Community Revitalization in the United States and the United Kingdom
12
income groups rather than to focus almost exclusively on individuals’ self-sufficiency and class
integration (Cantle 2008).
• The welfare state and the private sector.
There were numerous discussions among participants on the minimal welfare state in the
US relative to the UK, especially in regard to subsidized housing and who it serves. As noted
above, social housing makes up a greater share of overall housing in the UK than public housing
does in the US. Housing practitioners in the UK talked about housing as a right, which stood in
contrast to the US approach that includes screening criteria and occupancy rules. The screening
practices in many HOPE VI developments suggested an implicit distinction between the
deserving and undeserving poor, though it was also recognized that there are fewer units to meet
the need. The ability to evict problem households in the US was considered quite interesting by
UK participants who said it is considerably more difficult to evict tenants from social housing.
And, as noted previously, support for subsidized housing and redevelopment efforts, as
evidenced by government funds, is greater in the UK, at least it appears so when comparing the
two major programs: one NDC grant alone accounts for approximately one year of current
funding for the entire HOPE VI program.
While US participants were impressed by the extensive public support for revitalization
efforts in the UK, the greater role played by the private sector in US initiatives, as well as the
diversity of entities involved in community revitalization, impressed the UK group. The group
saw evidence of foundation efforts, especially in Baltimore and Chicago where the Casey
Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, respectively, have been active partners in local
initiatives to address blighted neighborhoods and help improve lives. Program participants from
the UK also noted the relative speed with which housing developments are built in the US that
involve non-government funders and developers. Most all participants agreed that complex
issues and problems can benefit from institutional and organizational diversity.
• Community Focus v. Individual Focus.
Some participants were struck by the differences between UK and US approaches to
housing and community regeneration, especially that of their underlying focus—the community
or the individual. The housing developments we visited in the UK were, for the most part,
already mixed-income communities, some of which also were racially and ethnically diverse.
People involved with the regeneration efforts talked about the developments in terms of long-
term residency; the housing was not a way-station for people getting on their feet economically
but a long-term home. Another assumption was that the regeneration efforts were geared toward
improving the connections among residents. The community centers, health clinics, sports