Print This Post
Survey Solutions: Research Provides Community Outreach Strategy for Low-Income Housing
Multifamily Executive Vol 5. Issue 10 - November 2001
by Debra Stein
Homeless facilities and affordable housing developments invariably rank high on the list of projects citizens don’t want in their neighborhoods. But findings from a comprehensive public opinion poll conducted in the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area offer low-income housing builders and homeless service providers across the country a game plan for community outreach on controversial projects.
In the fall of 1999, the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO) commissioned a telephone survey of 500 randomly selected voters in Franklin County, Ohio. The county includes the 15th largest city in the United States, which researchers often cite as an example of “Middle America.”
The survey focused on community beliefs about homeless facilities, but its findings are also relevant to overcoming community resistance to other forms of low-income housing. And, while the survey results are only indicative of the Columbus market, it gives builders an idea of what to look for in their markets and what people are willing to live with.
Like homeless facilities, low-income housing projects are generally higher in density than surrounding residential areas. Obviously, both homeless facilities and low-income housing are aimed at residents of lower socioeconomic status. Because Americans believe pro-social behavior is closely linked to income, neighbors often expect any below-market rate housing to increase crime, vandalism, drug dealing, and so on.
Survey Results
The survey results offer strategic guidance for future affordable housing proposals. It reported that respondents favored the general idea of building new homeless facilities “in the area.” Two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents support the concept of building housing for homeless people in the Columbus region. Moreover, 70 percent believe that even “wealthy and suburban neighborhoods should get their fair share” of housing for the homeless.
While support is somewhat weaker in suburban areas, these neighborhoods shouldn’t be rejected out of hand as potential housing sites; there are still more homeless housing supporters (49 percent) than opponents (26 percent) living in the Columbus suburbs.
The survey also found that fewer citizens support building homeless housing in their own neighborhood. After hearing a variety of arguments about homeless facilities, just 55 percent of voters say they would favor a hypothetical proposal to build housing for the homeless “somewhere in your neighborhood.” It is important, therefore, to get citizens to endorse the need for new homeless facilities in the region before pitching a specific proposal for a particular neighborhood. The survey data supports this phased approach: 83 percent of people who initially expressed support for new homeless housing in the general region were likely to then endorse a project in their own backyards.
According to the survey, there are three major audiences likely to support a proposal to build homeless housing in their own backyards. Groups that are often considered economically marginalized strongly favor the construction of new homeless facilities, including low-income voters (71 percent), renters (69 percent), and African American residents (69 percent).
Not surprisingly, those most familiar with homelessness are most supportive of new housing facilities, including residents who have had a homeless family member or have themselves been personally homeless in the past (68 percent) and people living in the downtown area (69 percent).
Younger people are also more likely to favor supportive housing for the homeless, including adults under the age of 34 (66 percent) and women under the age of 45 (65 percent).
Compromises that reduce the number of beds in homeless facilities won’t significantly increase support, but tough enforcement, a strong track record, and good design will do so. Just 52 percent of respondents say that reducing the number of homeless occupants from 50 residents to 25 residents would make them more likely to favor a homeless facility in their neighborhood, and 21 percent claim they would be less likely to favor a smaller project. By comparison, 76 percent are more likely to endorse the project if “the housing operator could have its permits revoked unless it lived up to a written ‘Good Neighbor Plan’ that controls how it must operate.” Knowing that “the housing was run by an organization with a track record of running safe, clean programs” makes 75 percent of respondents more likely to support a proposed neighborhood facility.
A good design and a credible maintenance program are also valuable concessions. 86 percent of citizens believe “supportive housing for the homeless can fit into a neighborhood if it is well designed and maintained.”
While there are many effective messages in support of new housing for the homeless, most opposition arguments simply aren’t credible, according to the survey. Few people accept highly negative stereotypes about homeless people, rejecting, for example, the contention that most homeless people are mentally ill.
A majority also reject separate arguments that most homeless people are violent, criminal or substance abusers. Instead, an overwhelming majority of those surveyed believe that most homeless people are normal people facing temporary problems such as unemployment or sudden rent increases.
Inhumane responses to homelessness are likewise rejected. While 80 percent of respondents believe job training is an effective solution to homelessness, just 8 percent agree that harassing homeless people until they leave town is a good response. When project opponents use these unpopular arguments, be prepared to seize on them to discredit unsympathetic opponents.
Developers need to be prepared to respond to legitimate concerns that homeless facilities might reduce nearby property values. The impact of low-income housing is an important concern to many respondents. Good rebuttal arguments include the quality of design and maintenance, and the risk of permit revocation if a homeless facility breaches its “Good Neighbor” commitments. When addressing an area-wide audience, it’s important to stress the need for each neighborhood to take its “fair share” of homeless facilities.
Sponsors should recruit project spokespersons and endorsers both from inside and outside the neighborhood. Since 40% of residents are reluctant to endorse a new homeless facility in the neighborhood “if many neighbors object,” it’s important to have vocal support from within the neighborhood as well as from community leaders outside the neighborhood.
When it comes to deciding whether a proposed homeless project will cause problems in the neighborhood, citizens are most likely to listen to homeowners who live near an existing homeless facility in another neighborhood (72% percent believable). They will also accept the reassurances of a priest, rabbi or minister (68 percent), a police officer (66 percent), or the United Way (63 percent). Since personal familiarity with homeless people is a key indicator of support for homeless facilities, project sponsors should also consider involving former homeless people in community outreach efforts.
Caveats
While the result of the survey on homeless facilities can provide some strategic guidance to low-income housing providers, residents tend to be much more fearful of homeless people than of lower-income residents.
Moreover, no single strategy can work uniformly in each American city. The Columbus metropolitan area is overwhelmingly comprised of white (79 percent) homeowners (64 percent) with at least some college education (64 percent), but the demographics of other communities will differ, along with citizen attitudes.
Low-income housing builders should consider conducting additional opinion research to confirm the applicability of these messages and strategic recommendations for particular housing projects in their communities. With these provisos in mind, the Ohio survey nonetheless offers some exciting direction for organizations and individuals seeking to increase public acceptance for low-income housing projects.
Debra Stein is the president of the San Francisco-based public affairs firm, GCA Strategies. She is the author of several books on NIMBYism and her firm specializes in controversial land use projects across the nation. For more information, e-mail Stein, call her at 415-391-4100 or visit the GCA Strategies Web site at www.gcastrategies.com.