DOCSLIB.ORG

In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground: Permanent Housing for Vulnerable Long-Term Homeless People Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground: Permanent Housing for Vulnerable Long-Term Homeless People Final Report In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground: Permanent housing for vulnerable long-term homeless people Final Report Never Stand Still Art Social Sciences Social Policy Research Centre Prepared for: NSW Department of Family and Community Services December 2015 Jane Bullen, Elizabeth Whittaker, Olivia Schollar-Root, Lucy Burns, Fredrick Zmudzki Research team School of Social Sciences, UNSW City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Dr Shannon McDermott, Lecturer Professor Hal Pawson Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Centre for Social Impact, UNSW Dr Jane Bullen, Research Officer Associate Professor Kristy Muir Dr kylie valentine, Senior Research Fellow Époque Consulting National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Fredrick Zmudzki, Senior Health Economist A/Prof Lucy Burns, Senior Lecturer Elizabeth Whittaker, Research Officer Olivia Schollar-Root, Research Assistant For further information: Dr kylie valentine: [email protected] or +61 2 9385 7825 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Camperdown Common Ground tenants who took part in the survey and focus groups, and the service providers and stakeholders who also took part in the interviews. The staff members from MA Housing and the Inner City Coalition were very helpful and friendly, and gave vital assistance in recruiting tenants for the interviews and in the collection of quantitative data. We also acknowledge the advice of Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Professorial Fellow, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, as well as special assistance from officers of the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) in facilitating a number of the evaluation components, Ms Davina Lomas, Ms Lesley J Butt, Mr Bradley Crump and Ms Anna Brennan from Mission Australia. Finally, we would like to acknowledge FACS for providing funding to conduct this evaluation and the Evaluation Advisory Group for their guidance. Social Policy Research Centre UNSW Arts & Social Sciences UNSW Australia UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia T +61 2 9385 7800 F +61 2 9385 7838 E [email protected] W www.sprc.unsw.edu.au © UNSW Australia 2016 ISBN: 978-1-925218-48-0 The Social Policy Research Centre is based in Arts & Social Sciences at UNSW Australia. This report is an output of the ‘Evaluation of the Camperdown Common Ground Project’ research project, funded by the NSW Department of Family & Community Services. Suggested citation: Bullen, J., Whittaker, E., Schollar-Root, O., Burns, L., & Zmudzki, F. (2016). In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground: Permanent housing for vulnerable long-term homeless people (SPRC Report 03/16). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Australia. Social Policy Research Centre 2016 I In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground Contents 1 Executive summary 1 2 Introduction 7 2.1 Aims and objectives of Camperdown Common Ground 8 2.2 Key agencies 8 2.3 Onsite services 9 2.4 Evaluation scope and focus 10 3 Methodology 11 3.1 Evaluation framework 11 3.2 Qualitative data 13 3.3 Quantitative survey 15 3.4 Program data 19 3.5 Literature review 20 3.6 Cost effectiveness 20 3.7 Caveats and limitations 25 3.8 Summary of key points 25 4 Resident profile and referral processes 26 4.1 Demographics 26 4.2 Referral process and the target group 29 4.3 Summary of key points 30 5 The Camperdown Common Ground service model 31 5.1 Implementation 31 5.2 Housing 34 5.3 Support services 40 5.4 Partnerships 49 5.5 Emerging issues about the service model 51 5.6 Summary of key points 54 6 Tenant outcomes 55 6.1 Housing 55 6.2 Physical health 60 6.3 Mental health 62 6.4 Psychological distress 63 6.5 Health service use 64 6.6 Contact with the Justice System 69 6.7 Self-care, hygiene and nutrition 70 Social Policy Research Centre 2016 II In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground 6.8 Quality of life 73 6.9 Relative deprivation 73 6.10 Social relationships 75 6.11 Social exclusion 76 6.12 Employment, education and income 78 6.13 Problems and coping 79 6.14 Summary of key points 83 7 Economic analysis 86 7.1 Program funding and costs 87 7.2 Cost effectiveness 93 7.3 Comparison with other programs 94 7.4 Summary of key points 102 8 Conclusion 104 8.1 Structure and process of service delivery 104 8.2 Outcomes for formerly homeless tenants 105 8.3 Costs and benefits 106 8.4 Key issues or gaps 107 8.5 Key areas for ongoing improvement 108 8.6 Critical success factors 109 9 Appendix A: Client health and substance use history (baseline survey) 111 9.1 Cognitive impairment 111 9.2 Physical health 112 9.3 Mental health 113 9.4 Complexity of needs 116 9.5 Substance use 117 9.6 Symptoms of substance dependence 119 9.7 Injection of substances 126 10 Appendix B: Program data fields and timeframes available for analysis 127 11 Appendix C: Literature review 132 12 References 138 Social Policy Research Centre 2016 III In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground List of tables Table 2.1: Onsite services available at Camperdown Common Ground 9 Table 3.1: Overview of qualitative data collection with formerly homeless tenants and low income tenants 13 Table 3.2: Overview of stakeholder interviews 14 Table 3.3: Characteristics of survey sample at baseline and 12-month follow-up 18 Table 3.4: Characteristics of survey sample and all formerly homeless tenants at Camperdown Common Ground 21 Table 4.1: All Camperdown Common Ground tenants by housing type (n=163) (Program data) 26 Table 5.1: Mean number of support services accessed over the past 12 months (Client survey) 45 Table 6.1: Mean number of days spent in Camperdown Common Ground by housing type (n=163) (Program data) 56 Table 6.2: Reasons for exiting, formerly homeless 57 Table 6.3: Arrears amount by housing type, March 2014 (Program data) 58 Table 7.1: Building and tenant management income and expenditure 2013-14 89 Table 7.2: Camperdown Common Ground support service costs 2013-14 91 Table 7.3: Camperdown Common Ground average cost per client 2013-14 92 Table 7.4: Camperdown Common Ground comparison with other programs 100 Table 10.1: Demographic variables available in the Camperdown Common Ground Program data 127 Table 10.2: Incident variables available in the Camperdown Common Ground Program data 128 Table 10.3: Case management data available in the Camperdown Common Ground Program data 129 Table 10.4: Onsite service variables available in the Camperdown Common Ground Program data 130 Social Policy Research Centre 2016 IV In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground List of figures Figure 3.1: Program logic model for Camperdown Common Ground 12 Figure 3.2: Flowchart of follow-up process 17 Figure 4.1: Camperdown Common Ground tenants by housing type, 2013-2014 26 Figure 4.2: Last full-time employment position among client survey participants prior to Camperdown Common Ground (formerly homeless tenants) (N=35) (Client survey) 27 Figure 4.3: Sources of income currently received (N=26*) (Client survey) 28 Figure 4.4: Formerly homeless tenants: years living in homelessness prior to Camperdown Common Ground (N=50) (Program data) 28 Figure 5.1: Flow chart of management for Camperdown Common Ground 31 Figure 5.2: Client survey participants (formerly homeless tenants) level of satisfaction for their housing in general (Client survey) 38 Figure 5.3: Client survey participants (formerly homeless tenants) mean level of satisfaction across various aspects of housing (Client survey) 39 Figure 5.4: Proportion of tenants in each housing type who have received assistance in the following areas (%) (Program data) 41 Figure 5.5: Proportion of tenants for whom a referral has been made in each area (%) (Program data) 41 Figure 5.6: Onsite services and proportion of tenants in each group who access these services (Program data) 44 Figure 5.7: Participants’ perceptions at baseline and follow-up of how often they had to provide the same information to different services in the past 12 months (Client survey) 46 Figure 5.8: Camperdown Common Ground participants’ perceptions of how often providers of different services worked together to coordinate their care (Client survey) 46 Figure 5.9: Level of importance that participants placed on different services sharing information with each other about their care and needs (Client survey) 47 Figure 5.10: Level of importance that participants placed on having a case manager to help coordinate access to different services (Client survey) 47 Figure 5.11: Degree to which participants felt that they had a say in what their case manager/s or service/s did for them (Client survey) 48 Figure 5.12: Extent to which participants felt that the services provided to them had been useful (Client survey) 48 Figure 6.1: Proportion of exits by housing type (n=163) (Program data) 56 Figure 6.2: Incidents recorded by housing type of the tenants involved, Dec 2012 to April 2014 (Program data) 58 Figure 6.3: Incidents by type (n=660) (Program data) 59 Figure 6.4: Actions taken when incidents occur (n=660) (Program data) 59 Figure 6.5: Number of incidents at Camperdown Common Ground, December 2012 and March 2014 (Program data) 60 Social Policy Research Centre 2016 V In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground Figure 6.6: Percent of participants with diagnosed physical health condition who received treatment in the past 12 months (Client survey) 61 Figure 6.7: Percent of participants with diagnosed mental health conditions who received treatment (Client survey) 62 Figure 6.8: BSI T-Scores for primary symptom dimensions (N=24) (Client survey) 63 Figure 6.9: The primary physical health problem/s that participants
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Breaking Common Ground
    SUSTAINABILITY CASE OF THE FUTURE STUDIES Breaking common ground Are the days of the ‘glass box’ office or residential block numbered? An integrated social housing project broke new ground NDY’s Chris Nunn believes that in sustainability and philanthropy. while these buildings meet the aesthetic desire for natural light FIONA BAKER and great views, they struggle to weather the high solar loads and demands for cooling. These glass boxes in their current design will be far from ideal for the future. “The remedy is an increased focus on high-performance facade and fabric, in particular PROJECT: Camperdown Common Ground airtightness, better construction PROJECT CLIENT: Mission Australia and the NSW Department of Housing detailing to reduce uncontrolled SCOPE: Construction of a six-storey complex that provides innovative inner-city accommodation leaks and heat gains, and earlier for Sydney’s homeless and low income earners use of energy modelling as part COMPLETION: November 2011 of a more integrated, iterative design process,” Nunn says. He cites building trends in Europe as leading the way in energy-efficient construction. “Architects and engineers are working together to create BACKGROUND BRIEFING aesthetically striking facades KEY CHALLENGE KEY PLAYERS Providing safe shelter and housing for that respond appropriately to the estimated 105,000 homeless people Since its completion, Common Process the solar context of the site.” in Australia is always a high priority for Ground Sydney has achieved hydronic heating panels, which have weather welfare groups like Mission Australia. the much-lauded 5 Star Green The team identified two major areas that would compensation controls to ensure heating is not Some of the innovations include: In a city like Sydney where large numbers Building Council of Australia ensure success: achieving the sustainability and left on when not needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Elizabeth Street Common Ground 5Th Anniversary
    Elizabeth Street Common Ground 5th Anniversary “ I’ve been five years now… very dubious at the start. At the moment, I’ve got so much positivity in me. I’m achieving things I couldn’t even dream about before.” — Tex, tenant Introduction Five years ago, Elizabeth Street Common Ground opened its doors and became home to 65 Melburnians in desperate need of housing and support. The 11-storey residential building and untreated health issues, police was the first of its kind to be purpose- intervention and incarceration. For most, built in Melbourne, designed to house life was about day-to-day survival. Their and support the most vulnerable and lives were often characterised by chaos, disadvantaged people in our community. addiction, eviction, uncertainty, family violence, abuse, isolation and despair. It marked the culmination of more than three years of planning, development, Most have embraced the opportunity fundraising and building by HomeGround to get their lives on track, and while Services (now Launch Housing), Yarra some have had to leave, many stay on Community Housing, the Victorian and and continue to contribute to their new Federal Governments, construction community. company Grocon and a committed group We’d like to thank our staff, supporters, of private companies, philanthropists and tenants and all those who have made community service organisations. Elizabeth Street Common Ground a It is almost impossible to overstate the reality. importance of the first five years of this It’s been challenging for us all, but we’ve ambitious supportive housing project: learned important lessons about the lives have been saved, and changed for Common Ground supportive housing the better.
    [Show full text]
  • HOME Success Stories Supportive Housing
    HOME Success Stories Supportive Housing The HOME Coalition 2015 HOME Success Stories CONTACT HOME SUCCESS STORY Kara Carnahan (510) 270-1150 California kcarnahan@ abodeservices.org Abode Services Abode Services was founded in 1989 when a small group of people came together to address a growing problem with family homelessness in Alameda County, California. Its mission is to end homelessness by PROJECT helping low-income, un-housed people, including those with special needs, to secure stable, supportive HIGHLIGHTS housing and to advocate for the end of the causes of homelessness. Abode Services does this by developing and implementing innovative programs to end homelessness using a “Housing First” philosophy. Location: Hayward Since 1989, Abode Services has expanded its impact throughout the Bay Area, serving more than 4,400 Project: Tenant-Based adults and children in Alameda, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties. It is proud to be a double-bottom- Rental Assistance For line agency with a commitment to effective financial management that is transparent to donors and funders Emancipated Foster and ensures the long-term stability of its programs. Youth HOME: $12,370 Project Independence District: CA-15 When Lani first entered Abode Services’ Project Independence program in 2012, she was a 22- year old, single mother with two boys. The family was homeless and couch surfed for at least eight months. When Lani could afford it, she took her family to a motel so they could have a night alone and sleep on a bed. With average rents soaring as high as $2,078 in Alameda County, California, Lani couldn’t afford an apartment.
    [Show full text]
  • 100000 Homes Campaign
    HOUSING AND HOUSING FINANCE RESEARCH REPORT Evaluation of the 100,000 Homes Campaign Assessing the Campaign’s Effectiveness in Housing the Chronically and Vulnerable Homeless Josh Leopold Helen Ho February 2015 ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE The nonprofit Urban Institute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and economic policy. For nearly five decades, Urban scholars have conducted research and offered evidence-based solutions that improve lives and strengthen communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps expand opportunities for all, reduce hardship among the most vulnerable, and strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector. ABOUT COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS Community Solutions, which launched and coordinated the 100,000 Homes Campaign, is working to end homelessness and help low income neighborhoods address the complex challenge of intergenerational poverty. The organization draws on successful tools and strategies from unexpected sectors like healthcare, manufacturing and design to help communities become more effective problem solvers. The adaptation of these strategies to civic and human services issues supports the natural wisdom and capacity of community members to develop and implement their own solutions. Community Solutions began its efforts by pioneering innovative responses to homelessness. Today, the organization is at work on a range of social problems that contribute to homelessness - from concentrated poverty to urban public health. Staff members are working and consulting across five core initiatives to test, scale and share new approaches to these issues for the benefit of all organizations and communities seeking smart, humane and lasting solutions. The organization's collaborative process aims to produce more effective local services, more connected and resilient communities, reduced taxpayer costs, and better lives for struggling people.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing America's Housing Challenges
    Common Ground: Addressing America’s Housing Challenges Policy Proposals for the Multifamily Housing Industry and the Renters They Serve America today is facing an unprecedented housing crisis. Millions of our neighbors are confronting rising rent costs, a shortage of affordable housing and potential eviction. We cannot wait to find solutions to this problem - we must act now. At Rhino, we are working to address these issues by building products that provide Americans greater financial flexibility, ensure property owners are protected, and remove barriers to obtaining quality housing. By allowing renters to replace their security deposit with insurance, Rhino is helping to unlock more than $45 billion of cash sitting in escrow accounts in order to put those funds back into the economy, allowing Americans to pay off debt, save for emergencies, or invest in their retirement. However, for all that we have accomplished, we recognize there is so much more that we can and should do. In an effort to find practical, effective and real solutions to these issues, Rhino has brought together leaders from across public and private sectors to discuss sustainable solutions to the housing affordability crisis. To this end, in the summer of 2020 Rhino launched the Rhino Housing Innovation Council with the participation of executives, industry leaders and policymakers to explore pragmatic solutions to these issues. With the partnership of top-50 multifamily operators and the mayors of cities like Dayton, Ohio, Richmond, Virginia & Tolleson, Arizona, Rhino’s Innovation Council provides the forum for discussion and thought leadership that is so desperately needed today. We believe that listening to leaders from all sides will result in win-win solutions that ensure affordability for renters while contributing to the prosperity of local housing markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Equity Home Ownership Addresses Affordable Housing Needs
    Balancing Shared equity home ownership addresses affordable housing needs By Judy Newman 10 ON COMMON GROUND WINTER 2008 the Cost ancy Rowand and her 18-month-old twin equity housing, a trend that, in the past few years, daughter and son were welcoming the has taken on the momentum of a bullet train. Nholidays in their tiny Washington, D.C. Though their numbers still make up only a apartment on Christmas Eve, 1977. small percentage nationwide, more and more But their joy faded quickly when Rowand people are embracing shared equity arrangements received a startling, hand-delivered “gift:” an to become homeowners. eviction notice. Shared equity, also called permanently New owners of the eight-building, 96-unit affordable home ownership or third sector housing, complex—built in the 1940s to house military or is a step between the traditional American housing military support staff—wanted to tear down the alternatives of either buying or renting; of private 600-square-foot, one-bedroom apartments between home ownership or ownership by a government Georgetown and American universities or convert agency or nonprofit organization. them to condominiums. In shared equity arrangements, a homeowner Rowand and her neighbors, a diverse group of generally receives some type of subsidy from a moderate-income people, were not about to let that government agency or nonprofit group, reducing happen without a fight. They formed a committee, the purchase and payment costs. In return, the hired lawyers and appealed to the city for help. “We homeowner shares the rise in the home’s value with had a rally and chanted, ‘we shall not be moved,’” Rowand said.
    [Show full text]
  • On Com M on Ground
    Land Use / Housing / Sustainable Development Davis Algoed “The visionary leaders, communities and organizations featured Hernández- in this book are at the forefront of a broader national and global Torrales movement to recalibrate the relationship between governments on common and markets in housing and development policy.” — JERRY MALDONADO, Ford Foundation ( from the Foreword ) ground Fifty years ago, African-Americans fi ghting Forty-two authors from a dozen countries on perspectives international for political and economic equality in Albany, explore the growth of this worldwide CLT Georgia established the fi rst community land movement in On Common Ground: International on common international perspectives on trust (CLT). There are now over 260 CLTs in Perspectives on the Community Land Trust. The the community land trust the United States. Many more exist in other book’s twenty-six chapters cover fi ve topics: countries, including over 300 in England and others in Australia, Belgium, Canada, and I. BRIGHT IDEAS: surveying the diverse France. Interest has been rising in Germany, landscape of community-led development Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, on community-owned land. Scotland, and Spain as well. II. NATIONAL NETWORKS: examining the Most CLT development has occurred in the proliferation of CLTs in the Global North. Global North, but seeds for new CLTs are now being scattered across the Global South. The III. REGIONAL SEEDBEDS: exploring Caño Martín Peña Community Land Trust the potential for CLT development in the in Puerto Rico has led the way, securing the Global South. homes of hundreds of families residing in land trust community the informal settlements in San Juan.
    [Show full text]
  • Adapting the Housing First Model for Domestic Violence Survivors
    Housing and Society ISSN: 0888-2746 (Print) 2376-0923 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhas20 Common ground, complementary approaches: adapting the Housing First model for domestic violence survivors Cris M. Sullivan & Linda Olsen To cite this article: Cris M. Sullivan & Linda Olsen (2017): Common ground, complementary approaches: adapting the Housing First model for domestic violence survivors, Housing and Society, DOI: 10.1080/08882746.2017.1323305 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2017.1323305 © 2017 Housing Education and Research Association Published online: 12 Jun 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhas20 Download by: [Cris M. Sullivan] Date: 12 June 2017, At: 09:29 HOUSING AND SOCIETY, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2017.1323305 Common ground, complementary approaches: adapting the Housing First model for domestic violence survivors Cris M. Sullivana and Linda Olsenb aPsychology Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; bWashington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Seattle, WA, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The Housing First model has been shown to be a highly effective Received 29 July 2016 approach to achieving permanent housing for chronically home- Accepted 19 March 2017 less individuals with serious mental illness and chemical depen- KEYWORDS dency. There are numerous components of the model that lend Intimate partner violence; themselves toward achieving similar goals for homeless domestic domestic violence; violence (DV) survivors and their children. A leading cause of homeless; housing first homelessness for women, many of whom are mothers, is DV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Housing Continuum: Building a Vibrant Community
    The Housing Continuum: Building A Vibrant Community March 4, March 18, and April 1, 2019 Anchorage Museum Auditorium Please scroll down for links to the video and slides from all these events. Thank you to all our panelists, moderators, partners, and sponsors. You can find them listed here. Anchorage faces a shortage of diverse housing options that are affordable for many of its residents. Ensuring citizens of all income levels, abilities, and phases of life have access to safe, quality, and affordable housing is critical to achieving a vibrant, economically thriving city that residents desire to live in for the long-term. Alaska Common Ground hosted a 3- part series and discussed the latest findings on Anchorage’s housing needs—for today and the future—with a focus on workforce, senior, supportive, and low-income housing. March 4 – The Current Supply & Demand We discussed the latest findings on Anchorage’s housing needs—for today and the future—with a focus on workforce, millennials, senior, supportive, and low-income housing. Listen to the audio here. Moderated by Thea Agnew Bemben of Agnew::Beck Carol Gore, Cook Inlet Housing Authority – Slides Janelle Pfleiger, RE/MAX Dynamic Properties – Slides Jasmine Khan, Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness – Slides Mark Romick, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation- Slides Moira Gallagher, Anchorage Economic Development Corporation – Slides Alaska Common Ground is at the Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center tonight for the first of our housing series. Tune in as our panel discusses Anchorage’s #housingcontinuum and the housing we have, what our community wants, and what we need to have a thriving and vibrant city.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Ground Canberra Factsheet
    FACT SHEET What is Common Ground Canberra? Common Ground Canberra (CGC) was established to provide long term, high quality housing options for people on low incomes; and a solution for people who experience chronic homelessness. It does so through purpose-built accommodation which mixes people who have experienced homelessness (20 units) with people who are on low incomes who require affordable housing (20 units). CGC strives to create a strong, vibrant community through a commitment to social inclusion that is provided in a safe and supportive, diverse, harmonious and inclusive community. Argyle Community Housing is the Tenancy and Property Manager, and Northside Community Service will provide support services (where needed). For more information regarding the history and principles of Common Ground, please go to www.commongroundcanberra.org.au What accommodation is offered by Common Ground? The CGC facility is located in the vibrant town centre of Gungahlin. The six storey building includes 40 self-contained one bedroom units on the upper levels. Office space for the on-site support provider and tenancy manager, offices/rooms for other support services and areas to deliver group program and community activities are located on the ground level. • Each unit includes a bathroom, kitchen, laundry facilities, and balcony. • The building is an innovative design in energy efficiency, with natural flow-through ventilation and double-glazed windows and doors. • The building is designed to promote tenant safety, with security card access and 24 hour concierge service on site. • Common area space on the ground floor will support a range of functions such as workshops, and meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Goals and Purpose (PDF)
    COMMON GROUND Goals and Purpose The purpose of the Common Ground Cohousing Association is to create an affordable housing community on the community Center site that fulfills more of the resident's needs than are met by standard housing programs. This is accomplished by the cooperative efforts of the future residents group identifying community/family needs and incorporating solutions in the housing project's unique overall design. Co-Housing differs from standard housing developments in that it specifically requires resident participation in the formation, direction and management of the housing complex from the design phase through construction completion, and in an ongoing manner after occupancy. The design objective of Common Ground is to plan a housing development which acknowledges that resident and neighborhood interaction, interdependence and self-management is the essence of community. Our group' feels that a vital neighborhood is comprised of the following key elements: 1) Shared pedestrian areas with outdoor amenities such as play areas, gardens, sitting areas and adult recreation areas, as well as pedestrian access to individual domiciles and the complex common house. 2) A mUlti-purpose, multi-family common house which provides space for crafts, hobbies and activities to foster the mutual interest and interaction of the residents and which facilitates lifestyle needs such as childcare, play room, laundry, meeting/dining hall/kitchen space. 3) Unity 0 f purpose among residents which creates the strength in numbers to make viable such programs as shared resident transportation by van and wholesale purchasing of common household goods. 4) An incorporation of mutual group values and premises into the design and structure of the housing complex, resulting in a functioning program which reflects such premises as honesty, responsibility, personal interdependence, trust, civility, and the search for quality, convenience and fellowship.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Ground: Community-Owned Land As a Platform for Equitable and Sustainable Development
    Articles Common Ground: Community-Owned Land as a Platform for Equitable and Sustainable Development By JOHN EMMEUS DAVIS* Introduction LAND, LABOR, AND CAPITAL are considered to be the primary factors of production, regardless of whether one is planning for the fabrication of durable goods in an industrial plant or the revitalization of dilapidated homes in a residential neighborhood.1 Every analysis of a project’s feasibility begins here. A great deal of creative thought is devoted, accordingly, to these essential inputs, figuring out how best to tweak their design, reduce their cost, and increase their effective- ness. Creativity is especially important in community development, where the production of goods and services for people of limited fi- nancial means must be heavily subsidized out of public coffers and private contributions. Every dollar must be inventively stretched and cleverly invested for maximum effect. * John Emmeus Davis (Ph.D., Cornell University) has been a leading practitioner, researcher, and advocate for community-led development on community-owned land since 1981, the year he joined a group of academics and activists in writing The Community Land Trust Handbook, a seminal text on the CLT. He went on to publish other books and articles about the model and to assist dozens of CLTs in the United States and in other countries. After ten years as director of housing in Burlington Vermont under Mayors Bernie Sanders and Peter Clavelle, he co-founded Burlington Associates in Community Development, a national consulting cooperative. He is a co-producer of Arc of Justice: The Rise, Fall and Rebirth of a Beloved Community, a documentary film tracing the CLT’s origins in the southern Civil Rights Movement.
    [Show full text]