Public service providers’ perspectives on and responses to the health and social consequences of gentrification in Atlanta, Georgia

Abstract

Service providers’ perspectives on, and responses to the health and social impacts of gentrification have been underexplored. This study’s objectives were to assess health and social service providers’ perspectives on the causes and impacts of gentrification and their responses to gentrification’s impacts. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 service providers sampled using maximum variation and snowball sampling, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. Inductive thematic analysis was used. Providers characterized gentrification as increases in community-level social and economic advantage and displacement of Black and Brown people. Neighborhood divestment and speculative development were reported determinants of gentrification. Revitalization and economic growth were reported positive effects of gentrification; negative ramifications included inflated housing costs, residential displacement, and reduced access to health and social services. Providers enacted multiple solutions to mitigate the negative consequences they observed, including educating residents on housing rights and collaborating with other organizations to expand outreach to displaced residents. Service providers are integral to contributing to knowledge on the causes and impacts of gentrification, and absolving problems resulting from gentrification. . Additional research documenting service provider’s responses to the impacts of gentrification are needed to inform how future community development strategies are developed to create more benefits than harms.

Introduction

Gentrification, defined as the process in which “central urban neighborhoods that have undergone disinvestments and economic decline experience a reversal, reinvestment and the in-migration of a relatively well-off, middle- and upper middle-class populations”(N. Smith, 1998) has become a key feature of urban landscapes over the last several decades. Coinciding with the rise in gentrification in several U.S. cities, investigation of the health and social impacts of gentrification, has also significantly grown over the last few decades.

This growing line of research has collectively told an inconsistent story. Some studies in this area of research have documented positive effects and correlates of gentrification, including increased investment in renovation and revitalization of infrastructure, and growth of new amenities and local economies, and the potential for gentrification to increase racial and economic diversity within the areas it occurs (Brummet & Reed, 2019; Joseph Gibbons, Barton, & Brault, 2018; Morenoff et al., 2007). Some of these studies, as well as others have reported a combination of adverse effects of gentrification, including inflated housing costs and amenities, food and housing insecurity that result from rising costs of living, elimination of cultural institutions, resident and crime displacement, reduced access to social and health resources, and increased policing and interactions with law enforcement (Betancur, 2011; Bhavsar, Kumar, & Richman, 2020; Croff, Hedmann, & Barnes, 2021; M. T. Fullilove, 2001; M.T. Fullilove, Peterson, & Bassett, 2016; M. T. Fullilove & Wallace, 2011; J. Gibbons, 2019; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Marisela B. Gomez & Muntaner, 2005; Holt, del Río-González, Massie, & Bowleg, 2021; Huynh & Maroko, 2014; Izenberg, Mujahid, & Yen, 2018a, 2018b; Laniyonu, 2018; S. L. Linton et al., 2017,_S1_Reference51; Porreca, 2023; Ramírez, 2020; Shmool et al., 2015; G. S. Smith, Breakstone, Dean, & Thorpe, 2020; Tran et al., 2020). Researchers have also identified relationships of gentrification processes with health-adverse behaviors, such as heaving drinking (Izenberg et al., 2018a), poor mental and behavioral health (Fedina et al., 2021; M. T. Fullilove, 2001; M.T. Fullilove et al., 2016; M. T. Fullilove & Wallace, 2011; J. Gibbons, 2019; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Marisela B. Gomez & Muntaner, 2005; S.L. Linton et al., 2013), and chronic health conditions(Iyanda & Lu, 2021; Wang & Melton-Fant, 2023).

The prevalence of adverse social and health effects have also been shown to disproportionately burden Black and other people of color, persons of lower-income status, and the elderly (Betancur, 2011; Bhavsar et al., 2020; M. T. Fullilove, 2001; M.T. Fullilove et al., 2016; M. T. Fullilove & Wallace, 2011; J. Gibbons, 2019; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Huynh & Maroko, 2014; Izenberg et al., 2018b; Laniyonu, 2018; G. S. Smith et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2020; Versey, 2018; Wang & Melton-Fant, 2023). The mechanisms behind the inverse relationships of gentrification to health and wellbeing among these groups has frequently been tied to multiple negative community-level effects of gentrification (e.g., inflation of housing costs, residential and cultural displacement, fractured social networks, and reduced access to social and health resources) (Croff et al., 2021; Ellen & Captanian, 2020; M. T. Fullilove, 2001; M.T. Fullilove et al., 2016; M. T. Fullilove & Wallace, 2011; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Holt et al., 2021; Richardson, Mitchell, & Franco, 2019; Versey, 2018).

Scholars have documented considerable complexity surrounding measurement and analysis of gentrification in empirical studies (Bhavsar et al., 2020; Tulier, Reid, Mujahid, & Allen, 2019).Qualitative studies have therefore been important in revealing mechanisms and nuances behind the associations of gentrification with social and health conditions that cannot be observed across empirical population-level studies alone. To date, most qualitative studies have focused on eliciting residents’ views, with a smaller number of studies eliciting the perspectives of other stakeholders, including service providers who provide health and social services to residents in gentrifying areas (DeVerteuil, 2011; Roda, 2020; Romero & Harris, 2019). While the importance of residents’ lived experiences with gentrification cannot be downplayed, service providers may offer unique views on how gentrification impacts residents’ access to services, service delivery, and how gentrification intersects with other social determinants of health. Because of their training and professional expertise and networks, health and social service providers may also demonstrate or provide unique recommendations on how their sectors and others can resolve the negative social and health consequences of gentrification— a topic that has not been frequently featured in research on gentrification.

To contribute to the knowledge base on gentrification’s impacts and identify potential solutions to ameliorate negative consequences of gentrification, this exploratory study assessed perspectives on gentrification from a diverse group of health and social service providers in the 5-county Atlanta Metropolitan Area in the state of Georgia, USA. Specifically, this study investigated three research questions: (1) what are public service providers perspectives on the characteristics and causes of gentrification? , (2) what are the impacts of gentrification on residents and service providers and their organizations? (3) how are health and social service providers and the sectors they represent currently responding or plan to respond to the impacts that gentrification has had on their organizations, and the communities they serve. The research team selected Atlanta, Georgia to be the setting for this study because it recently ranked as having the 4^th highest rate of gentrification among cities of similar size . Atlanta has also experienced a rise in inequality and housing unaffordability that some sources have attributed to gentrification (Berube, 2018; Metro Atlanta housing affordability: Is it all too much for too many, 2019).

Despite Atlanta ranking as being among the highest-ranking gentrifying cities in the United States, the impacts of gentrification on health and social conditions (e.g., education, crime, social connection) has been explored in only a handful of studies (Bernstein & Isaac, 2023; Chernoff, 1980; Doan & Higgins, 2011; Foell & Foster, 2022; Isaac, Berstein, & Balloun, 2021; Leslie Martin, 2007; L. Martin, 2008; Spring & Charleston, 2021), and even fewer have explored the impacts of gentrification within the context of health and social service delivery (Leslie Martin, 2007{Isaac, 2021 #155)}. . .. . The findings from this study will increase understanding of how public policy and public services can better respond to gentrification and improve community health outcomes, broadly, and more specifically in Atlanta and other Southern cities that share similar demographic and political characteristics and are experiencing rapid urban development.

Methods

Sample

This study used maximum variation (e.g., sampling to attain diverse representation in sector and field) and snowball sampling (e.g., respondents suggested other prospective participants) (Hinton & Ryan, 2020) to recruit public service providers from diverse sectors to gain a comprehensive understanding of how different sectors of service provision and their client bases may be impacted by and respond to gentrification. Eligibility criteria included being at least 18 years of age, being employed by a service or policy implementation organization in one of the 5 counties of the Atlanta metro area, and English fluency at the time of enrollment. This study excluded prospective participants if they did not meet these criteria. There were no exclusions based on the type of sector that providers were employed in or any other characteristics.

Recruitment for the study occurred between March 2019 until August 2020. As suggested by prior qualitative scholars (Patton, 1990), the research team determined the final sample size to be adequate when data generated from the interviews had breadth and depth. Recruitment began with an initial list of service providers that was compiled by the research team and consisted of service providers who were identified initially from current networks or publicly available websites. During this first stage of recruitment, the research team invited service providers who worked in Fulton and Dekalb counties of the Atlanta MSA due to high rates of gentrification in those counties (Corrigan, Curriero, & Linton, 2021). This first stage of convenient sampling was later supplemented with snowball sampling, whereby the research team asked enrolled participants to recommend service providers that were affiliated with different organizations and/or sectors. .Snowball sampling expanded the sample’s geographic representation beyond Fulton and Dekalb counties to include service providers who worked in Cobb, Gwinnet, and Clayton counties. The research team- initiated contact with all service providers via email and/or phone, using publicly available contact information or information provided by service providers who referred them. A total of 15 service providers were enrolled in the study.

Procedures

Trained interviewers (2^nd and 3^rd author) conducted the interviews with service providers over the phone. Prior to the start of each interview, the interviewers read oral consent forms to the service providers and asked for participants’ consent over the phone. The interviewers also emailed electronic copies of the consent form to each service provider.

Interviewers used a unique numerical ID to identify each participant in data materials, and asked participants to not share identifiable information about themselves or others when responding to interview questions. Interviewers utilized an interview protocol that was designed to ensure consistency in how interviews were started and concluded, and to provide instructions on how to remind participants about key information from the consent form, ask for respondent’s permission to be recorded, remind respondents to not share identifiable information, and encourage participants to inform interviewers when they felt uncomfortable with being recorded or answering specific questions. Interviewers also used a semi-structured interview guide that included initial questions that asked respondents to share their age, gender, race/ethnicity, and professional affiliations, role and responsibilities, mission and services provided by their organization, and primary demographic or other special (e.g., unhoused) characteristics of the clients they and their organizations served. Subsequent questions in the interview guide were informed by prior research on gentrification and the study’s overarching research questions to facilitate interviews. The guides included questions that captured service providers’ definitions of gentrification to assess their initial understanding and perceptions of the phenomenon, descriptions of the causes and consequences of gentrification on themselves, the sectors they represented, their clients, and the general Atlanta population, and how they or their organizations were currently responding to gentrification or wanted to respond to gentrification in the future.

All interviews were audio recorded with permission from all respondents. Interviewers also made hand written notes and memos. Audio transcripts were transcribed verbatum by an external transcription service and the interviewers checked the accuracy of the transcriptions. No personal information was included on data collection materials so that data could not be linked to individuals who participated in interviews. If this information was reported by mistake, it was redacted from transcripts. Service providers were offered a $20 electronic gift card for participating.

Data Analysis

The team performed inductive line-by-line coding on the first two transcripts, and then conducted focused coding to categorize these initial codes into focused codes. These focused codes formed the basis of a codebook, and detailed definitions and examples of when these codes would be used during subsequent deductive coding was also included in the codebook. The team then used the codebook to deductively code four of the same transcripts. The research team reviewed and compared the initial set of coded transcripts, resolved discrepancies in coding, and edited the codebook to clarify definitions and codes when determined necessary during the process of review and resolution. . Each member of the research team used the finalized codebook to independently code the remaining transcripts using Atlas ti. The research team used the constant comparison method(Glaser, 2014) to compare data within and across interviews of respondents and identify themes that emerged from the data that were relevant to the study’s research questions of interest..

Data dissemination, respondent validation and member checking

To strengthen credibility and trustworthiness of study results, the research team used respondent validation throughout data collection, and implemented a first line of member checking by inviting interview participants, and professionals from similar sectors to a Zoom meeting to get their feedback on the accuracy of results and the research team’s identification and interpretation of major themes in the data. The research team conducted a second line of member checking, by sharing an early draft of the manuscript with interview participants to receive and incorporate their final feedback on how the results were interpreted and presented prior to journal submission. The university Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures after expedited review, and classified the study as exempt under category 2 of human subjects research.

Results

Fifteen service providers completed in-depth interviews. Service providers represented diverse sectors ranging from health, tertiary education, government, housing, environmental and food justice, real estate, and community development (see Table 1 for service providers’ demographic characteristics, affiliated sectors, and type of organizations where they worked). Ten service providers identified as Black, and the remaining five collectively identified as South Asian, Latinx, Multiracial, and White. Most service providers were women (9/15) and were employed or volunteered for organizations that provided direct services to residents. Two service providers’ organizations respectively provided services to other organizations alone or in addition to individuals. The client base that most service providers served was predominantly Black. Two service providers reported serving predominantly Hispanic/Latinx populations.

Table 1.

Service providers’ demographic characteristics, affiliated sectors, and type of organizations

Sex	Race/Ethnicity	Sector	Organization Type
Female	Black	Health	Community-Based Behavioral Health Organization
Female	South Asian	Government (State)	Housing
Male	Black (African)	Nonprofit	Grassroots Environmental Justice Organization
Male	Black	Nonprofit	Grassroots Environmental Justice Organization
Female	Black	Education	University
Male	Black	Nonprofit	Community Development Corporation
Female	Black	Government (Local)	HIV/AIDS
Female	Black	Health	Community-Based HIV/AIDS Prevention Organization
Male	Black	Nonprofit	Community-Based Policy and Advocacy Organization
Female	Latinx	Nonprofit	Community Health and Social Services Agency
Female	White	Nonprofit	Community-Based Food Justice Organization
Male	Black	Nonprofit	Professional Real Estate Association
Male	Black	Nonprofit	Homeowner’s Association
Female	White	Nonprofit	Community-Based Policy and Advocacy Organization
Female	Hispanic/multiracial	Nonprofit	Community-Based Policy and Advocacy Organization

Below we present findings on the following themes: (1) characteristics and causes of gentrification, (2) consequences of gentrification on residents and service provision, and (3) responses to gentrification.

Definitions of gentrification and its causes

Most service providers defined gentrification as a community-level increase in affluent people, who were often described to be young adults, college educated, and/or White. Service providers’ definitions of gentrification also frequently included descriptions of lower-income and Black and Brown residents being displaced.

Racial composition, blight, and depopulation were key characteristics that service providers identified as determinants of gentrification in Atlanta, with several of them indicating that gentrification happened more frequently in predominantly Black communities of central Atlanta that had experienced depopulation, foreclosure, abandonment, and related issues (e.g., crime). Many of these service providers attributed these predictors to historical process of discriminatory housing policies and government divestment.

There have been instances where the government has been the recipient of CDBG [Community Development Block Grant] funds but refused to make those funds available for those types of areas [of need], and as a result, the community has declined when the government, in fact, could have helped…And when a community starts to go into decline, oftentimes you will see an aggression on the part of government in the form of code enforcement. So, through code enforcement, they are incrementally moving people out of their property, demolishing properties, and a number of other things that ultimately frees up land, creates the opportunity for developers to come in…. -Female service provider

Some service providers also described the disproportionate occurrence of gentrification in Black communities as resulting from intentional, speculative, and exploitative ventures of developers’ who receive tax incentives to develop in these areas. Some service providers also mentioned how Black households are vulnerable to being targeted by speculative developers and investors when they don’t understand the value of their homes.

[Black communities] They’re targeted by investors because investors are often trying to take advantage of you know, a senior’s ignorance as to the value of their property. And if they don’t take advantage of that ignorance, they’re taking advantage of their offspring’s ignorance, you know? Their grown children, who now—you know, moved out Mama’s house when they graduated from high school, 40, 50 years ago, you know? And parents have passed on, and now they have this house that Mama and Daddy never, you know, made improvements on, might need a lot of work, need a lot of updating. So, investors come along and say they’ll buy the house, and make them an offer, as cheap as they can..- Male service provider

Impacts of gentrification on residents and service provision

Most service providers described both positive and negative impacts of gentrification on the populations they served. The positive impacts included physical revitalization, expansion of greenspace, and new construction of residential and commercial properties. Gentrification was also attributed with boosting the local economy and housing market in areas in the city, including predominantly Black areas.

Over the last 20 years with the values increasing exponentially, you know I’m seeing the same benefit [in Black communities] that residents in White areas of the city have always realized— an increase in values, so that’s one of the positive things….The other positive things is the improvement physically of the neighborhoods. And then when there is the improvement of housing, which attracts a higher-income buyer, then you begin to attract more retail…- Male service provider

Several positive social consequences were noted as well, including increases in racial diversity, in migration of residents with resources, and increases in safety and timely responses from law enforcement. A few respondents also mentioned that gentrification led to the establishment of more community centers and programs. Considering these positive changes, one service providerwho expressed dislike with being called a “gentrifier”, suggested that alternative words to gentrification be used to describe and highlight such positive neighborhood changes that he and other service providers mentioned, such as beautification, diversification, and inclusion.

Notably, some service providers mentioned no positive outcome of gentrification and several service providers who reported positive outcomes contextualized the positives as having inequitable impact. Service providers described the primary beneficiaries of gentrification’s positive effects to be developers, real estate agents, property owners, affluent and White residents, and residents moving into gentrifying areas. In contrast, gentrification was described as creating hardships for lower-income residents, renters, foreign-born and native-born Black and Brown people, and those who were displaced.

Displacement was the most widely discussed source of hardship, and service providers attributed this process to rising rents and property income taxes that accompanied gentrification combined with an existing housing affordability crisis that some service providers associated with public housing demolition and lack of housing assistance.

Well, I think one of the biggest things is the property tax increases...So, let’s say for example if you have a senior citizen that’s been living in the neighborhood for 40 years and she’s done no improvements to her house but yet the house next door, which was abandoned and dilapidated, because it was purchased and totally renovated and resold for $350,000.00 or whatever, the city now is assessing the tax on that house because of the sales price they paid for it. But that old lady that lives next door you know she hasn’t made those same improvements, and so if her tax bill goes up because quote, unquote, other comparable properties in the neighborhood are being assessed higher taxes that’s not quite fair.

- Male service provider

And when displacement occurred, the harms associated with it were described as not ending there. A cascade of negative ramifications related to economic and housing insecurity were mentioned, including unplanned relocation costs, overcrowding, and homelessness. It was also described as a major source of disruption to service providers’ efforts to provide services to their clients. Displacement was described as causing residents to move to areas where they had less access to social connections, health and social services, job opportunities, and public transportation. An experience that one service provider suggested could further isolate people of color specifically and limit service providers’ abilities to reach them.

Well, our [Black and Brown] communities are priced out and are moving further and further away from the areas that have the most resources for them to not only survive but thrive. So, the commutes are longer. Now, gas is more expensive. Now, they need to get a car. Oftentimes, suburbs or areas that are more scattered are not used to having brown people, immigrants there. So, there are not a lot of resources or support. They are completely isolated, in many cases, and then for organizations like ours, this sort of spatial segregation makes it really hard to organize communities because they are just not close to each other like in neighborhoods.

- Female service provider

Several service providers also discussed that displacement did not solely threaten and affect residents well-being but could also pose a threat to the displacement and survival of small businesses and organizations, including their own. For example, one service provider described how urban farmers experienced displacement when rental costs for land in gentrifying areas increased. Another service provider described how organizations, including her own, were forced to move when they leased office space that were sold to developers in gentrifying areas.

Lastly, the negative effects of displacement were described as leaving a mark in the communities well after residents left, by leading to reductions in racial/ethnic diversity of communities, instigating depopulation and leading to the closure of schools and organizations that served vulnerable populations. Changes in racial/ethnic composition were also described as increasing racial tensions in some neighborhoods, as White residents were described as isolating themselves from Black residents, and some service providers expressed fear that Black residents would lose political power because of what one service provider described as White residents “gentrifying leadership positions”. Some service providers also described how White families moving into predominantly Black communities neither respected the community nor culture of legacy residents and suggested that these behaviors not only increased tensions but led to a loss of history, character, and soul of communities. One such service provider also noted that emerging tensions were not just race related.

….so, neighborhoods that might have been more Bohemian or artsy or largely like sort of gayborhoods, as we use that term sometimes. That when a lot of straight folks start moving in, then some of the culture of the neighborhoods, like for example, areas that might have had the presence of sex workers, you know, people start calling the cops on them.

- Male service provider

Service providers current or planned responses to gentrification

In response to the negative consequences of gentrification that service providers described, they provided examples of how they tried to overcome them. These actions included incorporating housing support or referrals to housing support in their menu of services, pushing legislation to increase affordable housing stock, raising awareness of tenant rights, promoting political leadership conscious of the negative impacts of gentrification, engaging in political and real estate education, community organizing, legal advocacy, and intentionally making efforts to increase community power.

… ultimately what we’re going to do is lead another resident leaders academy where we introduce these ideas to residents, who can then decide which ones they want to take to their city staff and councils and have those voted on, because the best way to move the community forward is to let the community experts lead those efforts.- Female service provider

Other actions focused on adapting their models of service delivery to assist displaced clients. For example, service providers mentioned expanding the spatial scale of their services, providing displaced residents with resource guides to help them locate services and resources in their new neighborhoods (e.g., healthcare agencies, food pantries), and partnering with organizations in areas where displaced residents moved.

In addition to describing how they or their organizations were actively responding to gentrification, service providers also provided several suggestions on what they or others could do to offset the negative consequences of gentrification in the future. A common element that cut across service providers’ recommendations included multi-sector collaboration. Some specific suggestions that service providers made included government bans on speculative development in divested communities, recommending developers and city officials involve residents in decision making around community development plans, and that they prioritize increasing equity and meeting residents’ needs in their community development plans.

One [thing] that could straighten development out is for the developers to have a conscience... The second thing is to get the local residents into this process and for this input to be honored. A lot of times, the input is given but it’s thrown to the side. It’s set aside because of putting profit before people, and if we’re going to continue to do that, we will have gentrification.

-Male service provider

When they [elected officials] decide to do development making sure that there are policies and procedures in place so that the development has to be done within the context of what the existing community wants and needs, not allowing development to displace existing residents….the specific measures, rent control, community benefits agreements, a requirement that a certain percentage of housing be affordable.- Female service provider

Some respondents also discussed how community organizing and collection action needed to be both proactive and prescriptive, as featured in the two statements below.

I would like to see communities empowered and equipped to actually address the issue [negative impacts of gentrification] before it becomes a crisis. So, when a development project is still in its infancy, that’s when community engagement is critical because if a development project is approved and the zoning laws are approved, and the buildings start going up and then community is an afterthought then it’s too late.

- Female service provider

Then there must also be a collective strategy. Where is the blueprint that says, you know, when gentrification comes to your neighborhood? This is how you deal. This is how you manage. This is what you prepare for. This is how you work with the neighbors. This is how you sustain the services that you want to keep. This is how you stabilize the housing market, and this is how you stabilize the tax base … - Female service provider

Other recommendations that service providers mentioned included establishing community land trusts, various innovative affordable housing models, including construction of tiny homes and repurposing office spaces left unoccupied because of teleworking and other circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic to create affordable housing options. Additional ideas included encouraging government officials and developers to ensure that long-term or “legacy” residents are prioritized for education, job training and employment opportunities in developing areas. Others suggested that the business community leverage its lobbying power to promote public good, and that educational programs in urban planning be established for community organizations to better understand proposed community development plants. Lastly, some service providers charged Black communities to draw on the strong civil rights history in Atlanta to combat the negative impacts of gentrification.

Martin Luther King talked about it–“beloved community.” And I think we have to think about that framework for the African American communities to come together, put their money where their mouth is, and build homes that will be affordable for their own people. So, you don’t wait until somebody comes and invests in your place, and then that [person] displaces you. – Male serviceprovider

Discussion

This manuscript adds to the growing literature on gentrification by documenting perspectives on the causes and consequences of gentrification among service providers from diverse sectors, and their active or planned responses to gentrification’s consequences. Overall, service providers described gentrification as a process marked by a transition to greater economic and social privilege and displacement of under resourced people of color from a given area. Service providers collectively described a combination of structural racist housing and speculative development processes as contributing directly or indirectly to gentrification. Service providers reported both positive and negative consequences of gentrification on communities in Atlanta that have far reaching implications for health and well-being, and discussed a wide range of responses to the negative consequences of gentrification that were just as diverse as the sectors they represented.

Service providers’ definitions of gentrification widely corresponded to prior conceptualizations of gentrification as a process marked by area-level increases in economically privileged households(N. Smith, 1998). Although, most service providers acknowledged that this increase in economic privilege also correlated with an increase in the proportion of White residents moving into an area coupled with displacement of under-resourced people of color, some service providers later described gentrification as an increase in affluent non-White people during stages of member checking. The intersection of Whiteness with affluence serving as marker of gentrification is frequently discussed in prior literature(Brown, 2021; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Miller, 2020; Rucks-Ahidiana, 2021), while discussions of affluent people of color serving as ‘gentrifiers’ is a topic that has been acknowledged but less reported on(J. Gibbons & Barton, 2016), and therefore warrants further investigation.

Service providers contextualized gentrification as a process resulting from systemic housing discrimination, divestment, and speculative exploitation in predominantly Black communities. Service providers’ historical framing of gentrification resulting from structural racist policies and practices aligns with how gentrification has been described by others as occurring in many urban communities of color (Brown, 2021; M. T. Fullilove, 2001; M.T. Fullilove et al., 2016; M. T. Fullilove & Wallace, 2011; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Marisela B. Gomez & Muntaner, 2005; Hightower & Fraser, 2020; Miller, 2020; Rucks-Ahidiana, 2021; Shelby, 2016).

Similar to other studies on gentrification (Ellen & Captanian, 2020; Formoso, Weber, & Atkins, 2010), the positive consequences of gentrification that service providers reported included economic growth, renovation of physical infrastructure, increases in property values, greenspace, diversity, safety, and community resources. The negative consequences that service providers described also aligned with what has been previously documented in prior literature (Betancur, 2011; Bhavsar et al., 2020; Croff et al., 2021; Doan & Higgins, 2011; M. T. Fullilove, 2001; M.T. Fullilove et al., 2016; M. T. Fullilove & Wallace, 2011; J. Gibbons, 2019; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Marisela B. Gomez & Muntaner, 2005; Harmon-Darrow, Jun, & Bright, 2023; Holt et al., 2021; Huynh & Maroko, 2014; Izenberg et al., 2018a, 2018b; Laniyonu, 2018; S. L. Linton et al., 2017; S.L. Linton et al., 2013; Porreca, 2023; Ramírez, 2020; Schnake-Mahl et al., 2020; Shmool et al., 2015; G. S. Smith et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2020). These negative impacts included rising housing costs, residential displacement and associated reductions in access to transportation and health and social services, increased isolation of marginalized groups, and concerns about intensified police practices, political disempowerment, and intolerance of sexual/gender minorities.. For many service providers, these negative consequences were linked to disproportionate poor health and social impacts on Black and Brown people. One service provider described the potential for gentrification to lead to negative impacts for other minoritized groups, including LGBTQ communities. Although not a common topic of discussion among service providers in this study overall, the documentation of this occurring in other studies (Doan & Higgins, 2011) encourages further investigation of the potential intersectionality of hardships across multiple groups disadvantaged by discrimination and oppression, so that appropriate tailored responses and solutions are created for minoritized groups.

This study also adds to an existing but small literature base documenting the unique impacts that gentrification has on organizations’ programs and service delivery (Curran, 2007; DeVerteuil, 2011; van Holstein, 2020), For instance, inflated property costs were described as not just burdening residents but also directly or indirectly (via displacement and depopulation of clients) leading to the closure or displacement of service organizations and schools, which has been documented elsewhere (DeVerteuil, 2011; Pearman, 2020; Pearman & Marie Greene, 2022) .

Service providers’ reported responses to the ill (and unequal) effects of gentrification drew heavily on an equity perspective. . Similar to what has been discussed elsewhere (DeFilippis, 2002; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Howell, 2016), service providers described how they sought to ensure more equitable distribution of the benefits of community development or planning policies that resulted in gentrification through community organizing, and political actions that include grassroots campaigning and advocacy for macro level change via legislative action. Service providers also described how much of their community-level mobilization intentionally incorporated efforts to build knowledge and power and capacity for residents to lead and oversee their own solutions toward minimizing the harms associated with gentrification.

As documented elsewhere in other social service research (Thurber, Krings, Martinez, & Ohmer, 2019) and case examples of community organizing against inequitable development (M.B. Gomez, 2013), service providers described educational campaigns as a key component in community organizing and encouraging community-driven solutions to resolve or prevent the negative implications of gentrification. Much of this education focused on increasing community members’ understanding of the housing system. Some service providers, including those that did not have a mission to provide housing, increased awareness on housing resources and tenant rights independently or in partnership with housing-focused organizations. Other service providers’ education initiatives included informing Black residents on real estate investments to increase knowledge about the value of their homes and to prevent their vulnerability to speculative development processes. Recent research on community development in Atlanta that documents resident desires to learn about the ways that they can benefit from gentrification and avoid displacement and predatory developers (Foell & Foster, 2022), emphasizes how relevant and needed education about housing markets, land and housing ownership is important for residents who are experiencing development in their neighborhoods(Hightower & Fraser, 2020). This study demonstrates that health and social service providers can be critical to educating residents on these topics.

Another area where service providers discussed meeting the needs of their clients experiencing gentrification, included careful consideration and planning on their part or that of their organization to adapt their service delivery in ways that met the needs of clients who were geographically displaced. Here too, many service providers described building collaborations with other organizations in these efforts, to maintain service delivery to displaced residents by extending their spatial coverage.

In addition to the actions that service providers discussed actively engaging in, they provided recommendations for what they or others should take in the future to minimize or entirely prevent the negative impacts of gentrification. These recommendations for future action can serve as a blueprint for residents, community organizations, local leaders, and policymakers.

Their recommendations aligned with those of others (Bornstein, 2010; M.B. Gomez, 2013; Salkin & Lavine, 2008) that have suggested that community development strategies use an equity lens and actively involve residents in decision-making around community development at the outset. Some service providers specified community benefits agreements as tool to accomplish this objective, by formalizing a negotiation process where residents of areas targeted by development and revitalization establish a legally binding contract with developers that specifies what benefits residents will hold developers accountable for providing as part of the development projects they oversee.

Additionally, although a great many of service providers engaged in mobilization and education efforts around housing rights and housing markets, they and others frequently recommended mobilization and education efforts that made residents knowledgeable of urban planning procedures, and markers and consequences of gentrification, so that they are better positioned to organize and halt gentrification or the negative consequences of gentrification before they happen.

As outlined in prior literature supporting the establishment of inclusionary housing policies (Hickey, 2014; Wang & Melton-Fant, 2023) and community control and ownership of land (Born et al., 2021; Bunce, 2018; Lloyd, 2015; Williams, 2018), service providers suggested policy makers require developers to include construction of affordable housing units as part of development plans and support community land trusts as strategies toward maintaining affordability of property in gentrifying areas and preventing displacement of legacy residents.

And while some service providers already demonstrated collaborations with professionals of other sectors, some service providers reiterated the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration going forward given how gentrification has impacts on multiple domains of society that no single sector could respond to the myriad of consequences of gentrification. Multi-sectoral collaboration has also been deemed necessary to the success of efforts to intervene on the negative effects of gentrification elsewhere(Born et al., 2021; Lung-Amam, Pendall, & Knaap, 2019) (Berney, Lesesne, & Dannenberg, 2020).

The interpretation of the findings from this study must be considered in the context of several considerations. A strength of this study was the intentional inclusion of service providers representing diverse sectors and this allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of gentrification on social and health service provision, than what would have otherwise been possible if the study gathered perspectives from service providers representing a single or smaller number of sectors. The inclusion of service providers from multiple sectors who had diverse perspectives also strengthened the argument that several service providers raised regarding the need for multi-sectoral collaboration and allowed for exploration of how many service providers were doing just that.

However, despite the considerable diversity of disciplines reflected in the study sample, the sample lacked representation from sectors, including law enforcement, transportation, government, construction, faith-based organizations, parks, and recreation, education, and social work. Collectively, some of these sectors (e.g., education, social work, and faith-based institutions) have already been documented as leading and/or supporting historic and cultural preservation, community development that meets the needs of legacy residents and maintains housing affordability and maintains social identity and sense of belonging among “legacy” residents.. (Bolton, 2020; Born et al., 2021; Isaac et al., 2021; Thurber et al., 2019). Future studies should further investigate the impacts and responses to gentrification among service providers working in the fields of, transportation, parks and recreation, and education, in particular, given that development and revitalization of institutions and spaces of these sectors have been found to directly instigate or result from gentrification (Chava & Renne, 2022; Dawkins & Moeckel, 2016; Friday & Smith, 2023; Jelks, Jennings, & Rigolon, 2021; Lim, Singh, & Gwynn, 2017; Oscilowicz et al., 2023). Perspectives from service providers from these sectors may therefore be critical to elucidating how development and revitalization within the context and spaces of their sectors can be done in ways that do not lead to negative ramifications.

Findings from this study may not be transferable to rural and suburban settings and areas outside the Southeastern United States. However, because several findings from this study are consistent with research outside of Atlanta, many themes of this study are likely to have relevance elsewhere, and the examples of responses can inform future efforts to respond elsewhere.

The team took several steps to ensure the credibility of findings by including ‘rich’ words of participants perceptions and experiences and employed member checking (e.g., through virtual dissemination meeting and sharing early drafts of the manuscript) to strengthen trustworthiness of results(Hinton & Ryan, 2020; Noble & Smith, 2015; Patton, 1990). Member checking also allowed the research team to confirm the team’s interpretations of service providers’ perspectives and identify topics of investigation that did not initially emerge from the data. For example, while greening was identified as positively related to gentrification by many service providers during their interviews, it was described more negatively as a “red flag” that predicted where gentrification would occur during the virtual dissemination meeting. Prior research documents such an association (Jelks et al., 2021), and additional studies are needed to advance understanding of this relationship, as aforementioned. Additionally, while persons of higher economic status who were White were often described as those who moved into gentrifying areas, it wasn’t until the virtual dissemination meeting when service providers described newcomers or “gentrifiers” as also being people of color, and “transplants” moving to Atlanta from other states. While this has been explored in some studies (J. Gibbons & Barton, 2016; Nyden, Edlynn, & Davis, 2006; Taylor, 1992), additional research in this area is warranted.

Because the research team is composed of academic researchers affiliated with a university that has historically faced challenges with community engagement, some service providers may have been reluctant toward sharing their views, and this may have tempered their responses. However, some service providers who acknowledged the limitations of academic research, were not reluctant in sharing their disagreement with academic approaches which may demonstrate their comfort with sharing their experiences. Additionally, because all research team members were women of color (i.e., Black and Latina), their identity may have encouraged more openness and honesty among the majority of service providers who identified as Black and Latina/Latinx in this study, and may have also encouraged most service providers, regardless of race/ethnicity, to express the impacts of gentrification using a strong racial equity lens than if they were discussing these topics with researchers who were not Black and Brown.

Conclusion

This study is among the few to explore service providers’ perspectives on the causes and impacts of gentrification and their efforts to respond to the consequences of gentrification in Atlanta, Georgia. This study further confirmed negative and positive consequences of gentrification identified elsewhere, but also identified actions that service providers were actively engaging in, promoting, or planning to mitigate or prevent the harms of gentrification. By doing so, this study is novel in not only describing what the impacts of gentrification are — a topic of frequent investigation in social and health research(Bhavsar et al., 2020; Schnake-Mahl et al., 2020; G. S. Smith et al., 2020; Tulier et al., 2019), but also highlights service providers roles in initiating and sustaining responses to gentrification— a topic less frequently discussed in social service research.

The diversity of service providers interviewed in this study was a strength in approach, as it allowed for a wide range of experiences and perspectives on how to respond to gentrification to be captured, which further demonstrates that no one service sector or organization can adequately respond to gentrification. Their frequent collaboration within and across sectors also demonstrated that future efforts to remediate the ills of gentrification requires collective action from service providers with diverse backgrounds, training, and expertise, and that these efforts must be both community, institutional and government driven. Furthermore, commonality in responses across different sectors suggest that some responses can be cross-cutting, and differences in responses across sectors suggest that collaboration may yield innovation in the responses of individual sectors when they learn from the approaches taken by other professionals.

Key to efforts to advance social justice, service providers used a critical race lens to discuss their perspectives on the causes and impacts of gentrification, and ideas to minimize the harms of gentrification. Future social service research that investigates the impacts and solutions to urban planning policies should similarly incorporate this conceptual framing to inform the development of targeted policies and programs that address the inequitable ways that gentrification can manifest in some communities of color(Thurber et al., 2019).

By being among the few studies that have captured service providers’ perspectives on responses and solutions to negative impacts of gentrification, this study points to the need for additional research studies to move beyond descriptive investigations of gentrification and its impacts on social service provision, to studies that systematically takes a prevention science or interventionist approach that evaluates how the negative effects of gentrification can be prevented from happening, and resolved if they happen. For example, displacement and fragmentation of networks and connections among residents and service programs is a commonly studied and described phenomenon associated with gentrification (including in this study), more attention must be given to highlighting the ways that residents and service providers resist displacement and other harms associated with gentrification and execute ways to maintain community and social capital and cohesion when shifts in population are experienced (Berney et al., 2020; Born et al., 2021).

Service providers’ emphasis on the necessity and value in community-driven solutions to combat gentrification’s negative consequences in this study, also encourages future social service research to highlight cases or evaluations of service providers’ efforts in supporting local communities’ control of land and development and other community-driven efforts to ensure that the benefits of community development are more equitably received by affected residents and service organizations. Lastly, many studies of gentrification discuss potential conflict, biases, intolerances, and disconnectedness among legacy and new residents in an area undergoing demographic change, but there are few examples of solutions to these problems (including in this study). This gap in literature serves as a missed opportunity in generating the knowledge necessary for service providers of various sectors to intervene and solve these issues.

This study demonstrates that service providers are often the first responders in creating, supporting, and executing solutions that address the negative impacts of gentrification. Policy makers and developers, who haven’t done this already, must acknowledge service providers as experts who can critically review and inform decisions around community development and its impacts. Additional research that highlights service providers’ contributions to responding to gentrification and preventing gentrification or harms associated with it have the potential to advance the involvement of service providers in plans related to city planning and community development. Including service providers from diverse sectors in decision-making around housing and community development policies will ensure that these policies advance equity.