HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Impact on Surrounding Neighborhood of Group HomesIIIPACfS ON nIB SURROUNDING NBIGHBORHOOD OP GROUP HOIIBS POR PBRSONS WITH DBVELOPIIBNTAL DISABILITIBS
by
Daniel Lauber
TABLB OP CONTENTS
Page Ezecutive SUDKDary 1 Introduction: Purpo.e of Thi. Study 3 Me ,t hodo logy Property Values ,, Neighborhood Stability 7 Neighborhood Safety 7 Finding. 9 Property Values 9
Neighborhood Stability 11
Neighborhood Safety 13
Conclu.ion. 18
APPENDICES
A: ~.cription of Stati.tical Te.t. A -J
B: Group HOme. Studied B-1
C: Li.t of Control Neighborhood. C - 1
0: Studies on Impacta of Group HOme. and Halfway
HOu.e. on Property Value. and TUrnover 0-1
E: Criminal Involvement Survey E - 1
A CENOWLBDGBIIBNTS
A number of profes.ionals in a variety of field. contributed to this
report. The author would like to thank the following individual. and agencies
for their cooperation in the preparation of this .tudy:
Governor'. Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities: 10hn 0' Brien.
Grant Monitor. and Ro.alie Steinhour. Grants Manager.
Champaign: Champaign Department of Planning and Economic Development'. Ivy
Lewi.; Mid-State Realty'. P re.ident 1o.eph Corley.
Jack.onville: City of 1 ack.onville '. Building and Zoning In.pector Dan Griffin;
Grojean Realty'. Dorothy Matthew. and Dorothy Floreth.
Rockford: Department of Community Development'. Barb Davidson; Rockford Board
of Realtotl' Ezecutive Vice-President Donald C. Nyman and Ms. Terri Hall.
Northwestern University Departments of Mathematics and Statistic.: Allociate
Profellor Sandy Zabell.
11mel Greer. who gathered sales data for half the sites and control areas and
performed the .tati.tical te.ts for this study.
lliinois Department of Law Enforcement: 10 Ellyn Reeder, I-UCR Program Manager,
Bureau of Identification.
In addition, thanks go to the 74 operators of group home. in lliinois who
re.ponded to our crime survey. They constituted 93.6 percent of all group home
operatotl in the state. Such a high response rate enabled us to identify a
lilhly reliable crime rate among persons with developmental disabilities who
live in group home. in lliinois.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE ISSUE
As the nate.on continues to shift the care of persons with developmental disabilities to family-like settings in group homes located in our CltleS and villages, there are Citizens who fear that group homes will adversely affect their neighborhoods. Most frequently voiced are concerns that a group home will reduce property values, upset neighborhood stability, and jeopardiz e safety m the surrounding neighborhood.
Most citizens are unaWaI'e that the findings of more than 20 studies con
ducted around tht: country show that these concerns are unfounded. 1 Motivated by
these fears, neighbors of proposed group homes have often opposed efforts to
open group hom es in the safe, residential neighborhoods in which they belong.
Because none of these studies examines the effects of group homes on
Illinois communities, the Governor's Planning Council commissioned this study
to:
(1) Determine what effect, if any, group homes for persons with developmental
disabilities have on property values in the surrounding community in
different types of municipalities;
(2) Determine what effect, if any, group homes for persons with developmental
disabilities have on neighborhood stability in different types of munici
palities; and
(3) Determine what effect, if any, group homes for persons with developmental
disabilities have on safety m the surrounding neighborhood.
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
This study provides the concrete evidence local officials need at zoning
hearings to identify the actual effects of group homes on the surrounding
community. According to the United States Supreme Court, a municipality does
not have to conduct its own studies of the impacts of a land use to arrive at
conclusions or findings as to what that use's effects are. Instead, it c an base
its findings of the proposed Land use's impacts on studies conducted in other
coomunities.2 Consequently, zoning boards can use this study's findings -and
those of the other studies on the effects of group homes -to arrive at conclu
sions as to the impacts a proposed group home would have on the surrounding
neighborhood.
1. Appendix D lists the studies on property values and turnover. See infra
notes 7 and 8 for studies on crime and safety.
2. See City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 925 (1986).
1
--_._-------_._--------
Similarly, local officials can rely on these findings when they revise their zoning provisions for group homes to comply with the standards set by the Supreme Court that require governments to zone for group homes in a rational 3manner.This study can also be used to fully inform the neighbors of a proposed group home what effects, if any, the proposed group home would actually have on their neighborhood. By presenting well before any zoning hearing, grbased on unfounded myths. this oup information home operators to propspective can alleviate neighbors concerns FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This study tracked the sales of 2261 residential properties in the immediate neighborhoods surrounding 14 group home sites and 14 control neighborhoods" to determine whether group homes for persons with developmental disabil
ities have any effect on the value of neighboring properties or on the rate at
which properties are sold in the immediate neighborhood.
The data conclusively showed that:
(1) Group homes do not affect the value of residential property
in the surrounding neighborhood, and
(2) Group homes do not affect the stability of the surround
ing neighborhood.
This study also tracked, over a three year period, the aCtlVltles of over
2200 persons with developm ental disabilities who live in Illinois community
residences, including group homes, to identify any criminal activities in which
they may have participated.
This exhaustive survey of all operators of residences for persons with
developmental disabilities conclusively found that:
The crime rate for persons with developmental disabilities who
live in Illinois group homes is substantially lower than the
crime rate for the general Illinois population. These group home
residents pose no threat to safety in the neighborhood surround
ing the group home.
This study I s findings comport with those of more than 20 other studies of
the impacts of group homes. Together they form one of the most exhaustive
bodies of research on any -specific land use. They· offer sound evidence that
group homes do not adversely affect the surrounding community.
3. See City of Cleburne y. Cleburne Liyin" Center, 105 S.Ct. 3249 (1985).
4. Each control neighborhood was similar to the corresponding group home neigh
borhood except there was no group home in the control neighborhood. For a
explanation of the role of control neighborhoods in this study, see.infa, the
section on methodology.
2
INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
As the deinstitutionalization of persons with developmental disabilities continues in Illinois, the need for group homes to house and support these deinstitutiona1iz~:d individuals grows. But neighborhood Opposit10n to such community residences has all-too-often effectively stymied efforts to locate group homes in the safe, quiet, residential neighborhoods in which they belong. This opposition stems largely from myths about the impacts group homes and their residents have on property values, neighborhood stability, and neighborhood safety. B,:cause local zoning ordinances in Illinois generally require a group home sponsor to obtain a special use permit before opening the hom e, the sponsor must Wll1 approval from both a zoning board and city council. Both bodies may conduct public hearings at which opponents typically voice their fears and produce a local Realtor or real estate appraiser who, on the basis of mere speculation, testifies that the proposed group home will lower property values and upset the stability of the neighborhood. Proponents may produce
their own real e,!itate expert to testify to the contrary, again without any data
to back her up.
But neither witness is nearly as credible as the expert who can identify
scientifically-sound studies of the effects of a group home on the surrounding
neighborhood. At least twenty scientific studies have been conducted. 5 They all
show no adverse effects. Albeit credible and scientifically sound, these
studies have not been conducted in Illinois. An Illinois study is necessary to
satisfy the objection sometimes made at zoning hearings that, "Sure, that's
what they found in Wisconsin and New York. But this is Illinois and we just
aren't the same animall"
This study overcomes this objection by furnishing scientifically-sound
data on the actual effects group homes for persons with developmental disabili
ties have on residential property values, neighborhood st ability, and neighbor
hood safety. Service providers can use this study to reliably answer the ques
tions neighbors 0: a proposed group home often have concerning the impacts, if
any, a group home actually has on the surrounding community. The study can be
used by local planners charged with making local zoning ordinance prOViSions
for group homes more rational, and before zoning boards. city councils, and in
court by expert witnesses who seek to identify the actual effects, if any, that
group homes for individuals with developmental disabilities have on the sur
rounding neighborhood.
As one loc a1 newspaper recently reported, neighbors of a proposed group
home aho frequently voice concerns over neighborhood safety: "More than a
half-dozen Hanover Park homeowners -relieved that a single-family home for
mentally retardec. adults won t t be operated in their neighborhood -told [vil
lage J trustees Monday night that they I feared I for their lives until the real
estate deal fell through. II 6
Despite over. 66 years of research showing that persons with developmental
5. Se e infra Appendix D for a list and brief description of these studies.
6. Q~ner mxes site sale for Clearbrook hom~, Daily Herald, Feb. 17, 1981, at
1-3.
3
disabilities are not criminally prone,7 many citizens fear that a group home for persons with developmental disabilities could reduce safety in the surrounding neighborhood. It appears that only a 1979 Virginia study had previously examined crime rates among persons with developmental disabilities who lived in group homes. 8 That study found that persons with a developmental disability are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the general population. The study found a crime rate of 0.8 percent for developmentally disabled individuals living in the community, compared to a crime rate of 4 to 6 percent for the United States as a whole for 1976-1978. As with the studies on property values and turnover, there has been no study of the effects of group homes on neighborhood safety in Illinois communities. This study fills that gap by identifying the crime rate among persons with developmental disabilities who live in the community and comparing it to the crime rate for the general population in Illinois.
7. The first such study, of 1537 persons with mental retardation released from
institutions over a 25-year period, found an 8 percent crime rate among males.
Walter Fernald, ~Proaram ill the C.all. g.i the Mentally Retarded, 3 Mental
Hygiene 566 (1919). Five years later Fernald's study of 5000 Massachusetts
school children with m ental retardation found that less than 8 percent, a
relatively low proportion, showed signs of antisocial or troublesome behavior.
Walter Fernald, Thirty Years Prones, in ~ C.!!ll. g.i the Feebleminded, 290
Journal of Psycho-Asthenics 206 (1924).
For more recent research, ~ MacEachron, Mentally Retarded Offenders;
Prevalence .irul Characteristics, 84 American Journal of Mental Disability 165,
175 (1979); D. Biklen and S. Mlinarcik, Criminal Justices, in 10 Mental Retar
dation and Developmental Disabilities (J. Wortis ed. 1978); D. Biklen, MnbL.
Mistreatm.m14 .md Pitfalls, 45 Mental Retardation 51 (Aug. 1977); Santamour
and West, ~Mentally Retarded Offender .md Corrections 3, 28 (National Insti
tute of Law Enforement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Agency,
U. S. Dept. of Justice 1977); ~Mentally Retarded Citizen and ~ Criminal
Justice Sn.ttm (working papers for Charleston, S.C. Symposium, Santamour ed.
Feb. 23-25, 1975).
8. Peggy Gould, R~on 1M. Incidence g.i Client Ctim~ ~CQmmunity-Based
Programming 7 (1979).
Gould contacted 86 Virginia agencies that operated group homes and other
residential arrangements, or that furnished day care support programmmg for
individuals with developmental disabilities. She gathered data on all types of
criminal activity by the 4,538 persons living in or participating in these
programs. She found a crime rate of 0.8 percent for persons with developmental
disabilities who live in the community (in group homes, boarding houses, or on
their own) and a rate of 1.6 percent for those who participate only in day
programs. !d. at 2-3, 7. Only eight of the 1,061 persons living in the commun
ity were involved in criminal acts as follows; theft (4), sexual assault (1),
drunken and disorderly conduct (2), other (1). Id.. at 2. Overall, 56 of 4,538
individuals with developmental disabilities participated in criminal activities
as follows; theft (13), breaking and entering (3), sexual assault (3), rape
(0), disturbing the peace (10), assault with a deadly weapon 0), marijuana
possession (1), drunken and disorderly conduct (12), other (15). Id.. at 6.
Among persons with deve10pm ental disabilities, only 56 participated in
crimes. On the average, out of 4,538 nonhandicapped persons, 182 to 272 could
be expected to engage in criminal activity.
4
METHODOLOGY
The first two parts of this study examined the effects on residential property values and turnover of 14 of the 164 group homes for persons with developmental disabilities in Illinois. The homes were selected from lists of two group home funding programs -Community Residential Alternatives (CRA) and Home Individual Programs (HIP Homes)9 -furnished by several state agencies. The 14 homes were selected to assure that there would be several from each of the following types of municipalities: (1) high density urban neighborhoods in Chicago; (2) suburban municipalities (Glenview, Mount Prospect, and Schaumburg); (3) two sizeable municipalities in rural counties (Rockford and Champaign); and (4) a small municipality in a rural county with no town larger than 25,000 population (J acksonville).10 Four of the selected homes are HIP Homes; ten are CRAs. The third part of this study was a mail survey of all operators of commun
ity living arrangements for persons with developmental disabilities in Illinois
to determine the rate at which residents of these homes engaged in criminal
activ1ties. Several state agencies furnished lists of these operators. A fol
low-up telephone survey of a random sample of 10 percent of the operators
revealed that everyone had consulted agency records to complete their survey
form.
Property Values
To determine a group home I s effect on property values, we compared the
mean (average) sales price of all residential ownership property sales 11 within
a five-block radius of each group home for two years before and two years after
the home opened. 12 If the presence of a group home actually reduces property
values, the mean sale price after the group home opened would be less than the
mean sale price before the group home opened, and this difference in mean sale
price would be statistically significant. 13
9. See infra the section on Neighborhood Safety, on pages 7 and 8, for brief
descriptions of the group homes funded under these two programs.
10. See .inf.u!. Appendix B for a description and data on each group home examined
in this study.
11. "R esidential ownership property sales" include the sale of single-family
houses, duplexes, three-flats, and condominiums. None of the areas studied
included mobile home parks. Sales of special properties, such as retirement
village units, mobile homes, and empty lots, were excluded so they would not
skew the data.
12. The five-block radius was used to assure there would be a sufficient number
of sales to produce useable statistics. Because they were expected to be denser
and have greater real estate aCtiV1ty, a smaller, four-block radius was used
for each of the Chicago and suburban sites. A two-year time frame was used
whenever possible. However, some homes opened less than two years ago. A
shorter time frame was employed for these homes and corresponding control
neighborhoods. For the time frame used for each house, see the individual group
home descriptions in Appendix B.
13. See .in.f.u. Appendix A for an explanation of statistical significance.
5
In addition, we identified a "control" neighborhood for each group home. A control neighborhood is another neighborhood, in the same city as the group home, that is virtually identical to the neighborhood in which the group home is located. Each of these was selected to match, as closely as possible, one of the group home neighborhoods in terms of age of housing, housing mix, racial composition, and mean price of ownership residential units. 14 The key difference between f:ach group home neighborhood and each matching control neighborhood was the a.bsence of a group home in the control neighborhood. We conducted on-site inspections of the group home and control neighborhoods to confirm their comparability and corroborate the census data. We designated a site in the center of each control neighborhood around which we established the same radius and collected residential property sales for the same time intervals as for the corresponding group home neighborhood. 15 In some CltleS, we employed the same control neighborhood for each of two group homes because that control neighborhood was the best match for both group home neighborhoods. However, because the time frames studied for each group home differed, we obtained
different data for the corresponding control neighborhoods. Consequently, using
the same contl:ol neighborhoods in conjunction with two group home sites does
not confound the data.
Control ndghborhoods were identified in case the research found a sta tis
tic ally significant decline in mean sale price for any group home neighborhood
after the group home opened. If that had happened, it would have been necessary
to compare this difference to the data for the corresponding control neighbor
hood to see 1£ the control neighborhood, without a group home, experienced a
similar statisttcally significant decline in mean sale price. If it did, then
the decline in mean sale price after the group home opened would most likely
have been due to a general decline in the market and not due to the group home.
If it didn't, then the group home would have been the most probable cause of
the decline in property values. However, it is important to note here that in
no instance was there a statistically significant decline in property values
after a group home opened.16
Sales data came from two types of sources. We extracted sales prices from
the Multiple Listing Service records for the study areas in Rockford, Cham
paign, and Jacksonville. For the Chicago, Glenview, Morton Grove, and Schaum
burg sites, we culled the Realty Sales Guide published quarterly by the Law
Bulletin Publishing Company. Both of these sources furnish highly reliable
samples: of ne,uly all residential property sales.
14. Fen the four Chicago sites, 1980 census tract data was used, as published
in ~ C~.Q.mmunity Fail. Book .::. Chicago Metropolitan Area, edited by the
Chicagc, Fact Book Consortium (Chicago: Department of Sociology, University of
Illinois at Chicago, 1984). Block-by-block data from the 1980 United States
Census prepaHd by the Chicago Area Geographic Information Study of the
Geography Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was used for the
ten other sites ..
15. See Appendix C for a list of the control neighborhoods.
16. See Table 1. The one instance where there was a statistically signi
ficant increase (Schaum burg, site S-7) should not be attributed to opening the
group home.
6
------------_._--_._-----
The data on mean sale price before and after the dates on which group homes opened, and the applicable statistical tests, appear in tables 1 and 2 in the Findings section of this report. Neilhborhood Stability The same study and control areas, and time frames, used in the property value part of this study were used here to identify annualized turnover rates to determine if the presence of a group home affected neighborhood stability. If the presence of a group home actually affects the stability of the sunounding neighborhood, the average difference between the change in turnover rates after group homes opened in the 14 group home neighborhoods, and the change in turnover rates in the 14 couesponding control neighborhoods, would be statistically significant. No statistical test could be applied directly to the individual turnover rates because they are rates and not a data sample. However, a Matched Pair Analysis, could be applied to the average difference in the change in turnover rates for the 14 group home and control neighborhoods. This analysis and statistical test are described in Appendix A.
We determined the number of residential ownership properties in each
geographic area by examining city records and with on-site inspections when the
character of a property was not clear. AnnualUed turnover rates were deter
mined by first dividing the number of residential ownership property sales by
the number of residential ownership properties in the geographic area, and then
adjusting this figure to reflect the annualized rate of sales.
The turnover rate data appear in Table 3. The statistical tnt on the
average difference in turnover rates appears in Table 4 in the Findings section
of this report.
Neilhborhood Safety
To determine whether persons with developmental disabilities who live in
the community pose any threat to neighborhood safety, it was necessary to
determine their crime rate and compare it to the crime rate of the general
population in Illinois. A crime rate is expressed as "x" number of crimes per
1000 penons. If the crime rate for persons with developmental disabilities who
live in community residences, including group homes, is higher than that of the
general population, then group homes would pose a threat to neighborhood
safety. If their crime rate is the same or less than the crime rate for the
general population, then group homes pose no threat to neighborhood safety.
To determine the crime rate for persons with developmental disabilities
who lived in community residences during 1983, 1984, and 1985, we conducted a
mail survey of the 79 agencies that operated these reaidences in Illinois
during those years. Seventy-four of the 79 operators returned completed sur
veys. This 93.6 percent response rate was so high that the results constitute
virtually the entire universe of community residences, including group homes,
in Illinois, not just a statistical sample, and make the results highly
reliable.
The questionnaire ,reproduced in Appendix E, divided the surveyed communi
ty residences into three types based on size:
(1) "Residences for 1 to 3 persons" refer to independent living arrangements
like Home Individual Programs (HIP Homes) and Supported Living Arrange
ments (SLAs) for one to three persons with developmental disabilities.
7
These residences are usually located in rented apartments where staff assistance ranges from around the clock supervision to periodic visits by support staff for persons with the least disabling conditions. (2) "R esidences for four to eight persons" include group homes funded as Communit" Residential Alternatives (CRA) and Intermediate Care Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled (ICF/DD for 15 and fewer). Twenty-four hour staff superviSion is the norm. Staff may consist of live-in house parents or be furnished on a shift basis, or a combination thereof. (3) "Residences for nine to 20 persons" include Community Living Facilities (CLF) and ICF /DDs for 15 or fewer residents. Twenty-four hour staff supervision is the norm. Staff may consist of live-in house parents or be furnished on a shift basis, or a combination of both. The survey asked agency staff to examine agency records to identify, by year and type of residence, the number of residents who had been accused of a crime, and the number actually convicted. For this survey "accused of a crime"
meant any instance where someone, including another group home resident,
claimed a grou.p home resident had committed a crime, whether or not charges
were actually filed or the accusation was determined to be unfounded. These
figures include complaints to group home operators whether or not a formal
criminal charge was made. Unfounded accusations include instances where a
"stolen" article turns out to have been merely misplaced, and where in one
case, a group home resident who charged another with rape later admitted she
fabricated the whole story.
The crime rate for the general Illinois population includes only those
crimes reported to the police for which there is some foundation. Reported
crimes later learned to be unfounded -such as a theft report where the owner
later discovers he had merely misplaced the "stolen" item -are excluded from
the crime rate for the general population shown in Table 7 in the Findings
section of this report.
In the survey for this report, the number of accusations overstates the
actual crime rate because many accusations prove to be unfounded. Consequently,
the number of accusations, by itself, is not comparable to the crime rate for
the general population. To develop some basis to compare the crime rate of the
general population to that of persons with developmental disabilities living in
community residences, we also asked the surveyed agencies to report the number
of their residents actually convicted of a crime. By itself, the conviction
rate understates the actual crime rate because the judicial process does not
result in a conviction for every criminal act. The actual Illinois crime rate
for persons with developmental disabilities who live in community residences
lie. somewhere between the rate of convictions (minimum crime rate) and accusa
tions (maximum crime rate). This range is reported in Table 7 in the Findings
section of this report.
8
FINDINGS
Property Values FINDING: Proprrty values rose in 79 percent of the neighborhoods with a group home and in 71 percent of the Ileighborhoods that did not contain a group home. This finding reflects the data and statistical tests shown in Table 1: Changes in Mean Sales Price Before and After Dates on Which Group Homes Q:iened. 17 After a group home opened, property values rose in 11 of the 14 group home neighborhoods and in 10 of the 14 corresponding control neighborhoods. Three group home neighborhoods experienced minor decreases in average sale price: MP-6 (-$614 or -0.67%), 1-8 (-$105 or -0.3%), and C-I0 (-$513 or -1.3%).
The decreases in three of the four control neighborhoods that experienced
declines were mOl:e substantial: CHI-4 (-$1988 or -3.7%), G-5 (-$74 or -0.1%),
1-8 (-$5904 or -14.9%), and R··14 (-$1628 or -3.0%).
By itself, this raw data could lead to an unwarranted conclusion that the
presence of a group home gen.erally leads to increased property values. However,
the change in before and after mean sale price for each group home neighborhood
must still be subjected to one of the most rigorous statistical tests, the
student 1 s t-test, to determine whether the difference between the before and
after mean sale price is due to chance or to establishing the group home.18
Applying the t-t est. which is explained in Appendix A, Table 1 shows that
only one of the differences in before and after mean sale prices is statis
tically significant. That is, in all but one case, the differences could be due
solely to chance. The only statistically significant change was the 21 percent
increase in the neighborhood around the Schaumburg group home. This increase
was probably due to factors other than opening the group home. The data in
Table 1 strongly indicate that opening a group home does not affect property
values in the surrounding community.
FINDING:
C han l~ e sin m e ;l n sale p ric e aft erg r 0 u p hom e s
opened were unrdated to opening the group homes.
17. Clearly, property values generally rose during the study period. The aver
age mean sale price in the 14 group home neighborhoods rose from $60,303 to
$63,318 after group homes opened, an average increase of $3015. The average
mean sale price in the 14 control neighborhoods rose $4099, from $57,831 to
$61,930. Both increases were statistically significant, indicating that pro
perty values real1y did rise in general. (T-Statistic for group home neighbor
hoods: -2.19, significance of t-statistic: 0.048; t-statistic for control
neighborhoods: -2.63, significlmce of t-statistic: 0.021. For the difference to
be statistically significant, the significance of the t-statistic must be 0.05
or less.) However, Table 2 and the accomanpying text reveal that the difference
in the magnitude of the increases is statistically insignificant, and therefore
due to chance.
18. See Appendix A for a discussion of the Student 1 s t-test.
9
.__._---_._-_. --
TABLE 1: CHANGES IN MEAN SALES PRICE BEFORE AND AFTER DATES 00 WHICH GROUP HCI\1ES OPENED
.... ...
G R 0 U P HOME N E I G H B 0 RHO 0 D S CONTROL ARE A N E I G H B 0 RHO ODS
GROOP HCI\1E SITE
CHICAGO SITES
CHI-1
CHI-2
CHI-3
CHI-4
SUBURBAN SITES
GLENVIEW: G-5
MOUNT PROSPECT:
SCHAUMBURG, S-7
IXJNNSTATE SITES
JACKSOOVILLE
J- 8
J-9
CHAMPAIGN
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
ROCKFORD: R-14
MP-6
MEAN SALE PRICE
Before After
Da te Date
Group Group
Home Home
Opened Opened
$78,948 $87,873
$43,579 $44,476
$56,368 $56,897
'58,051 '59,110
$84,872 $88,429
'110,705 $110,091
$85,856 $103,894
$40,720 $40,615
$35,806 $36,703
$37,613 $37,110
$60,663 $61,984
$41,374 $41,987
$48,281 $48,870
$61,407 $68,412
T-Statisticl Significance
Before/ I of T-Statistic
After 1
Mean Sale I Difference in mean
Pr ic e I sale price is
I statistically
I insignificant when
I greater than 0.05.
-1.13 0.265
-0.18 0.860
-0.09 0.925
-0.13 0.898
I I
I I
I -0.55 I 0.585
I I
I 0.04 I 0.966
I I
I -3.47 I 0.001
I I
I I
I I
I 0.02 I 0.981
I I
I 0.01 I 0.991
I I
1 I
I 0.27 I 0.789
I I
I -0.40 I 0.692
I 1
1 -0.45 1 0.657
I I
I -0.48 I 0.633
I I
I -0.90 I 0.373
MEAN SALE PRICE
Before After
Date Date
Group Group
Home Home
Opened Opened
$74,206 $87,083
$43,542 $51,273
'55,456 '62,518
,54,388 '52,400
$104,895 $104,821
$91,004 $105,885
$79,367 $82,874
$39,496 $33 ,592
$33,510 $35,702
$31,573 '33 ,305
$43,629 ,45,654
$5:,572 $57,598
$52,647 $61,588
'54,353 $52.725
T-Statisticl Significance
Before/ I of T-Statistic
After I
Mean Sale I Difference in mean
Price I sale price is
I statistically
I insignificant when
I greater than 0.05.
-1. 37 0.175
-1. 3 5 0.181
-0.71 0.482
0.26 0.797
I
I
I 0.01 0.992
I
I -2.85 0.006
I
I -1.24 0.223
I I
I I
I I
I 1. 60 I 0.119
I I
I -0.80 I 0.427
I I
I I
I -0.82 I 0.413
I I
I -0.47 I 0.636
I I
I -1. 41 I 0.162
1 I
I -2.04 I 0.043
I I
I -0.58 I 0.563
This finding reflects the data and statlstlcs shown in Table 1, note 16, and the statistical test in Table 2 below. Table 2 shows the results of comparing the change in mean sale price for each group home neighborhood with the change in mean sale price for its corresponding control neighborhood, for all of the 14 group home-control neighborhood pairs. See Appendix A for a discussion of the methodology. If the average difference is due to chance and not to the presence or absence of a group hom e, then the average difference would be relatively small and be statistically insignificant. Here the difference of $1083.71 is relatively small -it's less than 2 percent of any of the mean sale price figures giv.~n in note 16. Table 2 shows that the average difference in the change in ml~an sales price for the 14 group home-control neighborhood pairs was statistically insignificant and, therefore, is not attributable to the absence or presence of a group home. TABLE 2: AVERAGE !DIFFERENCE IN CHANGE IN MEAN SALES
PRICE FOR EACH GROUl' HOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARED
TO ITS CORRESPONDING CONTROL NEIGHBORHOOD
Aver age Di f£ erence in Before and After Signi £i cance
Mean Sal e Pr ice for Each Group Home T-Statistic of T-Statistic
Neighborhood and Its Corresponding (Statistically
Control Neighborhood insignificant if
greater than 0.05)
-$1083.71 -0.52 0.609
Methodology: Matched Pair Analysis. See Appendix A for description.
This data further confirms that opening a group home does not affect
property values in the immediate neighborhood around the group home.
Neighbolhood Stability
FINDING:
Opening a glOUp home did not affect tUlnovel lates
tn the sUIIounding com munity.
Table 3 shows the number of sales in each group home and corresponding
control neighborhtJod as well as the annual turnover rate of residential owner
ship property. In the control neighborhoods, the change ranged from -2.3 to
+4.7 percentage points. With just two exceptions, the change in turnover rate
in the group home neighborhoods ranged from -1.7 to +2.5 percentage points. The
two substantial deviations from these minimal changes occurred in Mount Pros
pect (-9.2 percentage points) and Schaumburg (+15.4 percentage points) where
the corresponding control neighborhoods experienced changes in the same direc
tions, albeit not to as great an extent. Given the overall pattern of the data,
and the opposite directions of change in Mount Prospect and Schaumburg, there
clearly is no cause and effect relationship between opening the group homes in
those two suburbs and the change in turnover rates. One can only speculate that
the extremes in Mount Prospect and Schaumburg resulted from the unique nature
of the marketplace in those two rapidly growing suburbs.
The statistical test in Table 4 confirms this finding. For all of the 14
group hom e-control neighborhood pairs, Table 4 shows the results of comparing
the change in turnover rate for each group hom e neighborhood to the change in
turnover rate for its corresponding control neighborhood. It shows that the
11
TABLE 3: CHANGES IN 1URNOVER RATES BEFORE AND AFTER DATES ON WHICH GROUP HCNES OPENED
G R 0 U P HOME N E I G H B 0 RHO ODS
GRCUP HCNE SITE
CHICAGO SITES
CHI-1
NUMBER OF SALES
IN STtDY AREA
Before After
Date Date
Group Group
Home Home
Opened Opened
25 37
Number of
Owner ship
Re.idence.
in
Study
Area
496
ANNUALIZED
TURNOVER RATE
Before After
Date Date
Group Group
Home Home
Opened Opened
5.0'J{, 7.5 'J{,
CHI-2 24 38 1288 1. 9'J{, 3. 0 'JL
CHI-3 28 31 1036 2.7 'J{, 3. 0 'J{,
CHI-4 37 20 1036 3,6'J{, 1.9 'J{,
CONTROL NE I GHBORHOODS
NUMBER OF SALES Number of ANNUALIZED
IN CCl'lTROL AREA Ownership TURNOVER RATE
Before Aft er Residences Before Af t er
Date Date in Date Date
Group
Home
Group
Home
Control
Area
Group
Home
Group
Home
Opened Opened Opened Opened
31 53 1122 2.8'J{, 4.7 'J{,
24 62 1221 2.0 'J{, 5.1 'JL
39 27 504 7.7 'J{, 5.4 'J{,
26 37 504 5.2 'J{, 7.3 'J{,
SUBURBAN SITES
....
N
GLENVIEW: G-5
MOUNT PROSPECT: MP-6
20
30
21
11
193
207
10.4 'J{,
14.:1 'J{,
10.9 'J{,
5.3 'J{,
29
36
41
34
254
273
11.4 'JL
13.2 'J{,
16.1
12.5
'JL
'JL
SCHAUMBURG: S-7 16 55 254 6.3 'JL 21. 7 'J{, 24 34 366 6.6 'J{, 9.3 'J{,
rx::wNSTATE SITES
JACKSONVILLE
J-8
J-9
CHAMPAIGN
C-I0
C-l1
C-12
C-13
ROCKFORD: R -14
30
32
40
106
49
81
15
30
H
29
115
38
100
26
819
980
782
1546
440
1176
429
1. 5 'J{,
1.6'J{,
2.6 'J{,
3.4'J{,
5.6 'JL
3.4'J{,
1. 7 'JL
1. 5 'JL
1.6'J{,
t.9 'J{,
3.7'J{,
4.3 'J{,
4.3 'J{,
3. 0 'J{,
23
30
33
75
69
59
34
34
H
32
68
68
75
59
951
951
819
1046
1152
1152
664
1.0 'J{, 1.4 'J{,
1. 5 'J{, 2.2 'J{,
2.0 'J{, 1.9'J{,
3,6'J{, 3,2'J{,
3.0 'J{, 3.0'J{,
2.6 'J{, 3. 3 'J{,
2.6 'JL 4.4 'J{,
Table 6 reports the number of these residents who were convicted of or accused of a crime in each of the three study years by size of community residence. TABLE 6:
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
Size of Comnunity Residence Number Convicted of a Crime in: 1983 1984 1985 Number Accused of a Crime in: 1983 1984 1985 1 to 3 residents 0 1 7 7 14 17 4 to 8 residents 0 2 1 3 8 19 9 to 20 residents 0 1 1 4 7 4
Total -All Homes 0 4 9 14 29 40
To be meaningful, the raw data in Table 6 must be converted to crime
rates, as described earlier in the section on methodology, and compared to the
crime rate for the general Illinois population.
For each of the three study years, Table 7 shows the crime rate range, per
1000 persons, for each size of community residence and the crime rate, per 1000
persons, for the general Illinois population.
TABLE 7: CRIME RATE RANGE OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS AND CRIME RATE FOR TIlE GENERAL ILLINOIS POPULATION Crime Rate by Year Size of Per 1,000 population Comnunity (Fus t figure represents convictions, second figure Residence represents accusations -see methodology discussion) 1983 1984 1985 C RIM E RATE RANGE 1 to 3 residents o -19 2 -28 13 -30 4 to 8 residents o -11 3 -14 o -26 9 to 20 residents o 5 2 -8 1 - 4
Total -All Residences o -10 2 -15 3 -18
Illinois General C RIM ERA T EI
Population 19 101 I 104 112
To place this data in perspective, there were 112 crimes committed for
every 1000 people in Illinois in 1985. But for every 1000 persons with a
developmental di1.ability who lived in an Illinois group home or other community
residence in 1985, there were between 3 (convictions) and 18 (accusations)
crimes committed. In fact, the highest crime rate for all homes, 18 per 1000
population, in 1985 was just 16 percent of the crime rate for the general
population (112 per 1000 persons) that year!
FINDING:
Persons lliving in one size of community residence are
no more or less likely to commit a crime than persons
living in any other size commun.ity residence.
We applied the statistical t-test to determine if residents of anyone
SlZe community residence were more prone to engage in criminal activity. How
ever, as Table 8 shows, the differences in crime rate (based on accusations)
between the three types of living arrangements are so small that the differ
ences are statistic ally insignificant.20
19. Sources of crime statistics for Illinois: Crime in Illinois, 1983, Crime in
Illinois, 1984, and Crime in Illinois, 1985 available from the Illinois Depart
ment of Law Enforcement, Division of Support Services (726 S. College, Spring
field, IL 62704).
20. T-statistiC!. and significance calculations could not be generated for
convictions beca1,;lse the number of convictions was too small.
15
TABLB 8:
COMPARISON OF CRIMB RA TBS BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY RBSIDBN CB
Size of COmmunity Residence 1 Crime Rate in Terms of Accusations, 1983-1985 T-Statistic Significance of T-statistic 1 to 3 residents 27.0 per 1000 persons 0.244 0.28 Ins igni ficant .. to 8 residents 19.5 per 1000 persons 0.520 0.09 Ins i gni fi cant 9 to 20 res idents 5.9 per 1000 persons 0.466 0.12 Ins ignif i cant FINDING: Criminal behavior amonl persons with developmental disabilities who live in community residences len
erally involves minor crimes alainst property. dis
turbinl the peace. or disorderly conduct. Crimes
alainst another person are elr:tremely rare.
Finally, Table 9 identifies all the types of crimes of which group home
residents were convicted or accused during the three study years. These figures
represent the total for all three types of residences. They cannot be compared
directly to the rates for the general population because these categories do
not precisely match the categories the state uses. However, in those instances
where a comparison could be made, the rates in this study were far below the
rates for the general population.
TABLE 9:
TYPES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AMONG GROUP HOME RESIDENTS
Number Convicted of TYPE OF CRIMINAL This Crime in: ACfNITY 1983 1984 1985 Number Accused of This Crime in: 1983 1984 1985 Burglary 0 0 0 0 1 0 Theft 0 0 1 9 9 12 Breaking and Entering 0 0 0 0 1 0 Disturbing the Peace 0 0 1 0 3 7 Drunken/disorderly Conduct 0 1 0 1 5 6
Destruction of property 0 0 2 2 2 6
Driving under the Influence 0 1 2 0 1 2
Public indecency 0 0 1 0 1 1
Sexual Assault~usconduct 0 0 1 1 2 3
Rape 0 0 0 1 0 0
Arson 0 1 0 0 1 0
Murder 0 0 0 0 1 0
Assault wi th Dea.dly Weapon 0 0 0 0 0 2
Assault 0 0 1 0 1 1
Battery 0 1 0 0 1 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONCLUSIONS
This study examined neighborhoods surrounding 14 group homes for persons with developmental disabilities in seven different municipalities: four neighborhoods in Chicago; three neighborhoods in Chicago suburbs (Glenview, Mount Prospect, and Schaumb'urg); one neighborhood in a sizeable city in a predominantly rural county in northern Illinois (Rockford); four neighborhoods in a sizeable city in a predominantly rural county in central Illinois (Champaign); and two neighborhoods in a small municipality m a rural county in central Illinois (J a cksonville). Based on an examination of the sale price and number of homes sold in 14 neighborhoods, before and after the group home at each neighborhood I s center opened, and an examination of the price and number of homes sold in 14 comparable control neighborhoods distinguishable from the corresponding group hom e
neighborhood by the absence of a group home, it is clear that:
Group homes do not affect the value of residential
ownership property in the surrounding neighborhood.
and
Group homes do not affect the stability of the
surrounding neighborhood.
This study also conducted a comprehensive statewide survey of over 2200
persons with developmental disabilities who live in community residences to
identify any criminal activities in which they engaged from 1983 through 1985.
This survey covered all community residences ranging in size from 1 to 3
residents to as many as 9 to 20 residents, including group homes for 4 to 8
persons. The survey revealed that the crime rate for persons with developmental
disabilities living in com munity residences is substantially lower than the
crim e rate for the general Illinois population. This research conclusively
shows that:
Persons with developmental disabilities who live in
group homes pose no thre at to the s af e ty of their
neighbors or the surrounding com munity.
This study I s findings and conclusions comport with those of the other
studies of group homes described in Appendix D. Together they form one of the
most exhaustive bodies of reseach on any specific land use. They offer con
vincing evidence that group homes generate no adverse impacts on the surround
ing neighborhood.
18
APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF STATISTICAL TESTS
Student's T-Test The Student 1 s t-test is a way to answer the question whether the differences betwi:en data samples, here the mean sales price before and after a group home opened, is really different or just due to chance. Answering this question requires more than just calculating the average value of each sample. It requires examining how the raw data are distributed around that mean. Are the sale prices more or less similar and closely clustered around the mean, or are there wide variations in sale prices? The t-test measures the number of cases in a sample that fall into the extremes, or "tail," of one distribution (the before sample), and compares it with the number of cases in the tails of the other distribution (the after sample). A substantial discrepancy in the tails of the two samples being compared indicates that the difference in the means of the two samples is unlikely to be due to chance, namely that the difference is statistically signdicantl
The t-statistic is calcula t ed as follows:
where:
t =
Matched Pair Analy.is For tables 2 and 4, Matched Pair Analysis employing a single-sample t-test was used to determine whether the average difference, for the 14 group homecontrol neighborhood pairs, in the change in mean sale price after the date each group home opened, was due to chance or to opening the group homes (Table 2). The explanation of this methodology also applies to the similar analysis that was conducted for turnover rates (Table 4). For each of the 14 group home-control neighborhood pairs, the difference in the change in mean sales price after the date each group home opened was calculated as follows:
APPENDIX B: GROUP HOMES STUDIED GROUP HOME SITE: CHI-I, located in Chicago
SPONSORING AGENCY: Augustana Center
NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 8
POPULATION SERVED: 110derate to severely retarded adults
STAFFING: 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff
DATE OF OCC:"PANCY: July 12, 198,~
NUMBER OF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE AND AFTER: 12 months
DATA Before After Before After TURNOVER Number of Units in Area 496 1122 Number of Sales 25 37 31 53 Annualized Turnover Rate 5.0% 7.5% 2.8% 4.7%
PROPERTY 'lALUES
Mean Sales Price $78,948 $87,873 $74,206 $87,083
Percent Change
Mean Sales Price
COMMENTS:
The differences in the before and after mean sale prices were not statistically signi
ficant. They are due to chance, not to the presence of a group home. See supra tables 1
through 4 and accompanying text.
The home is a brick two-flat, located in a quiet, middle-class neighborhood dominated
by bungalows and two-flat owner-occupied apartment buildings.
Relations with the few neighbols who know this is a group home have been cooperative.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GROUP HOME SITE: CHI-2, located in Chicago
SPONSORING AGENCY: Victor C. Neumann Association
Nur~BER OF RESIDENTS: 4
POPULATION SERVED: Female adult with behavior disorders; moderate level of functioning; age
range: 34-50
STAFFING: 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff
DATE OF OCCUPANCY: July 23,1984
NUMBER OF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE AND AFTER: 12 months
DATA
Site Control
Before After Before Af t er
TURNOVER
GROUP HOME SITE: CHI-3, located in Chicago SPONSORING AGENCY: Victor C. Neumann Association NUMBER OF RESIOENTS: 7 POPULATION SERVEO: Male and female adults with behavior disorders; low to mid-moderate functioning level; age range: 30-50 STAFFING: 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff DATE OF OCCUPANCY: December 10, 1984 NUMBER OF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE AND AFTER: 12 months DATA Control Before After Before After TURNOVER Number of Units in Area Number of Sales Annualized Turnover Rate 1036 28 2.7:1: 31 3.0% 504 39 7.7% 27 5.4%
PROPERTY VALUES
Mean Sales Price $56,368 $56,897 $55.456 $62,518
GROUP HOME SITE: G-5, located in Glenview SPONSORING AGENCY: Rimland School for Autistic Children NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 3 POPULATION SERVED: Autistic adults; age range: 26-32 STAFFING: 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff; two staff present during wsking hours DATE OF OCCUPANCY: July 6, 1983 NUM~ER OF MONTHS STUDIEO BEFORE ANO AFTER: 12 months DATA Site Before After Control Before After TURROVER Number of Units in Area 193 254 Number of Sa1es~__________~~~____~~~______~~~____~~~_____ Annualized Turnover Rate 10.4% 10.9% 11.4% 16.1% PROPERTY VALUES
Mean Sales Price $84,872 $88,429 $104,895 $104,821
Percent Change in +4.2% -0.1%
Mean Sales Price
20 21 29 41
COMMENTS:
The differences in the before and after mean sale prices were not statistically signi
ficant. They are due to chance, not to the presence of a group home. See supra tables 1
through 4 and accompanying text.
This brick bungalow is located in a middle-to upper-middle clsss single-family neigh
borhood developed during the last 25 years. There's a large park at the south end of the
block.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GROUP HOME SITE: MP-6. located in Mount Prospect
SPONSORING AGENCY: Glenkirk
NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 5
POPULATION SERVED: Ferrale adults aged 21-30; severe and profoundly retarded
STAFFING: 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff
DATE OF OCCUPANCY: Aprll 5, 1985
NUMBER OF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE AND AFTEf1: 12 months
DATA
Before After Before After
TURNOVER
PROPERTY VALUES
Mean 5a1'~s Pri_ce $110,705 $110,091 $91,004 $105,885
Percent ~hange ic
__---'1~-"-!l_S31es Price
-0
COMMENTS:
The differerces .D .he hefure lnd after mean sale prices for the group home neighbor
hood were not statisli ""y s '-,dicar,,_, They are due to chance, not to the presence of a
group home. See 5\1J?X.!'. t d L t r r :, and qccompanying text.
This group h0me ~s actually 1 ~0rd and stone two-flat which, in all outward appearance,
looks like the ')cll£>r sin:!;l,··Jmr.il:; h"nsps 10 the neighborhood. Newer, medium-sized single
family home:; compise ~h ;n"",!l ;,,55 :-,eighboduod close to shopping and major thorough
fares.
The home in~ti,d ly ['aced st .. reg neighborhood opposition which later dissipated. The
neighbors are now frlendly.
APPENDIX 8-3
-------------_._--,-----_._--
GROUP HOME SITE: S-8, located in Schaumburg SPONSORING AGENCY: Blare House, Inc. NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 4 POPULATION SERVED: Autistic and autistic-like males and females aged 20-27 STAFFING: 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff DATE OF OCCUPANCY: May 14, 1984 NltlBER OF MDNTHS STUOIED IJEFORE AND AFTER: 12 months DATA Before After Before After TURNOVER Number of Units in Area 254 366 Number of Sales 16 55 24 34 Annualized Turnover Rate 6.3% 21.7% 6.6% 9.3% PROPERTY VALUES
Mean Sales Price $85,856 $103,894 $79,367 $82,874
GROUP HOME SITE: J-9, located in Jacksonville SPONSORING AGENCY: Jacksonville Association for Retarded Citizens NUMB~R OF RESIDENTS: 8 PDPU~TIDN SERVED: Profoundly retarded and multiply-han~icapped adults STAFFING: Two staff on duty 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff DATE OF OCCUPANCY: April 24, 1984 NUMBER OF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE ANO AFTER: 23 months DATA Site Control
Before After Before After
TURROVER Number of Units in Area 980 951 Number of Sales 32 33 30 43 Annualized Turnover Rate 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 2.2% PROPERTY VALUES Mean Sales Price $35,806 $36,703 $33,510 $35,702
Percent Change in +2.5% +6.5%
Mean Sales Price
COMM,ENTS:
The differences in the before and after mean sale prices were not statistically signi
ficant. They are due to chance, not to the presence of a group home. See supra tables 1
through 4 and accompanying text.
Jacksonville has suffered many economic setbacks in the last few years. This home is
located in a predominantly middle-and lower-middle class neighborhood of single-family
home. of all sizes, generally in pretty good condition. N'early two-thirds of the dwelling
units were built before 1949. In 1980, about 15 percent of the neighborhood was Black.
This large, wood-framed house is located within four short blocks of the other group
home this study examined in Jacksonville, site J-8.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GROUP HOME SITE: C-IO, located in Champaign
SPONSORING AGENCY: Developmental Services Center of Champaign County
NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 2
POPULATION SERVED: Moderately to severely retarded children, aged 7-14
STAFFING: Individual houseparent lives-in with relief on weekends
OATE OF OCCUPANCY: April 11, 1983
NUMBeR OF MONT tIS STUDIED BEFORE AND AFTER: 24 months
DATA
Site Control
Before After Before After
TURROVER
Number of Units in Area 782 819
Number of Sales 40 29 33 32
Annualized Turnover Rate 2.6% 1.9% 2.0% 1.9%
PROPIU1TY VALUES
Hean Sales Price $37,613 $37,110 $31,573 $33,305
GROUP HOME SITE: C-ll. located in Champaign SPONSORING AGENCY: Champaign County Association for the Mentally Retarded NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 6 POPULATION SERVED: Four women and two men with mild to moderate mental retardation; age range: 23-46 STAFFING: 24 hour; shift basis; no live-in staff OATE OF OCCUPANCY: May 14, 1982 NUMBER OF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE AND AFTER: 24 months DATA Site Control Before After Before After TURNOVER ____N_utllb er _oCJJnit s 1546 1046inAre""a'"___~"'---------=='---cc---Number of Sales 106 115 75 68 Annualized Turnover Rate 3.4% 3.7% 3.6% 3.2%
PROPERTY VALUES
Mean Sales Price $60,663 $61,984 $43,629 $45,654
Percent Change in
___.~an SaJ£LP"'r.;i"'c"'e~________________________
COMMENTS:
The differences in the before and after mean sale prices were not statistically signi
ficant. They are due to chance, not to the presence of a group home. See supra tables 1
through 4 and accompanying text.
ThE surrounding neighborhood features ~ostly medium and large single-family houses.
Since it's fairly close to the University of Illinois, there is a substantial proportion of
rental property in the neighborhood. Slightly more than two-thirds of the dwelling units
were built before 1949.
The group hODe operated in this very large, wood-framed house for several years before
the neighbors realized it is a group home. There's been no neighborhood opposition.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GROUP HOME SITE: C-12; located in Champaign
SPONSORING AGENCY: Developmental Services Center of Champaign County
NUMBER CF RESIDENTS: 2
POPULATION SERVED: Moderately retarded adult women
STAFFING: One live-in houseparent
DATE OF OCCUPAr,CY: April 1, 1982
NUMBER (iF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE: AND AFTER: 24 months
DATA
Before After Before After
TURNOVER
._------.._--_.._---
_______ __
GROUP HOME SITE: C-13, located in Champaign SPONSORING AGENCY: DeVE!lopmental Services Center of Champaign County NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 2 POPULATION SERVED: Moderate to mild! y retarded adu1 t women STAFFING: Married couple as live-in houseparents OATE OF OCCUPANCY: July 25, 1983 NUMBER OF MONTHS STUDIED BEFORE AND AFTER: 24 months DATA Before After Before After TURROVER 1176 1152Number of Unit.~s~i~n~A~r~e~a____~~~~__~~______~~~~__~~____ Number of Sales Annual i:~ed Turnover Ra 81 te 3.4% 100 4.3% 59 2.6% 75 ___ 3.3% PROPERTY V,!LUES
Mean Sales Price! $48,281 $48,870 $5 2 ,647 $61,588
Percent ChangE'
M~ea~n~Sales f'
in
~r2i~c~e~__
+1.2%
____________________________________________
+16.9%
COMMENTS:
The differences in the before and after mean sale prices for the group home neighbor
hood WerE! not statistically significant. They are due to chance, not to the presence of a
group home. See supr.!!. tabb!s 1 through 4 and accompanying text.
Located in the ;:ar southwest corner of Champaign, this medium-sized, wood-framed bunga
low is surrounded by other modest single-family houses built during the last 30 years.
There"s been no neighborhood opposition to this home.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GROUP HOME SITE: R-14, located in Rockford
SPONSORING AGENCY: Milestone, Inc.
NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 8
POPULATION SERVEO: Men and women with moderate to low-mild mental retardation,
aged 18-30
STAFFING: 24 hour; shift bHsis; no live-in staff
DATE OF OCCUPANCY: February 14, 1983
NUMBER OF MONTHS-STUDIEO BI:FDRE AND AFTER: 24 months
DATA
APPENDIX C: LIST OF CONTROL NEIGHBORHOODS
City and Site llmaber CHICAGO CHI-I CHI-2 CHI-3 CHI-4 CHICAGO SUBURBS
Glenview
G-5
Mount Prospect
MP-6
Schaumburg
S-7
DOVRSTATE
Jacksonville
J-8
J-9
Champaign
C-IO
C-ll
C-12
C-13
Rockford
R-14
Address of Center of Control lIeighborhood 4636 N. Western 2425 S. Springfield 2912 W. McLean * 2912 W. McLean *
277 W. Beverly
212 W. Shobonee Trail
520 Cambridge Drive
552 S. Hardin *
552 S. Hardin *
1404 Sunset
502 Columbia
1212 Western *
1212 Western *
4002 Buckingham
Months Studied Before/ After Date on Which Group Home Opened 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12
12/12
12/12
12/12
19/19
23/23
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
A five block radius around the group home and around the center of the
control neighborhood was used for all downstate sites. A four block radius was
used for the Chicago and suburban sites.
* A control area was used twice when it was the best match for two group home
study areas in terms of the key characteristics used to select control areas.
This practice does not confound findings because the data for each group home
control area pair was collected for different periods of time.
APPENDIX C-I
APPENDIX D: STUDIES ON IMPACTS OF GROUP HOMES AND HALFWAY HOUSES ON PROPERTY VALUES AND nJRNOVER I. DEVELOPMENTAJ.LY DISABLED POPULATIONS ONLY Studies that deal exclusively with group homes for developmentally disabled populations are: D. Lauber, Impacts on j:he Surrounding Neighborhood 2i ~tlQ.m~ ill Persons With QevelQllmental Q.i:iabilities, (Governor's Planning Council on Developm ental Disabilities, Springfield, Illinois, Sept. 1986)(found no effe ct on property value or turnover due to any of 14 group homes for up to eight residents; also found crime rate among group home residents to be a small fraction of crime rate for general population). L. Dolan and :r. Wolpert, l&ni. Illm Neighborhood Property ImP.M.ll-2i G.!mul tlQ.mfi ill Mentally. Retarded People, (Woodrow Wilson School Discussion Paper
Series, Princeton University, Nov. 1982)(examined long-term effects on neigh
borhoods surrounding 32 group homes for five years after the homes were opened
and found same results as in Wolpert, infra).
Minnesota Developmental Disabilities Program, Analysis Q.f. Minnesota
Property Values of CQ.mmunity Intermediate C~ Facilities ill Mentally Retarded
ilCE=.MR.li. (Dept. of Energy, Planning and Development 1982)(no difference in
property values and turnover rates in 14 neighborhoods with group homes during
the two years before and after homes opened, as compared to 14 comparable
control neighborhoods without group homes).
Dirk Wiener, Ronald Anderson, and John Nietupski, Imru.£1. 2i CQ.mmunity-Based
Residential Eacilities ill Mentally Retarded A.dY..l.il. on Surrounding Property
values lliing. R~1.. Analysis Methods, 17 Education and Training of the Men
tally Retarded 278 (Dec. 1982)(used realtors' "comparable market analysis"
method to examine neighborhoods surrounding eight group homes in two medium
sized Iowa commllnities; found property values in six subject neighborhoods
comparable to tho.se in control areas; found property values higher in two
subject neighborhoods than in control areas).
Montgomery County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabil
ities, Property SalelL S!Y.Qy of Jhe Im~ 2i Y1.QYP. tlQ.m~ in Montgom.uy County
(1981)(property appraiser from Magin Realty Company examined neighborhoods
surrounding seven group homes; found no difference in property values and
turnover rates between group hom e neighborhoods and control neighborhoods
without any group homes).
Martin Lindauer, Pauline Tung, and Frank O'Donnell, Effect 2i CQ.mmunity
Residences ill the Mentally Retarded on Real-Estate Values in the Neighborhoods
.in. Which They llc~ Located (State University College at Brockport, N.Y.
1980)(examined neighborhoods ar<Dund seven group homes opened between 1967 and
1980 and two control neighborhoods; found no effect on prices; found a selling
wave just before group homes opened, but no decline in selling prices and no
difficulty in selling houses; sellling wave ended after homes opened; no decline
in property values 4)r increase in turnover after homes opened).
Julian Wolpert, ~tlQ.m~ for ~Mentally Retarded: An. Investigation 2i
Neighborhood Propen~ Im~ (New York State Office of Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Aug. 31, 1978)(most thorough study of all; covered
1570 transactions in neighborholods of ten New York municipalities surrounding
42 group homes; compared neighborhoods surrounding group homes and comparable
control neighborhoods without any group homes; found no effect on property
values; prOXimity tID group home had no effect on turnover or sales price; no
effect on property value or turnover of houses adjacent to group homes).
Burleigh Gardner and Albut Robles, ~ Neighbors Allil. ~ Small ~
APPENDIX 0-1
studies noted here. The other studies used a number of techniques which basically compared the sales prices (or a reasonable surrogate) for houses within a specific radius of a g:roup home both before and after the group home opened. In addition, most of the other studies also compared these figures to sales figures for control areas with relevant characteristics nearly icien.;:al to the areas surrounding the group homes under study, except that there was 110 group home in the control areas (the more vigorous studies used regression analysis to control for extraneous variables). Gabriel and Wolch did not make these kinds of comparisons. Instead they examined property sales at a single point in time. The value of their study is to show that there is a possibility that human service facilities may have different effects in white and nonwhite housing submarkets. But because the study mixes residential and nonresidential facilities, its appli<:ation to the question at hand -the effect of group homes on property values -IS highly problematic.
III. STUDIIlS NOT COVERING HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
A third group of studies examined the effects of group homes and halfway
houses only for populations that neighbors might view as more threatening than
persons with deve10pm ental disabilities, such as prison pre-parolees, drug
addicts, alcoholic s, juvenile delinquents, and form er mental patients. None of
these studi(:s could find any effect on property values or turnover.
Michael Dear and S. Martin Taylor, Not on Our Street 133-144 (I982)(group
homes for persons with menta.! illness have no effect on property values or
turnover).
John Boeckh, Michael Dear, and S. Martin Taylor, Property Values and
Mental Health Facihties Metx:oplitan Toronto, 24 The Canadian Geographer 270
(Fall 1980)(residential mental health facilities have no effect on the volume
of sales activities or property values; distance from the facility and type of
facility hac! no significant effe ct on price).
Michael Dear, lmpact of Mental Health Facilities on Property values, 13
Community Mental Health Journal 150 (I977)(persons with mental illness; found
indeterminate impact on property values).
Stuart Breslow, The lifect Qf Sitin& G~ H!lmll on the Surrounding
Environs (1976) (unpublished) (although data limitations render his results
inconclusive, the author suggests that communities can absorb a "limited"
number of group homes without measurable effects on property values).
P. Magin, Mru~ltet Study of HILmeS in the Area Surroundin& .22.2.2 Sheehan Road
in Washington To~t!~ Qhio (May 1975)(available from County Prosecutors
Office, Dayton, Ohio).
Eric Knowles and Ronald Baba, ~ Social Impact gf Group Hom.e..s..:.. !. .m!dy of
small residential se_rvice pro&rll.m§.. in first residential areas (Green Bay, Wisc.
Plan Commission June 1973)(disadvantaged children from urban areas, teenage
boys and girls under court commitment. infants and children with severe medical
problems requiring nursing care, convicts in work release or study release
programs) .
FOR AN UPDATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STUDIES
The Mental Health Law Project maintains an frequently updated annotated
bibliography of studies on the impacts of group homes and halfway houses. Write
to the Mental Healtb Law Project, Suite 800, 2021 L Street. NW, Washington, DC
20036-4909 (phone: 202/467-573>0) for a copy. For ten cents a page, the MHLP
will furnish a phot,:>coPY of any studies it has.
APPENDIX D-,3
-------_._--_.._------_._._..._---_.
APPENDIX E: CRIHIBAL IBVOLVEHEBT SURVEY Please complete all items. Type or print legibly.
Please return the completed survey by February 26, 1986 to:
Planning/Communications • 1035 Dobson • Evanston, IL 60202
ALL QUESTIONS REFER ONLY TO THE YEARS 1983, 1984, 1985 ITEM 1 We need to know who you are so we can reach you for clarification and follow-up. Remember our data will be reported in gross figures so your agency cannot be identified in our final report. la} Sponsoring Organization:
lb} Name of person completing this survey:
lc} Phone number of person completing this survey: Area Code:
ld) City of Sponsoring Organization:
ITEM 2
In order to analyze our data, we need to know a little about the types of
residential facilities you operate and the number of people who lived in them
during each year.
TYPES OF FACILITIES:
"Independent Living Facilities" refer to living arrangements like HIP
Homes and SLAs for 1 to 3 persons with developmental disabilities.
"Group Homes" for eight or fewer residents and for nine to 20 residents
include CLFs, CRAs, ICF/DDs, SNFs and similar licensed group homes.
~ype of
!Residential
facility
Number of This Kind of
Facility Your Organization
Operated in:
*Total Number of Individuals
Who Lived in This Kind of
Facility in:
1983 1984 1985 1983 1984
I
1985
Independent Living
Facility [1-3
DD residents]
Group Home (CRA)
[8 or fewer
DD residents]
~roup Home
[9 to 20 DD
residents]
* Here we're asking for the total number of different individuals who lived in
each of these types of facilities during each of the three years. For example,
suppose you operate a group home for six persons. If, during the course of
1983, nine different persons with developmental disabilities lived in the home,
nine is the total number of individuals who lived in this kind of facility in
1983.
-Survey continued on other side
APPENDIX E-1
ITEM 3
We need to know how many residents of your residential facilities, if any, were involved in criminal activity. For each type of residential facility, please indicate the number of residents accused of a crime and the number convicted of a crime for each year. For purposes of this survey, accused means any accusation even if charges were not filed. If zero, fill in a zero -do not leave any boxes blank. Type of Number Accused of a Crime Number Convicted of a Crime ~esidential 1.n: in: Facility 1983 1984 1985 1983 1984 1985 ~ndependent Living Facilities
Group Homes
[8 or fewerJ
Group Homes
[9 -20J
ITEM 4
We need to know the kinds of crimes in which residents of the different
types of residential facilities were involved each year.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Use the first table for residents of Independent Living Facilities only.
The second table is for residents of Group Homes (CRA) for eight or fewer
persons. The third table is for residents of Group Homes for nine to 20
persons.
If zero, fill in a zero do not leave any boxes blank.
If you are uncertain of the definition of a particular crime, place a
question mark in the left hand margin next to it and we will call you to
explain it.
* If the same individual committed a type of crime more than once, count
each offense as a separate offense. For example, if the same person was accused
of theft three times in 1983, that counts as three thefts.
Tables for answering this item appear on the next two sheets.
APPENDIX E-2
FOR RESIDENTS OF INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES ONLY
CRIME *Number Accused of This Crime in: *Number Convicted of This Crime in: 1983 1984 1985 1983 1984 1985 a) Murder b) Assault with a Deadly Weapon c) Burglary d) Theft e) Breaking
and Entering
f) Sexual Assault
~) Rape
Ih) Disturbing the Peace
i) Drug Abuse
j) Marijuana Possession
[k) Drunken/disorderly
Conduct
1) Destruction of
property
in) Other (specify):
I I
FOR RESIDENTS OF GROUP HOMES FOR 8 OR FEWER RESIDENTS ONLY
*Number Accused of *Number Convicted of
CRIME This Crime in: This Crime in:
1983 1984 1985 1983 1984 1985
a) Murder
b) Assault with a
Deadly Weapon
c) Burglary
d) Theft
-Table continued on other side
APPENDIX E-3
TABLE FOR GROUP HOMES OF 8 OR FEWER -CONTINUED
CRIME *Number Accused of This Crime in: *Number Convicted of This Crime in: 1983 1984 1985 1983 1984 1985 e) Breaking I and Entering ~) Sexual Assault ~) Rape 1:1) Disturbing the Peace n Drug Abuse
j) Marijuana Possession
k) Drunken/disorderly
Conduct
1) Destruction of
property
~) Other (specify):
~ESIDENTS OF GROUP HOMES FOR 9 TO 15 RESIDENTS ONLY
CRIME
*Number Accused of
This Crime in:
*Number CQnvicJ;~d of
This Crime in:
1 !:fl:!.j 1!:f~4 H~:> 1983 1984 1985
a) Murder
~) Assault with a
Deadly Weapon
c) Burglary
d) Theft
e) Breaking
and Entering
f) Sexual Assault
~) Rape
~) Disturbing the Peace
-Table continued on next page
APPENDIX E-4
1985 TABLE FOR GROUP HOMES FOR 9 TO 15 -CONTINUED
*Number Convicted of CRIME *Number Accused of This Crime in: 1Yts:.:s This Crime in: 1984lYts) lYtUlYts4 . i) Drug Abuse -j) Marijuana Possession Ik) Drunken!d isordE~rly , Conduct 1) Destruction of property
~) Other (specify);
..
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDID RESPONSES TO THIS SURVEY.
PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY IN THE ENCLOSED PRE-ADDRESSED
ENVELOPE (YOILI MUST ADD POSTAGE) BY FEBRUARY 26, TO:
Piallning/Connnunications • 1035 Dobson • Evanston, IL 60202
APPENDIX E-5