1. Here’s a Picture of the Neighborhood….
Neighborhood Stabilization for Local Municipalities
Laura Rouse-DeVore - MPA – Professor William Tucker - November 21, 2016

2. What is Neighborhood Stabilization?
Defining Neighborhood Stabilization
A collective strategy to improve and manage physical, economic, or social characteristics of a neighborhood with the GOAL of preserving and increasing property values and investment potential in a neighborhood.
Neighborhood Stabilization is defined as a collective strategy to improve and manage physical, economic, or social characteristics of a neighborhood with the goal of preserving and increasing property values and investment potential in a neighborhood.
This is done through the use of many different strategies all being employed in conjunction with one another.
Economic stablization has become a very necessary topic for discussion among local municipalities as these municipalities have sought answers to the economic decline that has been evidenced through the decline in housing condition that began in 2009 with the economic and housing crisis. Since then, municipalities have been seeking effective strategies to address the decline in property conditions and increased crime rates that they are facing. Most of these strategies have come in the form of policy development and programming changes, which has lead to the development of new positions and the expansion of roles in the local government, such as the health and human services, and code enforcement departments (CCP).

3. The “Six Factors”
There are six factors which impact Neighborhood Stabilization efforts and the need to employ these strategies (“Increasing Neighborhood Stability,” 2016):
1.) Property Abandonment
2.) Foreclosure
3.) Owner-investment into properties
4.) Concentration of poverty
5.) Crime
6.) Homeownership Rates
According to the Center for Community Progress, there are six factors which promote or discourage Neighborhood Stabilization. These are Property Abandonment, Foreclosure, Owner Investment into properties, concentration of poverty, crime, and homeownership rates. Of course, the majority of these are negative in context. The general driving idea behind neighborhood stabilization strategies is to focus on ways to make each of these six items a positive for the community. If that can be accomplished, the neighborhood should begin to flourish. This is, of course, easier said than done, particularly, within the political context and framework of a local municipality (CCP).

4. What are the Strategies?
Neighborhood Stabilization strategies include:
1.) Grant-Funded property rehabs
2.) HUD-Funded grants for Blight Elimination (CDBG, etc.)
3.) Focusing on the quality, appearance, and level of
maintenance of the existing housing stock.
4.) Adopting and Applying Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles for new and
re-development projects.
5.) Create and Restore Ownership Opportunities
6.) Deploy Foreclosure prevention and intervention programs
(“Increasing Neighborhood Stability,” 2016).
There are many neighborhood stabilization strategies and each municipality must find the right balance of what works best for them. It is likely that a mixture of strategies will work best. But, with grant-funding reliance for a portion of the goals, it is likely that a blending is necessary since grant funds are allocated in different measure to various municipalities. Also, the crime element is another area that may have to be balanced out, as there is a significant variance to the severity of crimes in specific areas.
Generally-speaking, some of the more common strategies used in neighborhood stabilization include:
1.) Grant-Funded property rehabs: This is through HOME grants, etc. Basically, grant-funds are used to rehab and repurpose
structurally-sound buildings
2.) HUD-Funded grants for Blight Elimination (CDBG, etc.): HUD provides funding through CDBG for municipalities to use to demolish sub-standard and vacant structures. The clearing of these lots, then creates opportunities to bring new development
to the neighborhood, which can greatly enhance the environment.
3.) Focusing on the quality, appearance, and level of maintenance of the existing housing stock: This is usually accomplished
through strong Code Enforcement and Property Standards policy development and programming. This helps to intervene before
the aging housing stock becomes blight.
4.) Adopting and Applying Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles for new and re-development
projects: This relates to the idea of focusing on streetscape elements, barriers, and building design to put more eyes on the
street and to ensure that the streets are safe places for people and children to play and be. The “front yard” approach, if you
will.
5.) Create and Restore Ownership Opportunities: This could be through the conversion of apartment rentals to condominiums, etc.
6.) Deploy Foreclosure prevention and intervention programs: This could also be grant or privately-funded, but is usually a
programmatic addition to the municipality (CCP).

5. A Tale of Three Cities… Cleveland, Ohio Chicago, Illinois
Denver, Colorado
(Spader, Shuetz, & Cortes, 2016
The September 2016 volume of Regional Science and Urban Economics contains an article titled “Fewer Vacants, Fewer Crimes”, which talks about the research comparison and correlations of these three Neighborhood Stabilization program case studies. In all three of these cases, the HUD-funded Neighborhood Stabilization Program funded rehabilitation and demolitions of foreclosed and vacant homes.
In Cleveland, the data showed a direct correlation between a reduction of crime, particularly property crimes, and the demolition of vacant properties.
In Chicago and in Denver, the data did not show as clear of a correlation. However, the goals set by each of these cities for the Neighborhood Stabilization funds was quite different. Denver started out with a comparatively low crime rate compared to the other two cities. Because of this, its difficult to know if the data not showing a significant reduction in crime rates is actually a measure of non-success. Being that the goals set were different, one of the goals of each of these cities may not have been to reduce crime in these neighborhoods. Without studying the stated goals for each of these cities, its hard to know if the City felt a measured success at the completion of the study (Spader, Shuetz, & Cortes, 2016).

6. The Social Side… Poverty Race Political
There are many social considerations to neighborhood stabilization. First, has to do with poverty. I think that its very critical to be careful when labeling areas or neighborhoods as “poor”. This can be a very sensitive subject, particularly in neighborhoods where people have lived for many years. It is important to not forget that people have a choice as to where they live and that just because they live in a particular area, it does not mean that they did not choose to live in that particular area for a reason. Dignity and humanity are very real and should remain evident.
I think it is also critical to increase awareness through neighborhood stabilization and to not make any steps that will create a chasm between various racial groups within the City. Maintaining racial diversity is key.
Finally, political considerations must be made. Politically, how could this affect the City and the State? What are the political considerations of engaging the public in this type of program? What are the economic ramifications to City? How is transparency in the crime rates likely to affect other areas of the City?
These are all important considerations that must be analyzed and established before a decision to engage the community in a neighborhood stabilization program can be implemented.

7. Managing Change… Research Analysis Implementation Feedback
For me, the strategy for implementation of a neighborhood stabilization program would be clear. It would be based in research and analysis. And that would be the beginning. I think it would be critical to understand the needs of the community and to understand how the City would be impacted by the implementation of a program. As always, engaging the stakeholders would be important and an important aspect to consider would be the number of people who could be helped through the strategies being implemented. I also think it would be important to understand the most effective ways that grant funds could be allocated to maximize their benefit. Further, I think it would be critical to have a feedback component, so we could gather information about the effectiveness of our chosen “balance” of the use of neighborhood stabilization principles and could re-evaluate how we could improve them from year to year. Perhaps a pilot program approach would be helpful in achieving that level of scrutiny.

8. Works Cited
Increasing Neighborhood Stability. (2016, January). Center for Community Progress. Retrieved from  read-more---increasing-neighborhood-stability- pages-253.php
Spader, J., Shuetz, J., & Cortes, A. (2016, September). Fewer Vacants, Fewer Crimes? Impacts of Neighborhood Revitalization policies on crime. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 60.