__________________________________________________________________________________________________
joseph

Mark L. Joseph, PhD

Director, National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities
Faculty Associate, Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development

Post-Doctoral Scholar, The University of Chicago

Ph.D., The University of Chicago
M.A., The University of Chicago,
Visiting Scholar, Oxford University
B.A., Harvard University

Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel
School of Applied Social Sciences
Case Western Reserve University
10900 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44106-7164
mark.joseph@case.edu

216-368-3426

About

Mark Joseph is an Associate Professor at the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, Director of the National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities and a Faculty Associate at the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development. He is the Chair of the Community and Social Development Concentration at the Mandel School. His general research interests are urban poverty and community development. His current research focuses on mixed-income development as a strategy for addressing urban poverty, with particular attention to transforming public housing developments.
Read full biographical sketch.

Course List

SASS 534 Community and Social Development Perspectives [ syllabus ]
SSWM 567 Community Development Organization Strategies [ syllabus ]
SASS 569 Community and Social Development Practice II [ syllabus ]

Recent Publications

Joseph, M. L. (2013). Is mixed-income development an antidote to urban poverty? In Mueller, E. & Tighe, R. (Eds.), The affordable housing reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Reprint.

Joseph, M. L. (2013). Mixed-income symposium summary and response: Implications for antipoverty policy. Cityscape, 15 (2), 215-221.

Chaskin, R. J., Sichling, F. & Joseph, M.L. (2013). Youth in mixed-income communities: Context, dynamics, and response. CITIES. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.009.

View more recent publications

Mixed-Income Research

Creating mixed-income communities has become one popular policy response to the social isolation and economic and public sector disinvestment that characterize high-poverty neighborhoods in most urban areas. The objective is to attract residents with higher incomes while maintaining affordable and public housing for lower income residents. It is hoped that, through this strategy, housing developments and perhaps entire neighborhoods can be created that provide strong networks to employment and other resources beyond the neighborhood, more effective demand for high quality amenities and public services, and positive role models for youth.

Read more about Mixed-Income Research

The National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities

at the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development

nimc4The National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities (NIMC) is a new resource for research and information about mixed-income communities.
Learn more

Affiliations

  • Association for Community Organization and Social Administration
  • Council on Social Work Education
  • Urban Affairs Association
  • Society for Social Work Research
  • Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

In The News

NIMC’s Joseph in New York Times: Separate but equal is slippery slope

May 23 2014

nytLogoDirector of the National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities, Dr. Mark L. Joseph, commented on a growing practice of amenity exclusion in the New York Times article “What’s next, a Bouncer?” on May 16, 2014. The separation of amenities is becoming more frequent in New York City’s apartment buildings where there is a mix of high-income, market-rate tenants and low-income, rent-regulated tenants. Developers argue they are building amenities to attract market-rate renters as justification for prohibiting subsided residents from using the services. Joseph is quoted, “There’s a slippery slope here. What if the next amenity to be created and kept exclusive is a snack bar, or a reading room, or a business and technology center?”

Developers have also started building separate lobbies for affordable and market-rate residents. The NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy provided data showing not only do rent-regulated tenants earn less, they are likely to be elderly and minorities.

Joseph’s mixed-income research in Chicago has shown as soon as you begin segregating people with differential access to parts of the environment, it can lead to marginalization, stigmatization and second-class service and amenities. He recommends developers keep the common amenities, lobbies and entryways and invest more proactively and heavily in community building to guide residents toward shared expectations and accountability for common space. Though there has been little evidence of social connections and social mobility through mixed-income development, Joseph’s argument is that we haven’t done it well enough yet. Separating the incomes within the mixed-income developments is giving up on the possibility of more than just shared residence in improving communities – which is an improvement, but not upward mobility.

facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmailby feather

Choice Neighborhoods finalists announced, Cleveland not among them

Apr 1 2014
Cleveland Central Choice

Cleveland Central Choice

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced the six finalists of the Choice Neighborhoods implementation grant competition. The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is a comprehensive approach to deconcentrating poverty and revitalizing neighborhoods with three core goals around people, neighborhood and housing. Thus far nine implementation grants have been awarded in the program’s three years. In addition to being members of the Urban Institute’s evaluation team of the first five implementation sites, The National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities and the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development at the Mandel School helped Cleveland apply for the implementation grant submitted in September of 2013. The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) received a planning grant in 2011 for the Central neighborhood and has worked with community partners to develop a transformation plan.

Unfortunately, Cleveland was not chosen as a finalist among the 44 applicants. Columbus is the only Ohio city to be considered for the final round. Cincinnati received an implementation grant for the Avondale neighborhood in 2012. The other five cities still in the running are Atlanta, Norwalk, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Tulsa. Cleveland is committed to the revitalization of the Central neighborhood and will persevere with the help of strong partners. The housing authority received a Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) grant from HUD in 2012 and has secured tax credits to move forward on the first phase of the new mixed-income housing. The competition for these limited funds will remain fierce, but Cleveland has the opportunity to reevaluate, make changes and submit an even stronger plan next time.

facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmailby feather

 

 

 


Campus Map     Contact Us     Parking Info     Student Resources     Faculty Resources     Site Map