This section offers an overview of a framework pioneered in New York City by The Fortune Society. It includes concrete, actionable steps that housing developers should employ to prevent local residents, business owners, elected officials, and others from protesting and perhaps even scuttling development plans for supportive reentry housing. “Not in my backyard” sentiments – or NIMBYism – are often based on fear and misunderstanding about people with convictions, and can be overcome by intentional, carefully planned strategies, as described below.
This section will address the following topics and includes two case studies:
-
Fostering inclusivity from the start.
-
How to be a “good neighbor” – communicate, be transparent, and listen, listen, listen.
-
Hire local talent.
-
Maximize community inclusivity.
Foster inclusivity from the start
Given the great need for supportive reentry housing and the limited resources available, discovering best practices and lessons learned across service providers is crucial. This section highlights the best practices to address NIMBYism, and discusses what it means to be a good neighbor while assisting people who are reentering a community.
Neighborhood residents often strive to protect their community from changes they deem undesirable. These changes are feared to potentially reduce property values, compromise safety and diminish the overall quality of life in the neighborhood. This phenomenon is informally known as not in my backyard or NIMBY. Given that one's home symbolizes safety, it is only natural to feel a strong urge to safeguard it when any perceived threat emerges.
The Community Acceptance Strategies Consortium (CASC), in collaboration with the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) and the esteemed scholar Michael Dear, provides guidance for organizations embarking on supportive housing projects. Their approach involves a six-step strategy for achieving community acceptance. It all starts with internal organizational planning, including self-assessment, and progresses to the development of strategies and outreach plans for five crucial target audiences: government, supporters, concerned neighbors or potential opponents, the media, and the legal system.
Michael Dear outlines a five-step community-based strategy that encompasses broad public education, community outreach, the establishment of a community advisory board, community concessions and incentives, and communication strategies after project implementation. While these tactics may seem straightforward in writing, their effective execution can pose significant challenges.
Considering a community as a system, and examining the placement of outreach programs through a system change lens, underscores the fact that such programs will have both planned and unplanned impacts on the neighborhood. Typically, community residents worry that the introduction of what they perceive as an undesirable outreach program will negatively affect their community's comfort, stability and safety. However, service providers emphasize the positive impacts their services will have on clients and society. Systems thinking recognizes that in a system, all components influence each other, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Community members, as experts on their neighborhood, can assist service providers in creating a more effective program, provided they are engaged and not alienated by the project. Consequently, service providers should adhere to the following principles as an effective practice:
-
Identify the key stakeholders including all individuals and groups who consider themselves part of the system and anticipate being affected by the change.
-
Collaborate with stakeholders, respecting their reactions and addressing their needs.
-
Educate stakeholders by maintaining transparency about the nature of the change.
-
Establish opportunities for ongoing input and dialogue with stakeholders, even those most resistant to the change.
-
Identify the benefits the change can bring to stakeholders and the entire system.
The exemplary work undertaken by organizations like The Fortune Society has set a national standard in community building. Their comprehensive toolkit, In Our Backyard: Overcoming Community Resistance to Reentry Housing (A NIMBY Toolkit), offers valuable insights and serves as a practical resource for housing providers striving to establish a norm of compassionate reentry.
300The Fortune Society. (2017). In Our Backyard. https://fortunesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Community.pdf
301The Fortune Society. (2017). In Our Backyard. https://fortunesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Community.pdf
Case Study: Community Outreach at Freedom Commons
Part 1 of this case study may be found in Section 6.
Before breaking ground on Freedom Commons, a housing development for individuals with criminal legal histories, the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) knew they had to engage the community. So, from the outset, an advisory board was established with the primary goal of understanding the people who resided in the wider community where Freedom Commons would be built.
Efforts were made to foster transparency and awareness. Question-and-answer sessions were organized to keep community members informed about the project's goals and objectives. Unfortunately, misunderstandings about Freedom Commons arose, and some community members expressed apprehension about the groups of people who would be moving into their neighborhood. To address these concerns, the community sought ways to engage and participate in the decision-making process regarding what happened in their neighborhoods. Conversations were facilitated in various community settings such as public housing areas, recreation rooms and churches.
CCA staff also met with other organizations including representatives of the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the New York Department of Social Services, coalitions and faith-based groups, to explain its mission, partnership with The Fortune Society, and the nature of the housing it offered. They also opened the doors of Freedom Commons to the community, inviting members and other organizations to utilize its central location. Community events, like electoral candidate meet-and-greets and a Syracuse University writing class for children, were organized to engage and involve the community.
The idea evolved organically, fostering excitement as the community came together. Location played a crucial role, emphasizing the importance of understanding the community's composition and catering to their specific needs and desires (P. Riles and N. Odom, personal communication, June 27, 2023).
Case Study: The Irving Lake Neighborhood
In the Irving Lake neighborhood, there was substantial opposition to the establishment of a supportive housing project. The residents of this area were particularly concerned that this housing initiative might introduce unfamiliar individuals into a neighborhood primarily inhabited by elderly, predominantly white homeowners. This group of concerned neighbors united under the banner of the STOP Committee. Some of the rhetoric used by the STOP Committee occasionally contained elements of racism, with homeowners resisting any form of integration within the neighborhood. Their fears primarily revolved around the project potentially attracting individuals with criminal justice involvement, or gang affiliations, to their “peaceful” neighborhood. One homeowner's son, who happened to be a lawyer, even threatened legal action.
Efforts by the staff of the supportive service center to engage homeowners in one-on-one discussions were met with resistance. In response, the center sought the assistance of two politicians – a city council member representing the affected block, and a state representative residing nearby. The center held meetings with both politicians to explain the project's plans. In addition to renovating substandard housing units that were at risk of demolition, the project aimed to include a free drop-in daycare center, a food distribution program, and an adult education center for parents pursuing their GEDs. These on-site services were designed to benefit the broader community. It was acknowledged that many of the individuals living on-site would have conviction histories, be participating in drug treatment programs, and some families were referred by child protection services.
The two politicians agreed to host a community forum to discuss the project. The housing sponsor reached out to various community leaders whom they believed would support the initiative and invited them to the forum. From this group, the housing sponsor selected the pastor of several elderly homeowners to represent the center. The first community forum served as a platform to address the neighbors' concerns and provide specific information about the programs, services and clientele the center would serve. Over 100 people attended, representing homeowners, their families, and tenants in the units.
Prospective tenants, including system-impacted people, shared their stories, expressing aspirations for a stable life and the support they sought to turn their lives around. The minister and politicians polled the group to determine which services they would like to see at the center. They found that the homeowners had needs that the center could address, including involvement in the food distribution program, a home-visitor initiative to check on them, a community garden to enhance the neighborhood's appearance, and a crime-watch program and block club to deter unlawful activity. At the meeting's conclusion, the politicians called for a vote on the center's approval, resulting in a unanimous decision to allow the center to open.
Within a year of the center's opening, the block club had initiated an evening volunteer crime-watch patrol and established a neighborhood phone network for emergencies. The center also created job opportunities and drop-in childcare for families. During that year, one of the original four homeowners suffered a hip injury, necessitating a move to a nursing home. In response, members of the block club and the housing committee organized a visiting team to call and visit her until she could return home. Unfortunately, she never made it back, but when she passed away, her family requested that her home be transformed into an expansion of the project. Taking the time to understand the concerns and needs of opponents of supportive housing may persuade them to embrace your program, and involving them can lead to an even stronger program.
The Irving Lake neighborhood's resistance to a supportive housing project can be used to illustrate the broader issue of NIMBYism against formerly incarcerated individuals, which is often rooted in racism and socioeconomic status considerations. This case study emphasizes how deep-seated biases and fears can contribute to opposition against initiatives aimed at reintegrating system-impacted individuals into society. It also shows that when communities are willing to engage in open dialogue and overcome their biases, positive outcomes can be achieved, benefiting both the marginalized populations and the community.
302Corporation for Supportive Housing. (2001). Family Matters: A Guide to Developing Family Supportive Housing. https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tool_FamilyMatters.pdf
303Corporation for Supportive Housing. (2001). Family Matters: A Guide to Developing Family Supportive Housing. https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tool_FamilyMatters.pdf
How to be a “good neighbor”: Communicate, be transparent, and listen, listen, listen
Ensuring the acceptance of the community in which an organization wishes to be located requires the adoption of a foundational set of principles. First, be forthright about the mission and maintain transparency in all operations and plans. Second, foster open communication and listen to the concerns and needs of the community. Even when expressed with frustration or opposition, it is essential to pay attention as it can provide valuable insights into the community's underlying needs and worries.
Third, organizations should actively engage with community members, asking questions and ensuring that their voices are heard. This demonstrates a genuine commitment to understanding the community and working together. Lastly, everyone associated with the organization, from staff to clients, should present a positive image; upholding a positive reputation can significantly contribute to building goodwill.
Being a good neighbor to a community as an organization supporting individuals with system involvement involves transparency, active listening, and a commitment to addressing community concerns. It is a collaborative approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of the organization and the community, and aims to create a safer and stronger neighborhood for all (A. Ward, personal communication, August 18, 2021).
Hire local, credible talent
In order to foster a positive relationship with the community they want to be a part of, organizations working with formerly incarcerated individuals should implement effective local hiring practices. Here are some best practices to consider:
-
Identify community residents who can serve as liaisons between the organization and the community. These individuals can play a pivotal role in bridging gaps and building trust. They have a deep understanding of the community's dynamics and can help convey the organization's mission and objectives in a relatable manner.
-
Identify a trusted pillar of the community. This individual holds a respected and influential position within the community, and their endorsement of the organization can significantly enhance its credibility. Their support can help alleviate any concerns within the community and pave the way for a smoother integration process.
-
Seek out credible messengers who have direct experience with successful reentry into the community. These messengers can share their personal stories of reintegration, demonstrating that it is possible for formerly incarcerated individuals to become productive members of the community – their firsthand experiences can be a powerful tool for breaking down barriers and reducing stigma.
Incorporating these best practices into local hiring not only helps organizations find suitable personnel, but it also strengthens their connection with the community. By demonstrating a commitment to local engagement and ensuring the voices and concerns of community members are heard and addressed, a collaborative environment is created in which the organization and the community can work together to support successful reentry and community integration (A. Ward, personal communication, August 18, 2021).
Maximize community involvement
Engaging with the community and effectively prioritizing resources and programs for residents and community members are fundamental aspects of building trust and fostering positive relationships. Here are best practices to consider:
-
Collaboration is key in community engagement. Joining forces with other service providers can enhance knowledge sharing and provide valuable insights into accessing services for residents and the community. By working together, organizations can pool resources, avoid duplication, and create a more coordinated approach to effectively address the community's needs.
-
Establish employment and training programs for community residents. These programs offer tangible benefits by providing opportunities for skills development and job placement within the community. This not only addresses immediate needs but also contributes to the long-term economic well-being of residents.
-
Flexibility in the design of services. Programs should be adaptable to accommodate both residents and non-residents, ensuring that services are accessible to all who require them. This approach removes potential barriers and extends the reach of programs, benefiting a broader spectrum of the community. Such programs, and use of space, can be determined by a deep assessment of community needs and desires. After assessing, organizations should then pursue diverse funding streams to ensure that resources can be allocated based on a thorough understanding of those needs and desires.
Incorporating these best practices into community engagement and resource allocation demonstrates a commitment to actively involving community members in decision-making processes. Organizations are able to respond effectively to evolving needs, promote collaboration and create inclusive programs that benefit the entire community, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and partnership within the community – and leading to more successful outcomes for residents and community members alike (A. Ward, personal communication, August 18, 2021).