National and local experts share their insights on community-building and resident engagement.
On Aug. 18, 2006, over 200 people attended the “Building
Successful Mixed-Income Communities” forum, co-sponsored by the Metropolitan
Planning Council and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, in
coordination with the Chicago Housing Authority. The forum featured national and
local panelists who shared their expertise and strategies for successful
community building and resident engagement in mixed-income communities. MPC also
released its August 2006 Update on the CHA Plan for
Transformation
focused on
the status of community building, resident services
and engagement in the new
developments.
Forum Speakers: (standing) Steve Meiss, MarySue Barrett, Paul
Brophy, (seated) Sandra Young, Sandra Moore, Stanley Lowe
The forum was moderated by Paul Brophy,
a national expert and consultant with more than 30 years of experience in the
field of housing and community development. Steve Meiss was also introduced as the new
director of the Illinois State Office of Public Housing at the U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The
panelists were:
- Stanley Lowe, vice president of
community revitalization for the National Trust for Historic Preservation and former
executive director of the Housing Authority of Pittsburgh, where he oversaw
the transformation of several public housing sites into mixed-income
communities.
- Sandra Moore, president of Urban Strategies,
who has more than 30 years of experience in comprehensive neighborhood-based
planning across the country.
- Sandra Young
, member of the CHA Board
of Commissioners, CHA resident, and president of the Ida B. Wells Local
Advisory Council. This development is now being transformed into the
Oakwood
Shores
mixed-income
community.
In his opening remarks,
Meiss
described the creation of mixed-income communities
in
Chicago as a “noble experiment” at a time
of gated communities and economically segregated neighborhoods. Meiss shared
his own experience of growing up in an economically diverse community in
central
Illinois.
According to Meiss, the community was “successful” because everyone had a decent
place to live, go to school, and work - key ingredients for resident contentment
and sustainable neighborhoods.
Brophy emphasized the importance of the
“Building Successful Mixed-Income Communities” series
to
Chicago and to national housing work. The
scale and level of intentionality involved in
transforming
Chicago’s public housing
into mixed-income communities is a new phenomenon that has not been seen
previously in the public housing context. Moreover, as the planning and
construction phases come to an end at many developments, the more difficult
challenge emerges: caring for what Brophy describes as “the souls of
communities” and helping residents of different backgrounds live and work
together. This task is complex, said Brophy, because it involves competing
language, regulations, and ideas about a community’s need for norms and
governance, conflict resolution, connections to the larger community, etc. Yet
it is simple because it also involves universal beliefs about living together,
growing old, and being good neighbors.
As policymakers, developers, service providers, advocates, and residents of the
new mixed-income developments grapple with these challenges
in
Chicago, the forum’s
panelists offered insight from their own experiences.
Specifically, Brophy asked panelists to
address the following questions:
-
What are the ingredients to constructively,
meaningfully engage residents in the community life of mixed-income housing?
-
Who is responsible for pulling those ingredients
together?
-
What are some of the lessons
learned?
Stanley Lowe highlighted his involvement in
the transformation of Pittsburgh’s Manchester neighborhood into a vibrant,
mixed-income community. Though he was part of Mayor Tom Murphy’s government team
on this and other projects, Lowe insisted the perspective he knows best is that
of resident and community member, and this is how he approached his
presentation.
According to Lowe, the end of the
Manchester
story - a
cohesive community - was only possible after community members understood how to
include public housing residents in a process they had been excluded from for
years. The community had to take responsibility for the state of its public
housing and the disinvestment around it, Lowe said.
An important acknowledgement was that
public housing residents, as renters, had more to lose than the community’s
homeowners because they had no guarantees. Once these realizations were
accepted, the community was able to work together toward a plan for
revitalization.
Manchester
residents, including those in public
housing, conducted a community needs assessment or “credit report,” and
developed an action plan that involved partnering with the city, financial
institutions, private developers, commercial businesses, religious institutions,
and historic commissions. In addition to other funding sources, the
Manchester
revitalization
project was awarded a $7.5 million HOPE VI grant.
Throughout the process, effective, honest communication
between residents was crucial.
“Sensitivity” meetings and a community
newsletter served as means of bringing people together and building trust,
especially for public housing residents who had never before been included in
the decision-making process. Lowe also stressed the importance of community
planning, stating that many neighborhoods suffer because residents don’t think
or ask about the consequences of “a community without a plan.” Moreover, Lowe
emphasized that finding the money for revitalization should not be an obstacle
when, most of the time, it’s already in the community - at neighborhood banks,
housing authorities, the mayor’s office, and businesses. Along with these
lessons learned, the rebuilding of
Manchester
was a success because residents
embraced the project as “their money, their plan, their
future.”
Sandra Moore’s presentation
outlined observations, challenges and effective practices stemming from her
work designing resident services and community activities at HOPE VI sites around
the country. For Moore and Urban Strategies, the finding is that
“comprehensive, sustainable community building … cannot successfully occur without
ongoing resident involvement.” Residents need to be engaged in most aspects
of rebuilding communities, not necessarily in the bricks and mortar plan
for housing, but in everything else: schools, parks, social services, and
other activities in the broader community. According
to
Moore, successful resident engagement begins by
asking an important question, “Why do you want it?” The answer to this question
- to satisfy rules and regulations, to protect an investment, to protect
vulnerable residents - is what drives the strategy and process for community
building and engagement. When developers and service providers decide on the
rationale and reason for engagement and know what it is designed to accomplish,
they can “keep their word.”
Problems arise when people underestimate or
don’t respect the ability of low-income or public housing residents to understand
the process and contribute to the goals of community revitalization,
said
Moore. Moreover, people
expect low-income residents to be more involved in the process than other
community residents. Yet in reality, there is no reason for residents at any
income level to engage initially; everyone expects “someone else to take care of
it.”
Moore
posed
the question to the audience, “How engaged are you in your community?” After a
small showing of hands, she concluded, “Just because you are poor doesn’t mean
you have to establish a different set of rules.” On the other hand,
Moore
insisted there are
always residents who are “naturally inclined” to engage, and this offers a
starting point for involving the rest of the community. Specifically, there are
typically universal community concerns about safety, schools, the arts, and
beautification.
In addition to sharing these observations, Moore discussed several
challenges to resident engagement, including finding out what residents care about as
a group, developing processes for decision-making and dispute resolution,
and sustaining the initial leadership and momentum that is essential to
achieving
community
goals. Moore also highlighted the
importance of developing a “mechanism for listening” across income levels
such
as Manchester’s
community newsletter. She also stressed that “non-negotiables” such as standards
for maintenance and beautification should be identified in the beginning
so residents know up front what the expectations are. Perhaps the most
crucial component, according
to
Moore, is the need to structure in the
long-term professional staff and support that is required for ongoing resident
involvement. Finally,
Moore
outlined key program areas that should be
addressed in communities: adult activities/recreation, adult learning, early
childhood education and health, work opportunities, and mental health services.
Moore
concluded
with the reminder that responsibility and funding depend on “why resident
engagement is important to you.”
Sandra Young, who began advocating for
CHA residents before the Plan for Transformation existed, spoke from her experiences
as a leader and a resident of the Ida B. Wells development, a CHA site
located east of King Drive,
between
35th and
39th
streets, that is
being redeveloped as the Oakwood Shores mixed-income community. According to
Young, the idea of change is “scary,” especially for public housing residents,
and therefore, developers and policymakers need to “meet public housing
residents on their level.” Young also pointed out that, in many cases, residents
who “never had to be accountable” are being asked to be responsible and
participate. Thus it is important to proceed with a level of sensitivity,
knowing that a major barrier for public housing residents has been that promises
have often been “made but not kept.” Young emphasized that residents of public
housing want “the same thing as everyone else,” a decent place to live,
employment opportunities, and a safe community. Young closed by saying “It’s
best to be honest with residents. If you are, you’ll be surprised at what
they’ll do.”
After the panelists made their formal presentations,
they responded to questions from the audience. The following is a sampling of
topics that were discussed:
- Community governance for homeowners versus renters
- Moore stated it is important to plan the structure of community
governance in the beginning. In her experience, it has proved beneficial to
organize renters first, as homeowners might bring a bias. Rather than having
“condo associations,” there needs to be a “super-entity” that is a common
organizing platform for both renters and owners. Similarly, Young reiterated
the need for a “tenant council” that includes all types of
residents.
- Indicators of successful community building and
engagement
- Lowe stressed that success can be gauged by resident participation or
the number of residents who want to engage in issues. Moreover, the number
of residents who stay in the community and the responses to communication
vehicles (ie. newsletters, meetings) are indicators of success. Moore added
engagement in broader school activities, while Young included resident
employment outcomes as measures of success.
- Engaging young adults
- Lowe emphasized the importance of “listening to what young people have
to say” and encouraged the use of radical approaches. For example, Lowe
stated that more youth could have been invited to the forum. Moore
reiterated Lowe’s points but added that paying youth to work is a good way
to spark their interest. Young stressed the need for a “safe haven
environment” and “something for them to do.”
- Sustaining mixed-income communities with yearly
federal funding decreases
- Young and Moore agreed that federal, state and local government need to
prioritize funding for “things that work” and stressed the importance of
partnerships. Lowe challenged the audience to look beyond the typical
revenue streams and ask how things are funded in the private sector rather
than relying on the government.
- Separate associations for public housing residents
- Moore and Lowe agreed that mixed-income communities should not have
separate associations for public housing residents. Moore stressed it is
important to keep in mind that public housing residents are accustomed to
different governance structures than those being created for mixed-income
communities. Lowe stated that perhaps this is the single most important
lesson in building communities. He also said that “the future is in bringing
people together” and suggested not using the term “public housing
resident.”
- Tackling crime
- Moore emphasized that perceptions of crime may be high when crime is
actually low. Thus, it is crucial to “get the data right.” Lowe also
stressed the importance of community education about how crime is reported.
Young described the success of community policing strategies and suggested
hosting community activities with law enforcement.