Bridging Theory and Practice Since 1974

Tag: Community Development

Community Planning for Age-Friendly Communities: Orange County Creates Its Next Master Aging Plan

Orange County, NC is already a great place for people of all ages to live, but the county Department on Aging is leading an effort to become even more age-friendly. To achieve this goal, the Department is leading a comprehensive community planning process to create a five-year Master Aging Plan (MAP). Like previous MAPs, the 2017-2022 MAP will become a roadmap for decision-making and action around all things aging.

When I joined the first MAP process I was 41 years old. At that time, aging was mostly an academic issue to me. Now, at 61, I feel very fortunate to be part of a process that I know will impact the quality of my later years. As the director of UNC’s Partnerships in Aging Program and a consultant to Orange County’s Department on Aging, I envision a time when every age is celebrated and elderhood is viewed as a time for continued growth, thriving, and participation. I’m sharing the MAP process in this post with Carolina Angles because I believe celebrating every age requires planning for every age.

MAP Process

All the previous MAPs were developed through citizen and stakeholder input, and with each cycle our planning processes and implementation partnerships have improved and strengthened. To develop the 2017-2022 MAP we took gathering citizen and stakeholder input to the next level using the following strategies with multiple stakeholder groups:

1. First, we established a Steering Committee comprised of leaders from the Board of County Commissioners, county department heads, faith-based groups, health services, and public service organizations such as our libraries, EMS, and sheriff’s office. Members of the Steering Committee met to learn about the MAP process, serve as advisors to the process, and publicly commit their organization’s resources to support the MAP.

Orange County MAP Process 2017-2022 Steering Committee

Orange County MAP Process 2017-2022 Steering Committee. Photo Credit: Cherie Rosemond

2. Second, the County joined AARP’s Age Friendly Community Initiative – the first in North Carolina to do so. The Age Friendly Community concept began as a project of the World Health Organization (WHO). Working in 33 cities in 22 countries, the WHO identified the essential ingredients of an age-friendly community. The AARP translated the WHO work for the United States and instituted a program of measurement for the “age-friendliness” of states, counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

3. Third, we formed a leadership team to plan our community input process which included leaders from the Department on Aging, Advisory Board members, myself as a consultant from UNC, and a multidisciplinary cadre of students from nursing, public health, city and regional planning, and social work. Mary Fraser, Aging Transitions Administrator with Department on Aging, served as our “leader of leaders.” Mary worked tirelessly to ensure we listened carefully to our community and that our efforts were comprehensive and respectful. Mary was ever-willing to try something new and encouraged all of us to do the same. Her positive spirit and attention to the smallest details were key to the success of our community planning process.

4. Next, we spent 4 months gaining input from citizens and organizational representatives using 3 methods: survey, focus groups, and key informant interviews.

  • MAP Survey: We developed a survey which asked citizens for worries about aging and how they felt Orange County was already doing with addressing key aging issues. Surveys were distributed electronically and in hard copy through listservs, senior centers, county and town employers, libraries, and health service organizations. The surveys had 1,006 responses (860 from Orange County residents). Respondents were 73% urban and 27% rural, normally distributed in age with the most representation from the 65-74 age range, and the most represented income category was $25,000-$50,000 per household annually.
  • Focus Groups: We held 14 focus groups throughout the County, with one focus group in Mandarin and another in Spanish. Building on the survey questions, we also asked participants to offer their “magic wand” solutions (i.e., solutions not bounded by time or money) to problems of aging that they were experiencing.
  • Key Informant Interviews: The director of the Department on Aging, Janice Tyler, met individually with 34 people from 26 key stakeholder groups across the county to learn how organizations play a role in the Master Aging Plan and its implementation. We heard from and garnered support from the following sectors: government, healthcare, religious organizations, community services, and educational institutions.

Transcriptions from the focus groups and key informant interviews were summarized and analyzed for themes. Then we held two additional community meetings to ask two broad questions: Did we get it right? And what’s missing? Eighty participants attended these meetings, which were added to the existing data. The results of the analyzed community input fell into 5 domains that are roughly aligned with the WHO/AARP Age-Friendly Communities Initiative: Housing, Transportation and Outdoor Spaces, Social inclusion, Civic Participation and Employment, and Community Service and Health. Within each domain, issues and action steps were identified and prioritized.

5. The final step in getting community input and buy-in was to present our MAP data to the Steering Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to share our results and ask the committee to advise us about who else needed to be at the MAP table and what resources their organizations would commit to the MAP process.

Orange County MAP Process 2017-2022 Community Meeting

Orange County MAP Process 2017-2022 Community Meeting. Photo Credit: Cherie Rosemond

Takeaways

Here are a few suggestions that other communities might take home from Orange County’s MAP experience:

  • Get students on board and develop strong academic-community partnerships.
  • Employ multiple methods to garner community input: surveys, focus groups, and interviews.
  • Pursue every possible channel to get surveys out to the community, including electronic, pen and paper, listservs, and early voting.
  • Create a steering committee with “teeth”, asking each organizational representative to publicly commit resources to support the MAP.
  • Feed the results of the community assessment back to people who responded and do a “member check.”
  • Start meetings by asking people “What are we missing and who are we missing?”
  • Conclude meetings by asking people to describe their vision for an age-friendly community and then, ask what resources they will commit to making it so.

Creating environments that are truly age-friendly requires coordinated action from many sectors. Our experience of doing a “deep dive” into Orange County’s community was fun and inspiring. Throughout, we learned that conversations about aging can bring old and young people, public and private sectors together to ultimately make our community a great place to grow old.

About the Author: Dr. Cherie Rosemond is the Director of the Partnerships in Aging Program at UNC. Since 2012, Dr. Rosemond has served as a consultant to the Orange County Department on Aging. In this capacity, she has worked with a team of aging services providers, UNC students, and community members to develop and implement Orange County’s Master Aging Plan. Her focus areas include senior housing, transportation, and caregiving.

After the Flood, the Decision to Rebuild or Leave Permanently

As I write this, residents from flooded neighborhoods in eastern North Carolina are sitting in crowded high school gyms, staying at area motels, and bunked with family and friends. While Hurricane Matthew threw high winds and storm surge at coastal communities, devastating flooding came to inland communities. Rivers bulged over their banks, entering homes and covering roads in a growing mass of moving water.

When the floodwaters recede, each household will face a difficult decision: tear down the soaked drywall and rebuild the home, perhaps higher than before, or sell the property and move on. After Hurricane Floyd in 1999, some entire communities faced this decision.

30179540541_4eb8f8a6e9_k

Hurricane Matthew flooded many low-lying communities. Photo credit: Ryan Johnson/Creative Commons

For the past few months, I have been researching two African-American communities where different decisions —  to stay or to go — were made by or for an entire community. In Kinston, the town pursued a buyout program in which 97% of residents in a floodprone African-American neighborhood known as Lincoln City sold their property to the city and moved. In Princeville, the nation’s first town chartered by blacks, the town decided to rebuild a levy instead of accept buyouts.

Last week in Kinston, an evacuation map highlighted the buildings with evacuation orders in red. It also shows a tightly knit tangle of streets in the evacuation zone where there are no homes. This area is Lincoln City, a former neighborhood of 2,000 residents, where floodwaters after Matthew rose several feet deep. Seventeen years ago, almost all the homeowners in this neighborhood were bought out with funds from the State and FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). After Floyd, the State of North Carolina committed to move as many people as possible out of flood zones, offering to pay HMGP’s local match requirement on behalf of towns and counties. In Kinston, these property acquisitions removed over 700 households in Lincoln City, protecting them from repeat catastrophic loss. (However, buyout participants are not prohibited from moving into a floodplain elsewhere.)

It is clear that buyouts permanently reduce hazard exposure, but I was interested in how participants viewed the long-term impact of buyouts on their own economic well-being. For Lincoln City families that owned properties, buyouts were an individual opportunity. Most did not hold flood insurance, and the buyout provided pre-flood equity on their homes. Some moved to higher income areas of Kinston, others moved to more rural parts of the county, and a few left for places with more jobs. “It’s the best deal that ever happened to them in their lives probably,” one community leader told me, a theme reiterated by others in my interviews.

They didn’t have nowhere to go, didn’t have anything to start with…

Still, I learned that buyouts also had an intangible cost for the community. The social network that had provided rides to work and shared parenting responsibilities disintegrated. Lincoln City had been a point of working-class stability for the eastern part of Kinston, where many live in poverty. One resident explained to me that poorer families who had rented in Lincoln City had nowhere to go but into a high-poverty neighborhood. “That’s why that side of Kinston is still a rough side of Kinston. They didn’t have nowhere to go, didn’t have anything to start with.” A survey from the 2000s documented that some participants felt that the buyouts were not voluntary. None of the residents that I interviewed mentioned the risk of future flooding in Lincoln City. Even officials stressed that the chance of Floyd-level flooding occurring in their lifetime was just that — a chance. But I’m sure that Hurricane Matthew has changed many people’s perspectives on the value of buyouts for risk reduction.

30179606601_be88f812a5_k

When floodwaters recede, some households may choose to leave, whether or not they are offered compensation for their homes. Photo credit: Ryan Johnson / Creative Commons

In the tiny town of Princeville, in Edgecombe County, residents also evacuated last week. After devastating flooding from Hurricane Floyd, Princeville, like Kinston, was given the option to pursue a buyout program. The town also had an alternative to rebuild in place under the protection of a new dyke. In a close city council vote, the town decided to rebuild. Sadly, while the new dyke held last week, the floodwater found a back way into Princeville, and the town is once again underwater.

Princeville was founded by freed slaves in 1865. “We got too much history to turn our backs,” one resident told me. In Princeville, interviewees emphasized honoring their history of self-determination and resilience against racial violence and floodwater alike. To one community leader, it seemed unfair that Princeville, of all floodprone places, should disappear because of its vulnerability.  “Think of New Orleans, think of the beaches. We’re just like them.” Even Princeville residents and local leaders who had advocated in favor of buyouts also did not view flood risk reduction as a primary motive. For them, buyouts offered economic opportunity.

Buyout programs typically work in low-income communities like Princeville and Lincoln City for a few reasons. For one, there are upper limits to the amount the government will spend to buy your property. But it’s probably more impactful that the relative value or benefit of moving is higher in a poor neighborhood than it is in other places, like higher-income coastal flood zones. No coastal homeowners took a buyout after Floyd. Aside from home values and neighborhood conditions, African-Americans are more likely to live in flood zones, in no small part because of housing discrimination throughout the twentieth century into today. In fact, Princeville was built on floodprone swampy land because it was not wanted by whites.

None of this is a problem if buyouts are all benefit without side effects. For most individual participants, this might be true. But because there is some collective loss in historical value, social capital, or neighborhood stability, it’s more complicated.

There are no easy answers for floodprone communities of any racial or economic background. Future buyout programs can learn from the experiences of places like Lincoln City to support nearby neighborhoods in maintaining community social functions like carpooling and shared childcare.

 

30229905236_89f532f279_k

There are no easy answers for floodprone communities of any economic or racial background. Photo credit: Ryan Johnson / Creative Commons

The prickly parts of buyout decision-making are more fundamental, though. The worth of risk reduction or economic opportunity or a historic location is deeply subjective. The practices used to make decisions about buyouts, like cost-benefit analysis or majority-rules democracy, are not always equipped to guide value-driven decisions that depend on collective action. Over the next several weeks, local governments will decide how to proceed with recovery, and the state will decide how to support them. For now, families are simply waiting to get back into their homes and salvage what they can.

 

About the author: Amanda Martin, AICP, is a PhD student at UNC Chapel Hill. Originally from Boston, she has worked in policy and planning in Washington, D.C., northern Nevada, New Orleans, and Rhode Island. Amanda’s doctoral research explores how regions or neighborhoods that receive major private or public investment can share that prosperity with low-income communities and communities of color. Her dissertation will answer this question in the context of coastal communities’ recovery from major storms. Amanda holds degrees from Harvard and MIT, and you can follow her tweets on these topics @bornonland

 

 

Injecting Social Justice into Local Government

On September 28th, Durham City Councilwoman Jillian Johnson and Mel Norton of Duke University’s Cook Center on Social Equity visited UNC’s Department of City and Regional Planning to discuss with students and faculty the work of balancing social justice advocacy while serving in local government. Since Jillian was elected to City Council in November 2015, and sworn in the next month, she has focused on intervening in gentrification in East Durham and the neighborhoods ringing downtown, and maintaining and developing new affordable housing. Mel, who graduated from DCRP with a specialization in housing and community development in 2008, and who was a member of Jillian’s campaign team, has a background in economic development and affordable housing development in Durham and is currently on the board of the Durham People’s Alliance.

In this Plan for All Brown Bag session, the two shared lessons from their work in community development, citizen engagement, and grassroots organizing, all of which have practical applications for planning students and practitioners. Some takeaways include:

1. Community meetings must include the trifecta: food, childcare, and translation services. Mel and Jillian emphasized the importance of the trifecta in removing as many barriers as possible for community members to get involved. They also discussed what Mel described as a “slower and more organic process of relationship-building than endless community meetings,” through less-formal community events like block parties and through identifying and working with people who are well-connected and already politically-engaged (who Mel called community “evangelicals”).

2. Social justice advocacy within a political framework requires community-led work, or what Mel described as a “multi-level strategic approach to elevate voices that have been left out.” Jillian and Mel cited participatory budgeting (PB) as an example of bottom-up community engagement, where the community is involved first in asking the City Council for money to fund the participatory budgeting process, and then a wide swath of the community votes on what goes into the budget. Mel noted that voting through PB engages a wider group of people than local elections, since the voting age is lower and people who are undocumented or who have felony convictions can vote.

[vimeo 65169312 w=640 h=360]

3. In gentrifying neighborhoods like those in central Durham, neighborhood stabilization should be a major priority to prevent displacement. Professor Mai Nguyen asked Jillian and Mel for specific tools they use as community advocates, and Jillian noted that through housing surveys, she’s learned that two major issues for low- to moderate-income (LMI) homeowners are the high cost of repairs and utilities, and the rise in property taxes following a 2015 tax property reassessment in Durham. To address those two issues, the City Council funds an emergency repair program for LMI community members, and Jillian has supported a proposal to give grants to homeowners to offset the tax increase. Mel also noted that community land trusts, through which permanently affordable housing can be built, are a powerful tool for neighborhood stabilization.

4. Get involved! For students who might be interested in Jillian and Mel’s community-engagement work, Mel suggested volunteering with the Cook Center on Social Equity and Durham for All. Jillian strongly recommended that students and faculty take racial equity training, and get involved in small area planning, which encourages community input. She also suggested that students contact her at Jillian.Johnson@DurhamNC.gov for opportunities to get involved.

plan-4-all-brown-bag-photo

Plan for All Brown Bag Flyer

Featured Image: Jillian Johnson and her campaign team during her campaign for Durham City Council. Photo Credit: Jillian Johnson

About the Author: Carly Hoffmann is a co-editor of the Carolina Planning Journal and a first year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, focusing on housing and community development. Prior to UNC, she worked as a book editor for Amazon.com. Carly graduated from Columbia University in 2010 with a degree in Urban Studies.

Planning, Design, and Architecture for Affordability

Over the summer, design and planning professionals gathered at AIA North Carolina’s Center for Architecture and Design (CfAD) to attend an expert panel on the subject of alleviating homelessness through design. The conversation centered around a hypothetical, transitional housing community, that would be located outside of downtown Raleigh. This comes in the wake of the announcement of the finalists for Activate14’s Tiny Home Community Ideas Competition.

2015_06_28_Raleigh_Tiny_Homes_2

Photo Credit: Rachel Eberhard

Activate14 serves is an outreach initiative of the AIA North Carolina, and focuses on strengthening the civic role of architecture and design in communities. The competition received over 100 entries of micro-housing community designs,  each of which aimed to repair and enliven the urban social fabric, and to help people transition out of homelessness. The winning entries were those which successfully combined elements of sustainability, modularity and prefabrication.

Inspired by the winning entries, the NC CfAD put together the June 2015 panel, comprising city government professionals and transitional housing advocates. The experts discussed opportunities for Raleigh to use the tiny home model as a solution to homelessness. While there was some lively disagreement from many on the panel in regards to tiny homes, all of the panel experts agreed that bricks and mortar models are an insufficient answer to the transitional housing shortage.

Photo Credit: Rachael Eberhard

Photo Credit: Rachael Eberhard

Aside from the tiny house solution, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has proposed filling some of the affordable housing needs with manufactured housing. Additionally, the Rural Studio out of Auburn University is also working with this idea and is currently working to build and produce homes for $20,000 (For more information on this project, see the forthcoming volume of the Carolina Planning Journal and  DCRP alumna Amy Bullington’s work with Rural Studio). In any case, formulating a comprehensive solution will not be easy in any community. In Raleigh, a city without a long-range affordability plan in place, this challenge will be especially pronounced. In order for this to become a priority, communities must come together and call their representatives to action.

Tiny_house,_Portland

Tiny house, Portland” by Tammy – Weekend with Dee. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Commons

The growth of the tiny home movement, along with growing interest in manufactured housing and affordable housing design, is an indication that smart design elements can be used to create active, vibrant communities of formerly homeless and extremely low-income individuals. There is a role for urban and industrial designers to play in ensuring that all members of our communities have access to housing, but the question remains: what exactly does this role involve and how can designers best prepare themselves for work in the field of affordable housing?

About the Author: Rachel Eberhard is currently pursuing a Master’s in City & Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a concentration in housing and community development. Her professional interests include real estate development and affordable housing. Prior to enrolling at DCRP, she worked as a senior consulting professional in Washington, D.C.