Table of Contents

Executive Summary

HANDS, a community development corporation based in Orange, New Jersey, has primarily been involved in the construction of affordable homes. Chiefly, it has been working in the Valley neighborhood in Orange. HANDS now wants to expand its activities from just building homes to responding to other needs in the community. The CDC has asked Project Community to help it better identify the concerns and the issues facing residents of the Valley. A survey was developed and implemented in the target neighborhood in order to reveal the residents' concerns.

The report is divided into the following sections. The first section gives an overview of HANDS's accomplishments to date followed by a description of the research problem. The next section describes the research area in relation to Orange and Essex County using U.S. Bureau of the Census data for 1990. The purpose of this section is to place the Valley neighborhood within the context of its larger community. While the Valley area fares better than Orange and Essex County as a whole, there are indications of economic and social distress in the Valley.

The survey methodology section describes the design process and the details of survey implementation. The questions in the survey were divided into three major areas. They were: perceived neighborhood problems, perceived neighborhood strengths, and level of community involvement. The following section profiles the results of the survey. The overall findings were positive, revealing a community that is generally satisfied with their neighborhood. Residents cited three major problems in the neighborhood: loitering, drug and alcohol use, and trash and litter on the streets. Finally, perhaps the most important finding for HANDS is that 70 percent of the respondents were interested in joining a neighborhood association.

The last sections are a review of pertinent community development and organizing literature followed by recommendations for a strategic plan based on survey results and overall data analysis.

HISTORY AND MISSION OF HANDS

Housing and Neighborhood Services (HANDS) is a community development corporation (CDC) founded in 1986 by clergy and community members with the mission to "develop housing, stabilize neighborhoods, and improve economic opportunities in Orange, New Jersey" (The Discount Foundation 1995 Grant Application, 1994).

Since its establishment, HANDS has been actively rehabilitating existing housing and building new homes, primarily in the city's Valley area. In one of its earliest projects, the CDC rehabilitated four apartments for low-income families and acted as general contractor for the project.

Also during the 1987-88 period, HANDS trained 20 homeless young men as carpenter apprentices. With the skills they gained during their training, the men worked on the CDC's rehabilitation projects. They gained solid work experience and were later hired by local contractors.

In 1990, HANDS built and sold the Elm Street Townhomes, a three unit attached single family development on Elm Street. For this project, the CDC acted as both developer and general contractor. The profit yielded by the sale of these homes was folded into anther townhome development built on McChesney Street. For this project, HANDS again acted as developer and general contractor to built five attached single family homes. All units were sold and new families are now living in the homes.

One of HANDS's most innovative and successful projects was the creation and development of a prefab housing factory. Created because the majority of housing used by CDCs in urban areas is made outside New Jersey, Executive Director of HANDS Pat Morrissy has said, "Almost all of the affordable housing built in our area during the past decade was factory-built out of state. It's time we reclaim the jobs generated by urban housing needs" (Automated Builder, March 1994: 44). Hiring local unemployed men, HANDS opened its factory and began constructing the walls used to build the McChesney homes. The CDC closed the factory after the development was completed, however, there is a possibility that it will reopen the factory in hopes to diversify its activities and create prefabricated panels for other CDCs in the state.

At present, HANDS is building new houses in the East Ward of Orange and plans to rehabilitate other houses in the area. While it has demonstrated its success in the construction and rehabilitation of housing, the CDC is seeking to address residents' concerns about their neighborhoods.

Driven by the residents' request for its involvement in the amelioration of neighborhood problems, HANDS is beginning to look at neighborhood organizing in order to empower the residents to work to improve the conditions of their neighborhood. As a first step, HANDS submitted a research proposal to the Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) at Rutgers University to develop and implement a survey of neighborhood residents to determine the issues that are affecting them and to identify potential leaders. The CDC's rationale for requesting the research includes its desire to "engage the residents in helping shape the future of the neighborhood, involve more people in the expansion of HANDS activities and to do some old fashioned community organizing around neighborhood improvement" (Project Community Research Application, 1994).

DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Following the research application submitted to the CUPR, the proposed research focused on the creation and implementation of a neighborhood survey. The objective of the survey was two-fold: to identify residents' concerns about the neighborhood and potential community leaders. In order to meet these goals, a survey instrument was developed and implemented over a ten week period in the Valley neighborhood of Orange. After completing the surveying, the results were tabulated and key issues became immediately apparent. To support the survey results, demographic information was obtained and allows for a comparison of the surveyed area, the Valley, with the rest of Orange and with Essex County. The survey results will form the foundation for the creation of community development programs by HANDS and will also serve as an outreach activity and allow the CDC to meet neighborhood residents on an individual basis.

The research area focuses on two neighborhoods immediately surrounding the new housing recently built by HANDS. They include the area around the McChesney Town Homes, the area that includes both the Elm Street Town homes, and the three development sites planned for April 1995. Instead of concentrating all its energies solely on physical development, HANDS has adopted a comprehensive approach to community development. Consequently, the main goal of this project is to engage residents in helping to shape the future of their neighborhood through community organizing and through their increased involvement in HANDS's activities.

PUTTING THE VALLEY IN CONTEXT

Surveying in the Valley neighborhood has been a good way to get a feel for who the residents are and learn about their perceptions and concerns for their neighborhood. It is also important, however, to place the people of the Valley in a broader context. Comparing their circumstances to those of Orange as a whole and, even more generally, Essex County, can help highlight the strengths of the Valley as well as potential weaknesses. General demographic, welfare and housing profiles from the 1990 census were used for the following analysis. Additional child welfare data was culled from the 1992 "Kids Count" survey (New Jersey Association for Children, 1993.)

Essex County has a population of 778,206 persons. Whites are still the largest single racial group in Essex. They account for 45.7 percent of the total population. They are followed in size by Blacks which account for 36.3 percent of the county's population and Hispanics who add another ten percent. A combination of Asian, American Indian and "other" ethnic groups round out the rest of Essex's population. Orange has a different ethnic make-up than Essex County. Orange is predominantly African-American (68.9%). Only 18.5 percent of Orange residents are white. The proportion of Hispanics in Orange is very close to that of Essex at 10.8 percent. The remaining two percent are made up of other ethnic groups.

Median household income in 1990 in Essex was $34, 518. While this may appear to be decent earnings, it is important to note that 14.3 percent of all persons in Essex County live in poverty. When looking at the under 18 or the child population of Essex, the percentage rises to 21.9 percent. The story for female-headed households is even more grim. Of these households, 29.2 percent live in poverty. This number soars to 51.6 percent of female-headed households with children under the age of five.

The median household income of Orange was $27,301 and 21 percent less than the Essex County level of $34,518. A slightly larger proportion of Orange residents lived in poverty when compared to Essex, 17.8 percent compared to 14.3 percent. The census statistics for the children of Orange seem to imply that they are both better and worse off than the children of Essex. Twenty-seven percent of children under age 18 live in poverty, a larger proportion than in Essex. However, a smaller percentage of children living in female-headed households in poverty live in Orange. Nearly 25 percent of all female-headed households live in poverty, and 28 percent of these households with children under five are in poverty, a substantially smaller, although still disheartening number, when compared to Essex.

Data collected in 1992 by "Kids Count" of New Jersey paints a depressing picture of the situation of children in Essex and Orange. Consider the following statistics: Essex scored below the state average on ten out of the eleven indicators for child welfare, and it had a higher proportion of infant, child, and teen deaths than the entire state of New Jersey. Essex also had a much higher percentage of children receiving AFDC benefits and food stamps. Meanwhile, Orange scored worse on six of eight child welfare indicators when compared to Essex. Orange had a higher infant mortality and child death rate than Essex. Proportionally more children received AFDC and food stamps than children in Essex, and women were six times (607%) less likely to receive prenatal care in Orange when compared with the rest of the state. Data on children is important to consider when contemplating a plan of action for any community, as the situation for children today serves as an indicator of what the situation will be for the adults of the future.

Deteriorating social conditions are often mirrored by declining physical conditions. A large part, 36 percent, of the housing stock in Essex was built in 1939 or earlier. By 1979, 92.9 percent of the housing stock had been built. The total number of housing units is 298, 710 for Essex County. Of these units 278,752 are occupied. Of all housing units, 90,711 are owner-occupied compared to 152,055 that are renter-occupied. Of those who rent, just over 40 percent are forced to pay one third or more of their income towards rent. This compares unfavorably with homeowners, 27 percent of whom, pay more than a third of their income toward mortgage payments.

Orange has a similar housing profile. Thirty percent of the housing stock was built by 1939. Eighty-nine percent of the housing had been built by 1979. Of the 12,318 total housing units, 11,580 are occupied. Like Essex, most units are occupied by renters, not owners. The total number of owner-occupied units is 1,967 compared to 8,321 renter-occupied units. Forty-two percent of renters pay one third or more of their income for rent. Mortgage payers in Orange do not have an advantage in terms of the proportion of their salaries they use for payments than renters. Fully 40 percent of mortgage payers spend over one third of their income on mortgage payments. It is generally accepted that rent and mortgage payments should not account for more than 30 percent of income earned.

Drop out rates for high school students have been consistently high for the last ten years, particularly among African-Americans. Since 1984, graduation rates for Black males in public school have ranged from a low of 26 percent in 1988 to a high of 56 percent in 1981. The rates for Black females are just as dismal, ranging from a low of 39 percent in 1989 to a high of 60 percent in 1984. Data available for 1992, 1993 and 1994 is not disaggregated by race or gender. The graduation rates climbed through those years from 53 percent to 54 percent to last year's rate of 65 percent (Department for Government Services, 1994: 48).

The Valley neighborhood is comprised of three census block groups: 200, 300, and 400. Overall, there is little statistical difference among the block groups. The groups exhibit similar demographic profiles, although residents in block group 400 have higher incomes than those of the other two block groups and higher than the city. Correspondingly, fewer people in block group 400 are living in poverty. These exceptions aside, the groups are quite homogeneous.

The total population of the three block groups is 2,347, and it accounts for 7.8 percent of the total population of Orange which is 29,925. The population of block group 200 is 980, block group 300 is 753 and block group 400 is 614. The three block groups have a lower percentage of Blacks and a higher percentage of Whites and Hispanics than the rest of the city. For the block groups, the percent of population is distributed: 62.9 percent are Black, 30.7 percent are White, and 17.59 are of Hispanic origin. For the city of Orange, excluding the block groups, the composition of the population is 70.42 percent are Black, 23.39 percent are White, and 10.26 percent are of Hispanic origin.

The average median household income for the three block groups is $29,642, and 8 percent higher than that of Orange--$27,301. The average income for the block groups masks the difference in income among the groups. At the high end, the median household income for block group 400 is $38,315. The lowest median household income is $22,279 for block group 200. By contrast, Orange has a median household income of $27,301. Income for block group 300 is also higher than the city at $28,333. Treated separately, the income for the block groups differs substantially from the city as a whole. Block group 400 is 40% higher income than Orange, block group 300 is 3.7% higher and block group 200 is 19.4 percent less the city.

Orange has 5,261 persons in poverty, a rate of 17.8 percent. 450 persons live below the poverty level. The Valley has a slightly higher percentage of persons in poverty than the city with a rate of 19.1 percent. The poverty rates within the block groups vary. Poverty in block groups 200 and 300 are similar to each other and both are above the city's rate with poverty rates of 23.7 percent and 21 percent, respectively. By contrast, the poverty rate of block group 400 is less than half of that for the other two block groups and lower than the city, with a rate of 10.2 percent. Of those living in poverty in the Valley, 45.1 percent are female-headed households residing in block group 200. It should be noted that this block group has the highest percentage of persons living below the poverty level. In fact, 22.7 percent of all families and 23.8 percent of all persons, including persons 18 years and over and persons 65 years and over. Similarly, block group 300 reports that 25.3 percent of those living in poverty are female-headed households. Conversely, Orange has a much lower percentage, just 24.7 of female-headed households living in poverty. As was noted above, two of the three block groups in the Valley have a larger percentage of female-headed households in poverty than the city. A similar trend of single, female-headed households living in poverty can be noted at the county level.

The provision of affordable housing is an integral part of HANDS's mission and preserving affordability is crucial. Monthly housing costs as a percent of income for both owners and renters indicated the percent of income that is spent on housing. The accepted standard is that one should pay no more than 30 percent of his or her income for housing. In the Valley, people residing in block group 200 and 300 (48%) pay over 30 percent of their income for rent. In block group 400, the percentage of income drops to 28 percent. For Orange, 41.98 percent of the residents pay over 30 percent of their income on rent. It is clear that for the dominant form of tenure, a large percentage of both Valley and Orange residents pay much more of their income for housing than is the standard. Therefore, in terms of housing affordability, it is crucial that any new or rehabilitated housing be affordable to the residents who live, or who would like to live in the Valley and the city.

The housing profile for the Valley shows that approximately 398 houses were built prior to 1940. Block group 200 had the largest number of homes of this age, about 160. As a city, Orange had 3,673 houses built before 1940. Few homes in the area have been built in the last thirty years. The exception is block group 400 where approximately 54 houses were built from 1970 to the present. In block group 200, about 32 houses have been built during the same period. Only 4 houses were constructed during this time in block group 300. A majority of the houses in all block groups have public water and sewage service and a large number heat their homes with gas, not oil, although it should be noted that in block group 200, oil and gas usage was comparable, 180 versus 172. Like the block groups, the city residents rely upon publicly-provided water and sewage service. Similarly, more householders heat with gas than oil, although the difference at the city level--5,363 compared to 4,209--is much closer than for the block groups.

In looking at the year the householder moved in to his or her home or apartment, the majority of people in every block group moved into the neighborhood within the last five to ten years. In block group 200 alone, 210 people moved into units over the last ten years. Mirroring the pattern of settlement in the block groups, the number of persons who moved into the city over the past ten years was just as great as the number of householders who moved into the Valley.

Thus, demographic characteristics of the Valley do not differ greatly from those of the city. There are, however, subtle differences in income from block group to group, and these differences are perhaps more interesting and useful for HANDS. Overall, the question of housing affordability is important as many residents pay a large percentage of their income for housing.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Research Methodology

• Develop a survey instrument.
• Meet with an advisory board.
• Implement the survey and collect data.
• Compile relevant secondary data from government and housing planning agencies.
• Analyze all data.
• Write a research report.

As stated in the research methodology, the method chosen to collect data and to encourage public participation was the citizen survey. The citizen survey is a means of collecting data and opinions which are representative of citizens in the specific study area. More importantly, it is a way in which the average citizen can have direct input in the planning process. A survey instrument can be defined as a method of systematically asking a number of people about their feelings, opinions and preferences, about their past, present and planned behavior, and about personal and household characteristics (Houten & Hatry, 1987: 1).

The design and administration of the survey was a collaborative process involving both HANDS and Project Community. The survey design process included meeting with community members, selecting a sample, and revising a prior survey document to produce our final instrument. We worked closely with Pat Morrissy to agree on a format and set of questions that would yield statistically significant data, and one that would produce the type on information needed to help HANDS build a networking base and identify leaders.

The community meeting, which took place before the survey was fully designed, gave us a chance to speak to residents about their fears, concerns, and desires for neighborhood improvement in the Valley. Although there were only three residents who attended the meeting, this informal exchange provided a good opportunity for us as students to face the challenges of "real life" community organizing. Unlike books and manuals which sometimes describe the process as orderly, this community meeting was informal and quite spontaneous.

After hearing from community residents, the next step was to take their input and combine it with our preliminary list of concerns, translating these into specific survey questions. We have learned that one of the most important things to keep in mind during the initial stages of planning a survey is to stay focused on the ultimate goal. Our research team has experienced shifting goals and objectives. While initially it appeared as though our assignment was primarily geared towards quantitative data collection, there has been a major shift now pointing in the direction of community organizing and relationship building.

During the design and revision process, we had to shorten the survey several times because it was initially too long. We also had to make the format clear and easy for the respondent and interviewer to follow, striving to keep the wording simple and the tone conversational. While constructing the survey instrument, we tried to adhere to the following theoretical guidelines : 1) ask the least sensitive questions first, 2) keep the respondent "burden to a minimum" trying to minimize the mental and emotional effort required to provide meaningful answers, 3) have a consistent frame of reference, 4) make answers and questions clear avoiding those in which the respondents are not likely to be knowledgeable and 6) avoid open-ended questions because they can be time consuming and difficult to tabulate ( Houten and Hatry, 1987: 14).

Finally, the survey design and revision process included selecting a sampling procedure as well as deciding which variables would be measured. The variables measured include: neighborhood satisfaction, perception of neighborhood problems, community involvement and perceived neighborhood strengths and demographics. In an effort to obtain valid and accurate information from a representative group of neighborhood households, we initially planned to use "systematic sampling" as our data collection technique. While this method is not strictly random, it can approximate randomness (Houten and Hatry, 1987: 9).

While systematic sampling was the originally anticipated as the method of sample selection, these methods were modified to allow us to collect a larger amount of data from a smaller geographic area. We attempted surveying every house on the chosen blocks, giving every household an equal chance. Despite our efforts to go at various times of the day, we still did not yield a 100% response rate.

Out of the various methods of data collection (i.e. telephone interview, mail questionnaire), we decided to use the in-person door-to-door interview. As we discovered last week while pilot testing the instrument, there are both benefits and liabilities that come along with this approach. For example, interviewing respondents in their home is the most time-consuming method. Furthermore, in recent years, safety concerns have considerably shrunk traditionally high response rates. On the other hand, in-person interviews can prove to be the most personal method of data collection and can also reach segments of the population who are difficult to interview by phone ( i.e. either because they do not have one, or because they have an unlisted number). Finally, the door-to-door survey, as opposed to the mail and telephone survey, allowed us to obtain clarification from respondents if it was necessary, and to see unspoken reactions and facial expressions which could not have been documented otherwise.

The actual door-to-door survey proved to be the most interesting and vital component of our research project. Although administering the survey was time consuming, it proved invaluable and allowed us to observe residents and to see their reactions to questions. While the survey on average took approximately 8 minutes to complete, there were many who stayed longer to discuss pressing issues and concerns. Discounting the few residents who refused to participate, the majority of respondents seemed happy to share their opinions with us. Overall, the data collection component of the project went well. Survey implementation enabled us to recruit residents, identify leaders, and to make HANDS more well known in the community. This component of the research was especially beneficial because it allowed us to build relationships with neighborhood residents. Our client, Pat Morrissy seemed satisfied with the high level of resident participation, the opportunity to recruit and identify leadership, and the willingness of residents to become involved in neighborhood organizing.

The survey was implemented in the target area over a period of six weeks. We were able to survey ten different blocks in the Valley neighborhood. Those streets were: Tremont, McChesney, Christopher, Langdon, Union, Beech, Valley, Chestnut and Liberty. The survey was carried out in 53 households.

THE SURVEY: DEMOGRAPHICS

The overall demographics of the surveyed group both mirrored and diverged from the greater Orange area. The racial and ethnic make-up of the households surveyed reflects, for the most part, the racial and ethnic make-up of Orange. Of the 53 people surveyed, 29 (54%) were African-American, twelve (22%) were Hispanic, seven were Caucasian (13%) and one was Asian. Four of the respondents were classified as "other." The Valley residents surveyed have attained a higher degree of education compared with the city as a whole. Of the people surveyed, 25 or 49 percent had received a high school diploma. This exceeds the average in Orange where, according to the 1990 census, only 29 percent of the population had a high school diploma. Nine (17%) of those surveyed had less than a high school diploma. Two of these respondents were still in school. Again, this compares favorably with Orange where 34 percent of the population has less than a high school degree. Fourteen ( 27%) of the Valley residents surveyed had either some college or a bachelors degree compared to only 18 percent for Orange. Two of the Valley residents surveyed had graduate level degrees.

While we were able to survey people who ranged in age from 18 to over 75, most of our respondents turned out to be between the ages of 25 and 54. Five people interviewed were between the ages of 18 and 24, and another five were between the ages of 55 and 64. Twelve people over the age of 65 were also surveyed. A large portion, 30 out of 53, of the Valley residents surveyed had children under the age of 18 living in their household. Most of the people interviewed were women, outnumbering men 32 to 21.

The survey found a wide range of employment status among Valley residents. Of those surveyed, two were students, seven were homemakers, another seven were retired, eight were unemployed, three were employed on a part-time basis and 19 were employed full time. On the basis of these figures, it is reasonable to assume that a fair number of people in the Valley neighborhood are at home in the day time. The survey also found a wide range of answers concerning the length of time the residents interviewed have lived in the area. The answers ranged from six months to 59 years. The mean amount of time for living in the area was close to twelve years. Twelve (23%) of the respondents can perhaps be classified as "old timers" having lived in the neighborhood for twenty or more years. By contrast, 15 (29%) of the respondents are relatively new to the area, having been in the Valley five years or less. Overall, the neighborhood seems relatively stable, with the bulk of the respondents having lived in the area for over five years.

SURVEY RESULTS

Overall, the survey results depict a community that cares about its neighborhood and appears willing to make an effort to make it better. This is not to say that the survey indicated that the people surveyed did not see problems in their community. There was, however, an overall sense that the Valley area was a good place to be. These findings are reinforced by the very surveying process. Although some respondents were reticent and wanted to get the survey over with as quickly as possible, most of the people we approached were very open and willing to talk to us. People volunteered their thoughts on subjects not included on the survey. Several times we were invited inside peoples' homes. Many people seemed pleased to give their opinions on their neighborhood. The fact that so many of the people we surveyed were open to talking about their neighborhood should be an encouraging sign for future participation events sponsored by HANDS.

Apart from the more general demographic questions outlined above, the survey was divided into three main sections. One section dealt with perceptions of neighborhood problems. Another section dealt with perceived neighborhood strengths. The final section asked questions on the level on community involvement.

The three biggest problems according to Valley residents are loitering, drug and alcohol use on the streets, and trash and litter on the streets. Thirty people, more than half of the survey respondents perceived loitering to be a problem in their neighborhood. Seventeen (33%) Valley residents perceived loitering as a "big problem." An additional 13 people (25%) perceived loitering as somewhat of a problem. Twenty-one people did not perceive it as a problem at all. The loitering was often attributed to teenagers and young men. Although it was not asked in our survey, several people mentioned that they thought there were not enough places for young adults to go, nor organized activities for them in which to be involved. Several people mentioned a spot behind the police station as a favorite hang-out for loiterers. There was a sense that loitering was accompanied by alcohol and/or drug consumption. Again, over half the respondents believed that drug and alcohol use was a problem in the community. Fourteen people (27%) believed it to be a big problem. Thirteen people (25%) believed it to be somewhat of a problem. Twenty-four people (46%) did not think it was a problem. In a different, but related question on crime, 15 respondents indicated that the selling of drugs was a common occurrence. One father expressed concern over drug sales to children, noting that drug dealers would sell to anyone, no matter how young.

More than half of those surveyed believed that trash and litter on the streets was problematic. Seven people thought it was a big problem, and 21 people thought it was somewhat of a problem. Twenty-three people did not perceive it as a problem. Trash and litter on the street is perhaps a less pressing and dangerous problem than the first two problems mentioned, and perhaps easier to solve.

Other problems mentioned but not deemed as pressing by the survey respondents include dilapidated or abandoned housing, car theft, and stealing. Out of a total of 46 responses, four people thought that rundown or vacant housing was a serious problem and an additional 14 people thought it was somewhat of a problem. Twenty-eight people were not concerned by it. Car theft and stealing raised some concern with Valley residents. Fourteen residents thought car theft was a common occurrence, 17 people thought that in general stealing was a problem. Other problems that were mentioned on the survey but not perceived as major problems were intimidation of residents, property damage and the threat of violence. In general, the survey reveals that although people believe that there are problems in the Valley, these problems are not yet out of control. Even among the top three problems, there was substantial variability in the perception of the problem.

Crosstabulations were run to isolate the ten streets surveyed to see if there was significant variability on the perception of neighborhood problems according to location of residence. For most blocks, there does not appear to be a strong relationship between the street and the perception of neighborhood problems, with two notable exceptions. One exception is very clear. Not one of the eight residents surveyed on Liberty Street believed that loitering, drug sales and drug use were a problem. This may be due to the fact that Liberty is set apart from the rest of the Valley neighborhood. It is the last street in Orange, on the border of West Orange. Union Street had somewhat similar results. Of the eight people surveyed on Union, only one believed that drug sales were a problem. Only three of the eight thought of loitering as a problem. Again, Union street is somewhat geographically disconnected from the rest of the Valley, leading into West Orange. When it came to the perception of trash and litter as a problem, there was not a clear a distinction between Union and Liberty Streets and the rest of the Valley. This indicates that although they may be somewhat separate from the rest of the Valley, they still share some of the same problems.

Complementing the fact that problems do not yet seem out of control in the neighborhood is the fact that Valley residents seem satisfied with the level of police protection. Twenty-five people had called the police in the past year. While some people reported that the police took a long time to reply to their call, most people were satisfied with police response time. The Valley area has had a crime watch in the area for some time. Knowledge of a crime watch was split 50/50. Twenty-four people knew of a crime watch, 24 did not. Thirty-seven thought a crime watch would be effective in deterring crime. Thirty people would consider getting involved.

Overall, Valley residents appear to be satisfied with their neighborhood. Twenty-five respondents (47.2%) were satisfied with the neighborhood. Twenty-two people (41.5%) were somewhat satisfied with living in the Valley. Only six people were not satisfied with their neighborhood. Although these are positive findings, they do not mean that there is no room for improvement, particularly in light of the perceived problems listed above. Another positive sign is that 29 people (55.8%) answered that they had good neighbors. 20 people (38.5%) characterized their neighbors as being average. Only one person said that he/she did not have good neighbors. Throughout the surveying process, it appeared that most people knew who at least some of their neighbors were. Several people made reference to the fact that their neighbors tended to watch out for one another. The fact that people even had an opinion about their neighbors and that many of them actually like their neighbors is a sign that there is still a strong sense of community in the Valley. This sense of community might prove to be an important resource in future organizing activities, which HANDS has been contemplating. Another response that supports the idea that there is a solid community in the Valley is that many people find out about what is going on in Orange by "word of mouth." Twenty-seven people surveyed got their information on Orange through their network of family, friends and neighbors in Orange.

Another strength of the community was good access to retail shopping. Thirty-seven people found that access to retail shopping was either good or average. Fifteen people felt that retail shopping in the area was weak. Some people did voice concern that Scotland Avenue was deteriorating and is no longer a good place to shop.

Although we asked the following three questions with hopes of finding positive trends, there was a certain degree of ambivalence in residents' answers. The surveys asked whether involvement of schools, police, city government, and churches in the community was strong average or weak. Twenty people (38%), either did not answer or did not know whether the schools were involved in the community. Twelve people (29.3%) believed school involvement was strong, 13 (31.7%) believed it was average and eight thought it was weak. Involvement of police was on the whole considered weak to average. Five people (10%) thought police were involved in the community, 27 (51%) thought their involvement was average and 15 (29.4%) thought they were not really involved. Six people did not answer this question. Perception of city government involvement in the community was not very strong. Fourteen people did not express an opinion or did not answer the question. Three people thought city government was very involved, 18 (36.7%) thought city was involvement was average and another 18 thought their involvement was weak. One institution that was perceived as involved in the community was the church. Seventeen people believed the church was actively involved in the community. Twelve people though their involvement was average, another twelve thought it was weak. Twelve people did not answer this question. Of all the groups the church is probably the most active in the community. Groups like Industrial Areas Foundation have used churches as their spring boards to community organizing. This is a possible route for HANDS. There might be the potential for organizing around schools, as more than half of the households surveyed had children in school.

This final section of the survey perhaps reveals the most important information for HANDS. It reveals if and how Valley residents are involved in the community and more importantly whether they are willing to be involved in a neighborhood association. Involvement in church groups was the highest, followed by involvement of school groups and finally by civic groups. Of those who responded to this question, 32 (62.7) people said that they were active in their church, compared to 19 (37.3) who were not involved in a church. 18 people were involved in the PTA or other school group. Only eleven people were active in a civic organization.

Perhaps the most important finding of the survey was that 37 people (71.2%) answered that they would be willing to volunteer time to a neighborhood association. Even people who did not express willingness to join a community organization believed it could do good for their community. Forty-four people thought a neighborhood association could be beneficial for the community while only four people thought it would not make any difference. The potential for successful community organizing appears to be there. The task lies in challenging people to prove their intentions through action.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING LITERATURE REVIEW

In an attempt to address some of the simmering social problems in the Valley, HANDS has decided to pursue community organizing as a strategy for redevelopment. "We are now expanding our missions to focus on neighborhood organizing dealing with housing, jobs, crime, and overall neighborhood improvement" ( The Discount Foundation 1995 Grant Application, 1994). This section seeks to define the terms "community development" and "community organizing" which are so frequently used in the wake of the 1990's community development movement. Furthermore, there will be a review of pertinent literature regarding the structure and process of community organizing, so that HANDS, as it evolves, will be able to use this as a guide and reference for future organizing efforts.

The following literature provides commentary, insight, and practical information about various approaches to community organizing. Literature reviewed in this section includes the following: 1) Ron Shiffman and Susan Motley's Comprehensive and Integrative Planning for Community Development, 2) Mercer Sullivan's report More Than Housing, and 3) Power to be Heard, Community Issues, in a special issue of City Limits. While some community development literature characterizes community organizing as being built around reactionary issue-orientated campaigns, there is other literature which describes a proactive, long-term approach to neighborhood planning. Regardless of which style of community organizing is preferred, most would agree that community organizations should help people get a sense of the way the world works, open a path for them to think about how it could be, and provide them with an opportunity to change at least a small part of it. (Delgado, in White: 1993, 8). Furthermore, organizing means "fostering leadership from within the community, instilling an understanding of what it takes to work as a group and develop an institution that can grow, change, and persist well beyond the current campaign" (White:1993, 6).

In their article Comprehensive and Integrative Planning for Community Development, Motley and Shiffman suggest that perhaps "the greatest void in CDC influence has been in the areas of advocacy and organizing. In the past, community development activity has moved towards quantifiable measurements where productivity became narrowly defined by 'units produced'. This emphasis on quantifiable (principally 'hard') products has resulted in a de-emphasis on qualitative (principally 'soft') projects and programs that in turn, has led to a shelving of strategies which integrate social, physical, and economic activities" ( Shiffman and Motley, 1990: 4).

Many CDCs and CBOs are currently in the process of broadening their scope of development activities. They are making the transition from physical development to social development projects and community organizing as well. "Community development, as the saying goes, is not just about bricks and mortar, but about social revitalization" ( Sullivan, 1992: 2). Making this transition however, requires a shift from the development of tangible materials and financial capital to the development of human capital. There are indeed benefits in using community organizing to achieve balanced development and comprehensive planning. Organizing, social action, and advocacy, when used properly, can be extremely effective in providing social and economic activities. More importantly, they are critical factors in the development of human capital, often reaching those that traditional educational and training programs bypass (Shiffman and Motley, 1990: 14).

Mercer Sullivan's report, More Than Housing, addresses the need for comprehensive planning and program development particularly emphasizing the efforts of CDCs to include social and cultural development projects. Directly related to HANDS's desire to provide more than just physical housing in the Valley, this literature explores the realities of going from mastering hard development projects to mastering soft development projects. Sullivan begins by offering a basic definition of community development; based on principles of self-help and grass-root initiative, community development encompasses a wide range of activities designed to improve the physical, economic, and social conditions in communities. The report further identifies a number of CDCs that, like HANDS, are trying to link services and organizing to housing development and management in ongoing efforts to craft a multifaceted place-based renewal strategy (Sullivan, 1990: 10).

The literature continues by defining community development as a particular type of anti-poverty strategy that aims to revitalize decaying neighborhoods rather than dispersing their residents elsewhere, or waiting for a generally rising tide to lift them up by their bootstraps. Thus, as a means of bringing about positive change, CDCs, are engaged in advocacy and community organizing in the areas surrounding CDC housing developments.

While the first two pieces of literature deal directly with the concepts and ideology of community development, this last section describes organizing as a practical component of neighborhood redevelopment. HANDS, in their efforts to select organizing strategies which best suit their geographic and demographic composition, have identified Industrial Areas Foundation's (IAF) style and approach to community organizing as a potential model for leadership development and organization building. "We are most impressed with the way in which the Industrial Areas Foundation concentrates on leadership development and organization building. We hope to build on their model and link the organizing closely to our housing and community development mission" (The Discount Foundation 1995 Grant Application, 1994: 6). Furthermore, we introduce organizing methods and techniques used by the Midwest Academy to serve as a guide and a reference for future organizing efforts.

Founded by Saul Alinsky in 1940, IAF has a distinct and effective style of community organizing. The ideology of IAF reflects its commitment to religious and cultural diversity, to organizing campaigns which are multi-issued, and to a strict independence from political electoral parties. The actual structure of the organization centers around he following fundamentals which have been key to IAF success:

• Accountability - Every person in the organization is held accountable for time, quotas, commitments, money, and relationships.
• Action - Action is at the heart of IAF. Meaningful action is aimed, deliberate, calculated, and focused. The action that an organization takes is not as important as the reaction if elicits. It is through action that decision makers are brought into contact with the people affected by their power. No significant social change can come about without pressure and confrontation.
• Broad-Based Organization - The modern IAF has perfected the constructing of an organization of organizations by bringing differing institutions and self-interest groups to the same table over issues of mutual concern.
• Collective Leadership - Most people have leadership qualities but their talents are often unrecognized and underdeveloped. IAF has no traditional officers. Seven to nine people serve for short, revolving periods, sharing the operation or the organization with one or two organizers.
• Evaluation - The organization carefully, formally, and systematically evaluates everything that is done, both locally and nationally. It is as important to assess and learn from each activity as it is to plan and implement it.
• Ownership - IAF organizations adhere to an "iron rule". Never do for people what they can do for themselves. Local people are the best judges of what they want and need and if, given the opportunity, they will be able to get it for themselves.
• Power - The purpose of organizing is for power. Power tends to come in two forms : organized money and organized people. IAF believes small amounts of organized money, coupled with large amounts of organized people, can open the door for meaningful participation.
• Professional Organizers - The IAF national supervisors and team of leaders continually recruit, train, and oversee the work of highly qualified organizers with a particular emphasis on recruitment from poor and working class communities in which the organizations are located. A competent organizer is the linchpin of organizational success.
• Public Life - Democratic politics is not only an engagement among people with differing self-interests, issues, approaches and opinions, but a public encounter in which people exchange, trade-off, revise interests and change opinions. Democratic politics realizes itself through agitation, struggle, conflict, forced revision and mutual respect.
• Self Determination - The IAF organizations are financially self-sufficient with their primary source of income being their dues - paying member institutions. The IAF accepts no funds from the federal, state, or local governments. ( IAF Organizing for Change 1990 : 6-8)

In addition to IAF fundamentals which guide and direct the organization, the Midwest Academy recommends the attached strategy chart as an essential element in this process. (See Appendix)

While the term community development connotes images of long term structured projects, Organizing for Social Change - A Manual for Activists written by the Midwest Academy, broadens this scope to include issue-oriented campaigns and direct action organizing. Midwest Academy focuses on the following three principles as their foundation for organizing: 1) winning real, immediate, and concrete improvements in peoples' lives, 2) giving people a sense of their own power, and 3) altering the relations of power. Often characterized as short term and reactionary, these issue oriented campaigns are designed to win victories over a specific issues. People get something they have never had before when someone with power agrees to do something that he or she previously refused to do (Shelterforce, 1993: 13). Direct action organizing is about winning issues and achieving short term victories and should be considered by community based organizations as a legitimate mode of achieving neighborhood redevelopment.

Guided by the principles of fostering a sense of community, promoting economic self sufficiency, empowering people, and increasing community involvement and citizenship, HANDS has realized its potential to be an effective community development corporation. In the section entitled The Action Plan, HANDS has pinpointed several of its goals and objectives--some of which have already been achieved through Project Community.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations, made for future planning and redevelopment, address HANDS's desire to do the following:

1. build organizational strength and direction,
2. address important social and cultural issues, and
3. identify and secure funding sources.

Based on HANDS's desire to grow as an effective CDC that plans for both social and physical revitalization, we suggest that a strategic plan be created which speaks directly to the process of community development. In regards to this process, we suggest that HANDS begins by sponsoring a series of community meetings allowing residents to come together and become familiar with each other and the HANDS board. The first meeting should be arranged immediately to share survey results and to further identify key issues of concern. These meetings will also serve as forums to discuss relevant local and national issues which call for neighborhood action.

Recommendations also include the restructuring of the HANDS board to include representatives from the community. We encourage HANDS, as it grows, to utilize the talents of those community leaders, as identified by the survey, to advance future organizing efforts. Furthermore, in regards to organizational structure and purpose, we advise the use of visioning to identify a collective vision for redevelopment. We also advise the use of a "strategy chart" to encourage the development of both long and short term goals and tactics to be used for direct action organizing.

Based on survey results which indicated that the top two neighborhood problems were loitering and drug and alcohol abuse, we recommend that HANDS develops innovative educational, recreational, and cultural programs which address the apparent lack of activity for children and youth. When speaking to neighborhood residents, they felt as if loitering could be attributed to teenagers, specifically young men, who have nothing better to do than to stand on the corner selling drugs. Although it was not formally asked in the survey, several respondents mentioned that there were not enough places for young adults to go, or activities for them to participate in. A good way to combine HANDS's experience in physical development with their concern for social and community needs would be to explore the sponsorship of constructing a cultural community center that would host educational and recreational classes for youth. CDCs in other areas also engage in partnerships with for-profit entities where business leaders serve as mentors to youth while providing them with summer jobs.

Finally, a non-profit organization must be concerned with raising money and securing financial support and assistance. Although community organizing focuses on the development of human capital, financial stability can be even more important to organizational longevity. Thus we suggest that the H-EASY 2000 Governor's report be used as a reference for uncovering possible financial assistance.

The H-EASY 2000 plan advises communities and neighborhood groups that there cannot be physical and structural renewal without economic and social development. In order to encourage this comprehensive approach to neighborhood planning, the newly introduced Strategic Revitalization policy will invest state and federal dollars into selected neighborhoods who can generate comprehensive solutions with a bottom-up approach. As part of this process, communities will analyze indicators like decaying infrastructure, incidence of crime, decreases in private investment, and so forth with the assistance of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA). As a part of this strategic revitalization process, NJDCA will establish a team from its Division of Housing and Community Resources, New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (NJHMFA) and Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) to assist neighborhoods. This team will be responsible for providing technical assistance and will encourage partnerships between public and private organizations ( H-EASY 2000 : A Housing Policy for the State of New Jersey 1995: 12-13).

The state has pledged additional resources to promote the creation of housing and community economic development in neighborhoods through the Neighborhood Development Initiative Fund. This fund will provide for the partnering of inexperienced non-profits with either experienced non-profit or for-profit entities so that the newer organizations can learn from their more experienced counterparts. In addition, operating grants to community-based non-profit organizations to fund community or economic development staff positions will also be provided through the Neighborhood Development Initiative Fund. These grants have a three year maximum and will be judged by strict performance standards. Finally, NJHMFA, in conjunction with LISC, will be offering interest free loans and providing much needed technical assistance to CDCs and CBOs in urban areas. We recommend that HANDS utilizes these funding sources and continues to seek both private and public funds.

CONCLUSION

The survey and the analysis of our results have clarified the issues and concerns of Valley residents. The survey has also revealed potential strengths and potential weaknesses within the community. Particularly important and encouraging news for HANDS is the finding that the overwhelming majority of residents surveyed said they were willing to join a neighborhood association. HANDS can use these positive responses as an impetus for future community activity. It is our recommendation that HANDS moves quickly to involve the interested residents in HANDS's endeavors. It is our belief that there is much untapped human capacity in the Valley that can be directed towards the creation of a stronger and more vibrant community.

HANDS may also with to explore coordinating its efforts with the recently announced Urban Strategy initiative announced by Governor Whitman. Under this plan, the state will coordinate its various departments' services and target these resources to localities which have identified neighborhood needs and key actors through development of a Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (NRP). This survey could serve as a first step for HANDS to assist in helping Orange develop an NRP as well as create some of the groundwork needed to organize the community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bobo, Kim, Jackie Kendall and Steve Max. Successful Organizing Strategies. Shelterforce, March/April 1992, Vol. XIV, no. 2. pp. 12-15.

Bureau of Government Services.1994. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.p. 48.

Delgado, Gary. quoted in, Power to be Heard, Community Organizing. City Limits August/September 1993 Vol. XVIII. p. 6.

DiGiacinto, Val. Townhomes First Project for Panelized Factory Recently Opened in Inner-City of New Jersey. Automated Builder March 1994 p. 14.

Epstein, Robin. IAF 50 Years - Organizing for Change. City Limits March 1995 pp. 18-24.

Housing And Neighborhood Services (HANDS). 1994. 1995 Discount Foundation Grant Proposal.

Houten van, Therese and Harry P. Hatry. 1987. How to Conduct a Citizen Survey. Planning Advisory Service Report, Number 404. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.

Motley, Susan and Ron Shiffman. March 1990. Comprehensive and IntegrativePlanning for Community Development. New York: Community Development Research Center , New School for Social Research.

New Jersey Association for Children. 1993. Kids Count. p 20 and p.62.

New Jersy Department of Community Affairs. 1995. H - EASY 2000 : A Housing Policy for the State of New Jersey. Trenton, NJ. pp. 11 - 13.

Shiffman, Ronald. Neighborhoods as an Entry Point for Change. Conference Report, Cleveland, OH: Building Strong Communities - Strategy for Change Conference, May 13 - 15, 1992. pp.3-7.

Sullivan, Mercer L. 1993. More Than Housing : How Community Development Corporations Go About Changing Lives and Neighborhoods. New York: Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research, pp. 1-140.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census of Population and Housing.

White, Andrew. Power to be Heard, Community Organizing. City Limits August/September 1993. Vol. XVIII. pp.6-8.