tenant
participation had substantial power in boosting people
psycho—socially, it should not be regarded as a panacea.
Tenant management without increased economic
opportunities would not go very far in improving the

lives of the poor.

50

Political Power?

Residents achieved greater measures of political
power and involvement through MRLN than they achieved on
their own. The interviews and the analysis of MRLN,
indicate that residents used the formal structure of MRLN
to become more politically active. Information on local-,
state-, and national-level officials as well as
information about key issues gave residents the
opportunity to make informed political (i.e., voting)
decisions and to contact their representatives to voice
opinions on issues. MRLN provided the forum through which
information like this was shared. MRLN's political
potential is increased by the fact that it has been
formally established at the hands of residents, giving
continued support to addressing the needs of public
housing residents. Residents and state, local, and
university representatives are developing important
partnerships through the organization's formal and
informal networks. Also, residents' voices are being
heard within legislative circles as well in their local
communities in Michigan.

While tenant management itself may not make
immediate changes in the ways that residents gain access
to structures of opportunity in society, the
participation of residents in a formal organization like

51

MRLN create efforts of building political power. Based on
the historical models of mass movements and the formal
organizations behind them, MRLN may have a chance for
increased success in significantly improving the lives of
public housing residents if the organization can: (1)
achieve continued success at efforts to coordinate

economic and political resources of members; (2)have the

 

organization strategically use resources in political

 

conflict with opponents; and (3)continue the efforts of
mobilization over time (Pivens, 1979). Again, it should
not be regarded as a panacea. Tenant participation or
other ways of giving opportunity to public housing
residents for their community should be part of a larger
social policy initiative of trying to improve the
conditions of the residents in public housing communities

and poor communities everywhere.

52

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of this research suggest that: (l)
tenant participation is a reflection of economic and
social transformations that have taken place in society,
particularly as they affect urban areas; (2) tenant
participation is an outcome and a reflection of the
concentrations of poor in distressed urban communities;
(3) there is some success with current strategies to help
this community, mainly within the structure of organized
struggle; (4) residents want to get involved and are
motivated to take more control of their environment. But
these same residents face endless obstacles and a limited
capacity to do so. Continued efforts by the MRLN to
mobilize support and coordinate resources in order to
gain a political power base seem necessary. Because of
the multidimensional characteristics that precipitate the
existence of disempowered poor people, empowering the
nation's low-income population may require a
multidimensional empowerment model through a formal
organization like MRLN.

Through organizations like MRLN, residents' active
participation give life to empowerment initiatives while
it allows them to develop important social and political

liaisons. But we also need to consider how and what

53

 

limitations the larger structural forces in society may
impose on social mobilization among public housing
residents, for “in movements, what is won must be judged
by what was possible” (Piven, 1979). One major concern
related to this notion of expected returns is what
benefits, if any, are there beyond the development of
strong community-based leadership and their success at
gaining access to some useful resources within their
communities? Our persistence to maintain public housing
communities as self-contained neighborhoods may be
inherently flawed. There is always talk of renewing
national strategies to bring jobs, to improve education,
to build better housing, and to provide adequate health
care for all Americans. These initiatives might improve
conditions in poor communities like public housing, but
it would not necessarily change their isolation, racial
composition, and fragmentation. It could reinforce the
existence of current ghetto environments and encourage
the growth of more (Vergara, 1995). Nevertheless, the
psychological and interpersonal benefits of tenant
participation are clearly present. However, both the
political and economic empowerment potential have yet to
surface and perhaps may do so if MRLN’s organized

struggle maintains its direction and momentum.

54

Social Implications and Recommendations

The fact that residents participate in community
initiatives signify an interest and a desire among them
to exercise greater control and to improve conditions in
their lives (Monti, 1989). However great the challenge
is, residents work to change conditions in their
community and, generally, achieved a sense of
satisfaction about doing something. Whether it was work
to improve their physical environment or work to create
enhanced educational opportunities for young people,
residents felt good about being actively engaged and in
engaging others in efforts of community improvement. This
feeling of accomplishment may help prepare them for other
challenges in their broader lives.

Since residents seem to be socially and
psychologically empowered many times even if they are
missing resources or opportunities to access these
resources, they are more likely to take advantage of
economic and political opportunities if available.
Policymakers should recognize this and make greater
efforts to provide public housing residents with economic
opportunities for improving their own conditions.

The situation of today’s poor is not altogether like
that of the 19305, 19405, and 19505, when being poor
sometimes meant not having money and not having a job.

55

Many of today’s poor, despite their efforts to maintain
employment and establish greater opportunities for their
children, still find themselves living in relative
poverty. A booming national economy has boosted
employment rates and decreased the numbers of people
living without gainful employment. The economy is said to
be thriving; employment rates are at record highs.
Employment may be at an all-time high, but it hasn't
translated into people earning higher wages necessarily.
The proliferation of low-paying, low-skilled jobs, and
expanding taxes leaves families feeling the pressure of
working more hours without earning greater income. We
will continue to see poor populations, working and
nonworking, like those in public housing communities.
Public housing communities have, indeed, declined in
their level of physical upkeep, safety, and appeal to
growing numbers of the working poor in Michigan as
evidenced by significant portions of population flight
from urban areas like Detroit to nonurban, outlying areas
(Darden, Hill, Thomas, and Thomas, 1987; Thomas, 1992).
Inner city residents continue to strive to pursue the
suburban dream paying little attention to the growing
numbers of abandoned poor left in the cities with scarce
resources and opportunities. For those who must rely on

public housing, available and affordable space is slowly

56

diminishing as sites are destroyed and only partially
replaced. Here in Michigan as in other cities, popular
sentiment is changing about today’s disadvantaged. The
past era of governmental assistance and responsibility to
assist the needy has transformed into a time of self-
sufficiency and family independence. General Assistance
(aid to low-income, childless individuals) has
disappeared. Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) has been replaced by “TANF” (Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families). Welfare Reform, Workfare, and Project
Zero are programs that all enforce short-term assistance
(two Years or less) and mandatory work. Michigan's
Department of Social Services (DSS) has been transformed
into the Michigan Family Independence Agency (MFIA). The
poor, whether working or not, are expected to become
increasingly responsible for their own welfare within an
environment of diminishing assistance from others whether
they possess the resources or not.

Unfortunately, contrary to Michigan's increasingly
conservative demeanor towards public assistance,
government’s helping hand may be just what is needed.
Public policy in other countries, such as Singapore, have
found great success in their pro-welfare state
administration, believing that the government's role in
providing quality housing, education, etc., is essential.

57

Just a few decades ago, Singapore was plagued by old,
badly degenerated, overcrowded slums characterized by
poor sanitation and a lack of hygiene. Today, modern
public housing has achieved impressive results, due in
large part to the government's commitment to provide, as
part of a partnership with residents and resident
organizations, quality housing to all its citizens.
Residents are provided strong incentive to purchase, with
considerable government subsidy, new and renovated public
housing at relatively affordable rates (Eng et al.,
1997).

Here in the United States, residents now more than
ever before, need to stay alert. Public housing residents
need to maintain diligence, determination, optimism, and
participation in coordinated efforts for improving their
communities. Resources and opportunities may be
shrinking, but the organizational potential of MRLN and
resident councils exist and are available. Residents will
have to take greater responsibility for sharing
resources, information, and strategies within a group
process that teams with important community partners like
universities and state and local governmental agencies.
And just as important, we as fellow citizens need to
demonstrate more interest and concern in helping our
nation’s less fortunate in ways that truly empower them.

58

Formal community partnerships may become one of the most
important catalysts of success for Michigan's public
housing as it has been for our own and other nations'
public housing. But it is up to all of us to invigorate
these partnerships through mutual responsibility,
participation, and the sharing of resources so that we
all have real opportunity to improve the quality of our

lives in meaningful ways.

59

AP PENDI CE S

60

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC HOUSING LEADERSHIP SURVEY
(To be read to resident before starting interview).
As I have mentioned, this is research for the
purpose of my academic studies at Michigan State
University. As part of this research, I am conducting
interviews with resident leaders like yourself in

Michigan public housing in order to capture the

 

experiences of public housing leaders. Research
participants must have at least five years of experience
as a resident or tenant council representative. Should
you decide to participate, the results of your interview
will remain confidential and your participation and
identity will remain anonymous. The information you
provide during the interview will not be matched by name
to you. You may decline to answer any question or stop
your participation at any time during the interview. The
interview will take 45 minutes to 1 hour. The interviewer
will take notes during the interview. The results of your
interview will be combined and analyzed with the results
of interviews of other resident leaders. All answers you
provide will be used for the purposes of this research
project only. You give your voluntary consent to
participate upon responding to the interview questions.

61

If you have decided that you do not wish to participate

in the interview, please let me know at this time.

10.

ll.

12.

What position do you serve as a resident leader?

How long have you served in this role?

What, if any, other positions have you held as a
resident leader?

How long did you serve in that (those) other role(s)?
Do you live in scattered site public housing or in a
public housing development?

How long have you lived in public housing?

What do you see as your responsibilities as a
resident leader? (after response) Any other
responsibilities?

Why did you become involved as a resident leader?
What are some of the difficulties you face as a
resident leader?

Why do think these were difficult?

What are/were some of the positive things you have
experienced as a resident leader? (after response)
Why do you think these are positive?

What experiences, skills, if any, in the past, have

helped you to serve as a resident leader?

62

13. What type of support do you receive from your
resident community? Are residents (overall):
a. very supportive
b. somewhat supportive
c. fairly supportive
d. not very supportive at all

14. Why do you think residents are supportive or
nonsupportive?

15. What are some of the challenges facing residents
living in public housing right now?

16. How many residents are serving on your board? Of
these how many are active?

17. What can you tell me about those who are resident
leaders in your community? For example: Men? Women?
Young? Black? White? Married? Single?

18. How do you think these various characterizations
affect their roles as leaders?

19. What do you think of the proposed legislative
initiatives of the federal government regarding
public housing?

20. If passed, the proposed House Bill 4973 would allow
an unprecedented opportunity for one or more public
housing residents to serve on the housing commission
board as a commissioner. Do you think this gives real
power to resident? Why or why not?

63

 

("The following are optional”)

TELL ME ABOUT YOURSELF

21.

21.

22.

23.

24.

What is your race?

How old are you?

Where did you grow up?

Was this a rural or urban environment?

How might your past family/personal life or

influenced your experiences as resident leader?

(Thank You for your time and participation.)

64

APPENDIX B

THE FACE OF PUBLIC HOUSING LEADERSHIP:

SUMMARY OF CASE STUDY INTERVIEWS

1. WHAT POSITION DO YOU SERVE AS RESIDENT LEADER?++

0 Resident Leader, local site resident Council, Lansing

 

0 Resident Leader, a local resident council, Lansing

0 Resident Leader of a local Resident Association,

 

Detroit
0 Resident Leader, local Tenant Association, Saginaw
- Officer, Tenants Organization, Saginaw

++ Specific positions of resident leaders not revealed in

order to assure anonymity.

2.HOW LONG HAVE YOU SERVED IN THIS ROLE?
0 3 years

0 2 years

10 years+

4 years

0 6 years

3., 4. WHAT, IF ANY, OTHER POSITIONS HAVE YOU HELD AS A

RESIDENT LEADER/HOW LONG?

65

 

Vice-President local Public Housing Resident
Council(2years), President Neighborhood Watch (5 years
and still involved)

Treasurer City-Wide Resident Council(6 years);
Treasurer Neighborhood Association (2 years)
Vice—President of Resident Council(l year)

President Resident Council (12 years); Treasurer

Resident Council(6 years)

.DO YOU LIVE IN SCATTERED SITE PUBLIC HOUSING OR A
PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT?

development

scattered site

development

development

development

.HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN PUBLIC HOUSING?
5 years

4 years

19 years

23 years

30 years

66

.WHAT DO YOU SEE AS YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A RESIDENT
LEADER?

“trying to get involved in anything going on in (the)
community; trying to make sure people are aware (they)
have rights and (they should) take advantage (of them)”
"know what's going on in public housing; should take
information from tenants and e.g. if have problems
etc... take to the housing commissions and try to get
the problem solved @ that level; should know what's
going on in public housing as president to help
residents come to meetings and tell me different things
that are going on; you represent (the residents)”

To love people and want to be as much help to other
people as I can. In any way they need help; If they
need a ride, etc...

“try to help others (residents) at all times; Clean
drugs from the community; get residents out to
meetings; help them (residents) get into school; do

needs assessment of community"

.WHAT ARE SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES YOU FACE AS A
RESIDENT LEADER?

"trying to get people involved"

"try to get (residents) involved in programs especially
with their children like those programs @ learning

67

 

 

centers; scattered sites have (a) different ambiance
(it is a) challenge getting then involved"

"problems trying to get housing commission to
cooperate; sometimes they cooperate; apathetic
attitudes e.g. garbage disposal—they (housing
commission) let it pile up and sit and it smells up the
building"

"biggest problem have had is honesty. Never had (this)
problem in the last 4 years. Supplies (pots, pans,
etc...) disappear. resident participation is not what
it should be; (residents) are @ social events but
aren't there when you really need them."

"getting the people (residents) to respond; anything
you want to do; drug problem—had to continuously
monitor and call the police on drug dealers on block

and was successful at getting them out"

68

0 9. WHY DO YOU THINK THESE WERE DIFFICULT?

0 "general apathy; people only care when it involves
them; don't care to certain point if (it) doesn't
affect them personally—(they) don't get involved or
don't care"

0 "have lots of things they have to do; busy doing things
for residents"

0 "have a lot of dishonest people living in this public

 

housing complex; some of workers also are culprits"
0 "People are scared; they don't care. Housing commission
is scared of the people; they (the housing commission)

do what they want to do"

10. WHAT ARE/WERE SOME OF THE POSITIVE THINGS YOU HAVE
EXPERIENCED AS A.RESIDENT LEADER?/WHY DO YOU THINK
THESE WERE POSITIVE?

0 "Programs for the kids; Christmas parties; PAL (Police
Athletic League) and karate for the kids; a local
church theater program; Because many children have
never been to some of these places; entitled me to take
them on trip as family outing it is important”

0 "can now travel to learn different thing; put on
religious program, residents from as far as Detroit and

other places would come once/week every Tuesday.

69

(this) lasted about 2-3 years; (this was) good because
enjoyed putting on the meetings and getting together"
"a lot!! (my answer) could be a full page of this
answer; we used to have a lot of fund-raisers—to
purchase items for residents e.g. TV, blinds, whatever.

Social programs; field trips; purchased a bus etc... to

 

make things better for residents; (I) was always taught
to do things to please others" "I was (the) "ceramics

lady"; (I) did a lot of this; (I) had an exercise class

 

her. we had a singing group; [this public housing site]
would go to nursing homes for Christmas and other
holidays, etc..."

"were able to do more positive things before but now
(other) leadership has made (it) more difficult."

"(we) have our own substance center; part of our

 

tenants organization"; "(we) run our own drug
elimination program and we're in the process of getting
our license for a substance abuse center serves our

local public housing community (both 400+ units total)"

70

11. WHAT EXPERIENCES, SKILLS, IF ANY, IN THE PAST HAVE
HELPED YOU TO SERVE AS A RESIDENT LEADER?

0 "social life; religious programs; learned a lot from
dealing with residents (it) taught me how to deal with
people; "got to deal with peOple".

0 "baking for the bake sale every year, I bake $100 worth
(of baking); "would take bake goods down to city hall
to sell"; "once a year, the Delta Sorority comes and

holds a senior prom; had birthday club"

 

0 "good communication skills; good mother skills"

12. WHAT TYPE OF SUPPORT DO YOU RECEIVE FROM YOUR
RESIDENT COMMUNITY? ARE RESIDENTS:

A. VERY SUPPORTIVE: 1, 2 ("some residents who are active
are very supportive; aside from this,
none at all"),

B. SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE: 1

C. FAIRLY SUPPORTIVE: 1, 2

D. NOT VERY SUPPORTIVE AT ALL: 1("some of them are & some

of them aren't. (this is
the) reason why we can't

play shuffleboard"

71

13. WHY DO YOU THINK RESIDENTS ARE SUPPORTIVE OR
NONSUPPORTIVE?

0 depends on individuals; because didn't care when lst
moved out; but became more involved";

0 “some residents don't want to do anything so they're
not supportive; not cooperative"

0 "they don't care; (this is all) you can say; because
they don't have the motivation unless it's something to

be seen in."

 

- "because they just don't want to get involved;
residents believe that the housing commission is gonna

do what they wanna do anyway"

14. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES FACING RESIDENTS
LIVING IN PUBLIC HOUSING RIGHT NOW?

0 "once (they) get in... (the challenge of) getting out"

0 "the negative stigma/stereotypes"; "when you start
working, they (housing commission) raise your rent.";
"there were some really good incentives but don't know
if going to...";

0 "drugs, liquor, no respect i.e. residents not having
respect for each other"

0 "difference in age, alcoholics; there are teens and
older folks here in this public housing site (formerly
a senior complex); the so-called "handicapped" young

72

may be just dope fiends; have very few physical
handicapped; creates a lot of problems for older
residents because older residents don't feel sense of
safety; e.g. schizophrenic young man attacked an older
resident; this is part reason why tenant..."

0 "Our housing commission director is #1 challengel";

"getting training that (residents) need"; "getting

 

grants, etc..."

 

15. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
REGARDING PUBLIC HOUSING?

- "now have Republican leadership in both houses; don't

think any new initiatives will go through now"

0 "(I) fee like don't know enough about them to comment"

0 "should be a change in policy that determines that

senior citizens and young handicapped live together in
same building";

0 "young handicapped don't know want to do things

w/seniors, but they want to do other things"

0 "(I) don't know what to think; everyday there's

something new; our tenants association went to meet
with a Public Housing official this past JULY (we)

discussed PPTA under TOPS money; Two other public

73

housing officials came too; so (we) are trying to draw

the partnerships"

16. HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE SERVING ON YOUR BOARD?

0 "6 should be; 3 are there; 2 active"

0 "3 including myself; need 4 total; all of them are
active"

0 "4 President, vice-president, secretary, recording
secretary, but (there) should be more; kitchen
committee; shuffleboard committee could come to

(resident council) meetings."

17. WHY DID YOU BECOME INVOLVED AS A.RESIDENT LEADER?

0 "because of another resident leader; who is involved in
(NYPP)"; because started helping her; didn't want to
see programs which started fall apart; (she) has
encouraged me a lot"

"because problems in ...."

0 "(I) was nominated to become interested; because (I)
enjoyed doing the things that came with being tenant
council president"

0 “resident was all-white women 20 years ago; (I got
involved) because they asked me to join them and I
enjoyed it; we had a good time then; in 1973 things
were different; much different group of people. We were

74

all seniors; (you) couldn't get in here (public housing
site) until (you) were 60 years old"
"because I lived out here and wanted to know what's

going on"

WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT WHO ARE RESIDENT LEADERS
IN YOUR COMMUNITY? MEN? WOMEN? YOUNG? OLD? BLACK?
SINGLE? MARRIED? FAMILIES?
"middle-age black women; majority are single"
"have a few Mexican men who have helped; are some men
but some are...."; "because majority are black women
who are heads of household" "resident organization
(has) 20 total (10) white (10) black; single black
women head the committees (they) rally around a crisis
and when over they think it's over and then they
scatter"
"older woman, black, single"
"(One public housing site): Black women"; "Another
(public housing site) has always had black; even
resident leaders; here @ (public housing site) I was
(the) first black resident here"

"all women; black single; have families"

NEXT ARE ALL OPTIONAL

PLEASE STATE YOUR RACE:

75

"African-American"
"African-American"
"African-American"
"mother = Indian (Native American); father = black"

"black"

TELL ME ABOUT YOURSELF

question not asked here

"from (a small town in southern U.S.); have 6 children;
am from working class (background); (I) worked as a
domestic for whites; and a cook"

"born in (another small town in southern U.S.) July 13,
1911. back when (I) was 5 years old (we) lived on a
farm and had (our) own home; father was a butcher; he
killed and sold meat in the community; parents were
first...." "brother was first to have grocery store in
(small town in southern U.S.; had buggy horse and
carriage; (I) married when (I) was seventeen; first
black woman to have inflammatory rheumatism; went to
high school and played basketball because (I) was tall;
but family didn't have the money to keep me in high
school; had one sister father was married twice; (5)
brothers; slave people gave 2 brothers....my father and
my uncle, 15 acres of land"; stayed out on "pike";
"lived traditional farm life"; (PROMPT) "mother was (a)

76

beautiful person; small, quiet Indian woman (who)
played a harp; (she was) a home-maker; father wouldn't
let her work; she didn't want to work. Father passed
away in 1923. Passed away of (an) enlarged heart; then
(we) moved away from farm to (small town in southern
U.S.) ; all (my) brothers and sisters have passed away;
(I) have no uncles, aunts; just now have a son, and his
4 boys; daughters (passed away); had 2 boys and a girl
(has 3 children); son (62 years old) has 7 grand-
children;

PROMPT (OCCUPATION) "Occupation in life was a
housekeeper, did this until was 62 years old; did it
since 15 years old; did this because had to do. because
had to leave school and go to work."; "would have
rathered (sic) finished school and become teacher"

"(I have) been involved in local public housing
(activities) over half my life; my mother worked in GM
plant; she had 8 children; she was.... "retired in
1974"; one month later, she was killed by drunk

‘driver; (I) didn't know my father"

77

B IBL I OGRAPHY

78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baum, John, Hummon, Norman, and Muller, Edward. 1991.
“Public Housing, Isolation, and The Urban
Underclass: Philadelphia's Richard Allen Homes 1941—
1965.” Journal of Urban History May 17 3:264-292.

Bivins, Larry. 1990. “Time Runs Out for Brewster” Detroit
News and Free Press Sunday, September 23, 1990. sec.
F, p.1.

Burgess, David. 1992. “Public Housing: a cloud of dust.”
Christianity and Crisis 52 11:255-258.

Daly, Herman E. and Cobb, John B. 1991. For the Common
Good, Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the
Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston:
Beacon Press Books.

Darden, Joe T., Hill, Richard Child, Thomas, June,
Thomas, Richard. 1987. “Detroit: Race and Uneven
Development.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Davis, Jennifer. 1997. “Rebuilding: Officials are
Demolishing Some of Illinois' First Public Housingm”
Illinois Issues November 1997:20-23.

DeParle, Jason, 1992. "Cultivating Their Own Gardens" The
New York Times Magazine. January 5, 1992 vol. 141 p.
22 col. 1.

Diaz, William A. 1979. Tenant Management: An Historical
and Analytical Overview. Working paper prepared for
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, Los
Angeles.

Eitzen, M. Baca Zinn, 1992. "Family, Race, and Poverty in
the Eighties" in B. Thorne & M. Yalom, (eds.)

Rethinking The Family. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.

Eng, Teo Siew, Kong, Lily. 1997. “Public Housing in
Singapore: Interpreting ‘Quality' in the 1990's”
Urban Studies 34 3:441—452.

Fuerst, J.S. 1988. "Tenant Management in Low-Rent Public

Housing." Sggial Service Review 62:37-45.

79

Gove, Philip Babcock, ed. 1971. Webster's Third New

International Dictionary of the English Language
Unabridged. Springfield, MA.: G.&C. Merriam Company,

Gulati, Padi. 1981. "Consumer Participation —- The Case
of Public Housing." Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare 8 4:826-840

Holloway, Steven, Bryan, Deborah, Chabot, Robert, Rogers,
Donna, and Rulli, James. 1998. “Exploring The Effect
of Public Housing on the Concentration of Poverty in
Columbus, Ohio.” Urban Affairs Review 33 6:767-789.

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

1998a
(www.hud.gov/nofa/suprnofa/supnofal/4340sec.9html

HUD 1998b (website) www.hud.gov/budget98/budg12.html

HUD 1996 “State of The Nation’s Cities” Prepared by
Center for Urban Policy Research, Norman Glickman.
Rutgers University, New Jersey.

Hula, Richard. 1990. "Alternative Management Strategies

for Public Housing." In Privatization and Its
Alternatives, ed. William Gromley. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.

Husock, Howard. 1997. “Public Housing as a ‘poorhouse'”.

Publig Interest Fall 1997 73-83.

Huth, Mary Jo. 1981. "An Examination of Public Housing in
the United States after Forty Years." Journal gf
Sociology and Social Welfare 8 3:471-488.

Jaret, Charles. 1991. "Recent Structural Change and U.S.

Urban Ethnic Minorities." Journal of Urban Affairs
;; 3:307—336.

Jenkins, Smith Bette. 1950. "The Racial Policies of The
Detroit Housing Commission and Their Administration"
An unpublished Thesis. Detroit: Wayne State
University.

Kane, Brian. 1990. Tenants Taking Charge in Boston. The
Progrgssive 54 8:13

Kohn, Christine A. 1993. "Giving a New Lease to Public
Housing.” National Journal 25 38:2258.

8O

 

Kurata, Satoko. 1994. "Empowerment of Women in Self-
Employment Programs:.A Study to Conceptualize
Empowerment" An unpublished paper presented for fall
1994 Sociology 2nd year paper presentation session,
Michigan State University.

LaMore, Rex., Radtke, Nancy. 1994. A Proposal to Support
the Michigan Resident Leadership Network. Submitted
to the Tenant Opportunities Program, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.

Loeb, Vernon. 1996. “HUD Awards Public Housing Funds.”
The Washington Post, October 9, 1996, p. 17A, col.
1.

Marks, Carole. 1996. “Farewell-We’re Good and Gone: Black
Migration from the PostBellum South” in Pedraza,
Silvia and Rumbaut, Ruben, (eds.) Origins and

Destinies; Ethnicity in America. Belmont, CA.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.

McFarland, Carter, M. 1978. Federal Government and Urban

Policies: HUD: Successes, Failures, and the Fate of
Our Cities. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

McIntyre Hall, Leda. 1993. "The Houses Messiah Builds."
Shelterforce 16 1:12-14.

Monti, Daniel. 1989. "The Organizational Strengths and
Weaknesses of Resident-Managed Public Housing Sites
in the United States." Journal of Urban Affairs 11
1:39-52.

Mozingo, Joe. 1998. “Aliso Village Housing Declared
Unsafe” Los Angeles Times Saturday, June 13, 1998.
p. B3.

O'Brien, Patricia. 1995. "From Surviving to Thriving: The
Complex Experience of Living in Public Housing."
Afflia Journal of Women and Social Work 10 2:155-
278.

Patterson, James T. 1986. Ameriee'e Struggle Agaigst
Poverty 1900-1985. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard

University Press.

Pivens, Frances Fox. 1979. The Poor People’s Movements:

Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage
Books.

81

Radtke, Nancy. 1995. "Michigan Resident Leadership
Network Update." Community News and Views 8 (1).

Richardson, Michael. 1999. “Despite Job Losses, Singapore
Stays Calm.” International Herald Tribune Friday,
January 22, 1999, Finance, p. 17.

Rubin, Herbert, J. 1995. "Renewing Hope in the Inner
City: Conversations With Community-Based Development
Practitioners" Administration and Society 27 2:127—
160.

Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. 1992. Community

Organizing and Development. New York: MacMillian
Publishing Company.

Rumbaut, Ruben, 1990. “Origins and Destinies:
Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America” in
Pedraza, Silvia and Rumbaut, Ruben (eds.) Origins

and Destinies: Ethnicity in America Belmont CA.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Shogren, Elizabeth. 1995. “Destroying Pockets of Despair”
Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1995, sec. A, p.1, col.1.

Silver, Hilary, Judith McDonald, and Ronald J. Ortiz.
1985. "Selling Public Housing: The Methods and The
Motivations." Journal of Housing
lNovember/December):213-228.

Thomas, Richard. 1992. Life for Us Is What We Make It:
BuildingtBlack Community in Detroit, 1915-1945.”
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Tomlin, Don. 1992. "A Professional's Reflections (on
tenant empowerment)." Journal of Housing

(SeptemberZOctober):216-218.

Toy, Vivian Wowk. 1990. “City Begins Razing Brewster-
Douglas Units.” Detroit News p. 3B.

Vergara, Camilo Jose. 1992. The New American Ghetto. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Walker, Sam. 1997. “U.S. Eyes Public Housing- And Begins

to Remodel” The Christian Science Monitor September
9, 1997. P.1 Sec. 3.

82

 

White, Rick. 1997. “Reinventing Public Housing: the
Atlanta Experience.” Journal of Housing and
Community Development 54:18-20.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged:
The Inner Citv. the Underclass. and Public Policy.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

‘41

83