“The Neighbor-to-Neighbor project is an example of how CDCs and other housing-related groups can practice a more robust kind of neighborhood revitalization — by engaging neighbors in talking and planning with each other.”
Reynoldstown, Atlanta, GA
Description: iIn an effort to build bridges between long-time residents and neighborhood newcomers, Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation (RRC) organized "Neighbor-to-Neighbor," a community activity that brought residents together to strengthen relationships, discuss neighborhood history, identify community challenges and create solutions. Neighbor-to-Neighbor involved small "living room" meetings hosted by neighborhood residents. These informal, in-house meetings were preceded by a kick-off event and concluded with a larger group celebration. Roughly 50 people were involved in seven groups, each of which met twice. Through the process, a number of participants found new ways to get involved in other neighborhood activities and committees.
Dates active: February 2007-present
Issue(s): Planning and land use; Law enforcement or crime prevention
Sub-issue(s): neighborhood issues
Level(s): Neighborhood
Initiators: The Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation, a community development corporation in Atlanta.
Particular goals: Give long-term residents an opportunity to build relationships with newer neighbors while sharing area history and exploring local needs and opportunities.
Number of participants/year: 50
Population of community: 2,000 in the Reynoldstown neighborhood
Time spent by participants: 4+ hours
Staffing/funding: RRC's community outreach coordinator did the bulk of the work for this program. The entire process took place over a three-month period and required about 10-15 hours of staff time per week. RRC's director of operations and CEO provided program oversight. Facilitators were trained volunteers and included neighborhood leaders, local residents and volunteers from Emory University.
Budget: Program costs included staffing, consultant fees, outreach materials, program materials and refreshments. RRC offered to reimburse hosts up to $75 for their supplies and refreshments, although several hosts did not accept reimbursement. NeighborWorks America covered the cost of the consultants, which was about $4,500. Overall, the program cost RRC about $500, excluding staffing costs. Future programs should not require in-depth consulting support, which will decrease the overall expense.
How meetings were structured: At the one-hour host training, residents learned about the program activities and the importance of participating in all program components. Hosts learned how to recruit their neighbors and made their own event invitations. They were encouraged to create a personalized theme such as tea party, wine social, barbecue, ice cream social, and so on. RRC provided hosts with tips and support throughout this process, plus gave background materials on the project's goals, strategies, and expected outcomes.
Participants at the six-hour facilitator training learned how to organize and facilitate the in-home meetings. Two NeighborWorks consultants led the training and shared information on the Study Circles philosophy. They taught facilitators what the group process should look like and how it can trigger community change. Participants learned about discussion topics and facilitation techniques and went over sample dialogues, ground rules and background materials. They practiced active listening with a partner and learned how to record ideas on a flip chart including "challenges" and related actions. The facilitators served as a neutral party to help maintain the flow of conversation and foster connections between participants. The facilitator did not need to be an expert on any particular topic but needed to understand the goals of the program. Seven facilitators and seven hosts were paired up and served as a team for each event.
Each of the seven teams held two meetings in the host's homes. The first meeting took place during the weekend of March 2, 2007 and began with "getting-to-know-you" activities. Neighbors introduced themselves and talked about life in Reynoldstown. They shared how long they had lived there and their favorite community characteristics. They also talked about how they wanted the neighborhood to be. RRC gave several scenarios of community designs and participants selected general goals. The group ended with a discussion of prevailing themes and identified topics to discuss at the next meeting. The first meeting was the basis for trust and creative thinking. Each session drew between two and 20 neighbors. The second in-home meeting took place about two weeks later. The theme of the second meeting was "looking to the future." These conversations got interesting as participants discussed neighborhood challenges, possible solutions and levels of involvement. Participants also talked about ways to become more connected socially and politically through schools, local government, civic groups and local organizations. They discussed themes, community challenges and action plans. Again, between two and 20 neighbors attended these meetings.
Sample outcomes: The Neighbor-to-Neighbor in-home meetings sparked important conversations and creative solutions. Participants suggested new community-building activities such as game night, movie night, and a book club at the community center; anti-drug activities involving sidewalk prayer sessions and activities for youth; and service activities such as ride sharing.
Benefits: This process helped all participants get to know their neighbors and allowed for a different kind of conversation. It helped to identify the positive characteristics of the neighborhood, which increases neighborhood appreciation and appeal. "This was an unusual community gathering, a sincere one that touched people, and connected them in ways that don't happen too much nowadays," said one participant.
Challenges: The process requires dedicated staff time. Holding discussions in people's homes worked well in some cases, not in others - consider using a checklist that is specific about the timing, the meal and the best way to organize seating for the conversations. Too much dependence on invitations by the host can result in groups that are not very diverse.
Organizations that helped with this project:
This case contributed by: Matt Leighninger, 2007 (last updated 2007)
