THE NIMBY PHENOMENON: Community Residents' Concerns about Housing for Deinstitutionalized People.

THE NIMBY PHENOMENON: Community Residents' Concerns about Housing for Deinstitutionalized People. This article reports the findings of a study on communityopposition to group homes in Montreal, Canada. This qualitative studyset out to explore the underlying dynamics of what happens when acommunity rejects a group home. With the use of a naturalistic nat��u��ral��is��tic?adj.1. Imitating or producing the effect or appearance of nature.2. Of or in accordance with the doctrines of naturalism. paradigm,three actual incidents of community opposition were studied. Nineteeninterviews were conducted with community residents, elected officials,and group home developers. Community residents did not supportdeinstitutionalization de��in��sti��tu��tion��al��i��za��tionn.The release of institutionalized people, especially mental health patients, from an institution for placement and care in the community. and social integration policies and arguedagainst group homes. The findings of this study, never reported beforein previous research, have important implications for social workers andsocial planners. Key words community relations 1. The relationship between military and civilian communities.2. Those public affairs programs that address issues of interest to the general public, business, academia, veterans, Service organizations, military-related associations, and other non-news media entities. deinstitutionalization group homes housing integration Not in my back yard" (NIMBY NIM��BY?n. pl. NIM��BYs SlangOne who objects to the establishment in one's neighborhood of projects, such as incinerators, prisons, or homeless shelters, that are believed to be dangerous, unsightly, or otherwise undesirable. ) developed more than 30 years ago,at a time when the deinstitutionalization of various groups of disabledpeople was socially and poltically popular in much of North America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. .Over time, various forms of community housing were created to meet theneeds of those being discharged from institutions into the community.The rapid development of community housing, foster homes, group homes,hostels, supervised apartments, and, more recently, supported housinghas resulted in many problems, including poor integration ofdeinstitutionalized people into the community, fragmentation of socialservices social servicesNoun, plwelfare services provided by local authorities or a state agency for people with particular social needssocial servicesnpl → servicios mpl sociales, "ghettoization," and negative community reaction.The negative community reaction was the focus of this study. Although, historically, the general public supporteddeinstitutionalization, it has not been uncommon for community residentsto react negatively when faced with the possibility ofdeinstitutionalized people living in their neighborhoods. Over the yearssocial workers have had firsthand experience with community oppositionto group homes. Community opposition usually manifested itself duringthe early stages of implementing a group home. The scenario is almostalways the same. An announcement is made that a group home is imminent,and community residents mobilize to block it. Many strategies have beendevised to oppose group homes: door-to-door canvassing, petitions,public meetings, and negative media campaigns. The opposition movementusually gains momentum in most communities. In some cases, oppositionefforts successfully block the group home, whereas in other cases,opposition efforts fail and the group home begins operating with minimalcommunity support. This article reports community residents' perspectives ontheir opposition to group homes. Although the focus is on communityresidents' perspectives, other viewpoints (for example, supporters)also are presented to offer contrasting findings. My own interest inthis phenomenon began several years ago, when my responsibilities as asocial worker brought me into contact with communities unwilling toaccept a proposed group home. Confronted by the NIMBY problem, Iresponded on a case-by-case basis. I realized that community oppositionposed a serious problem for social workers mandated to assist in closinginstitutions and in developing community-based residential resources. OBJECTIVES The overall objective of the study was to better understandcommunity opposition to group homes. The study was based on the actualexperience of three different communities and the strategies people usedto oppose or support a group home. It explored the underlying dynamicsof what happens when a group home is introduced in a community. Guidingthe research was the implicit assumption that community residentsdirectly affected by the group home had something important to say abouttheir experience and that this information could help social workersdevelop community-based housing for deinstitutionalized people. Thefundamental research question was, "Why do people react negativelyto a group home?" The study explored what happened when thecommunity opposed the group home, described major events and the outcomeof the opposition movement, and explained why residents reactednegatively to a group home in their community. NIMBY: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The majority of studies on the NIMBY phenomenon had measuredattitudes toward the various disability groups or the differentresidential facilities. These studies asked people how they felt aboutcertain disability groups or how they would feel about having them livein their neighborhoods (Biodeau, 1992; Boudreault, 1989;C[hat{o}]t[acute{e}], Caron, & Ouellet, 1995; Dear & Taylor,1982; Heal, Sigelman, & Switzky, 1978; Moreau, Novak, &Sigelman, 1980; Poulin & L[acute{e}]vesque 1995; Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,charitable organization devoted exclusively to health care issues. It was established in 1936 by Robert Wood Johnson (1893–1968), board chairman of the Johnson & Johnson medical products company. , 1990; Solomon & Davis, 1984). Some studies havedemonstrated that familiarity and experience with a disability grouphave a positive effect on attitudes C[hat{o}]t[acute{e}], Ouellet,Lachance, & Lemay, 1992; Johnson & Beditz, 1981; Kastner,Repucci, & Pezzoli, 1980; Seltzer, 1985; Sigelman, Spanhel, &Lorenzen, 1979), whereas others have focused on the positive effect ofproximity on community opposition to group homes (Metropolitan HumanServices Commission, 1986; Pittock & Potts, 1988). Whethe rattitudes change over time also has been addressed in several studies,with results that are confirming (Ashmore, 1975; Gottlieb, 1975;Gottlieb & Strichart, 1981) and disconfirming Adj. 1. disconfirming - not indicating the presence of microorganisms or disease or a specific condition; "the HIV test was negative"negativemedical specialty, medicine - the branches of medical science that deal with nonsurgical techniques2. (Trute, Tefft, &Segall, 1989). Other measures of attitude, such as the Social DistanceScale (Bogardus, 1933), have been modified over the years to measure thehierarchy of preference toward the groups of people recently labeleddisabled, including drug addicts and people with AIDS The People With AIDS (PWA) Self-Empowerment Movement was a movement of those diagnosed with AIDS and grew out of San Francisco. The PWA Self-Empowerment Movement believes that those diagnosed as having AIDS should "take charge of their own life, illness, and care, and to minimize (Harasymiw, Home,& Lewis, 1976; Tringo, 1970). Although they are popular, attitudestudies also are limited. On the basis of hypothetical situations, thesestudies do not predict actual behavior or how people would react whenconfronted with group homes for people with disabilities (Kastner etal.; 1980; Moreau et al., 1980; Seltzer, 1985; Tara, 1985). In recent years studies have investigated actual cases of communityopposition (Baillargeon, Martineau, & Proulx, 1991; Dorvil, 1988a,1988b; Morin, 1988). These studies have identified specific variablesthat may cause or predict the NIMBY phenomenon. These include personalsecurity concerns, such as fear of criminal acts and physical aggressiontoward one's family (Gardner, 1981; Julien, 1990; MetropolitanHuman Services Commission, 1986; Rabkin, Mublin, & Cohen cohenor kohen(Hebrew: “priest”) Jewish priest descended from Zadok (a descendant of Aaron), priest at the First Temple of Jerusalem. The biblical priesthood was hereditary and male. , 1984;Tully, Winter, Wilson, & Scanlon, 1982; Willms, 1981), decliningproperty values (Dear, 1977; Farber, 1986; Lubin, Schwartz, Zigman,& Janicki, 1982; Mambort, Thomas, & Few, 1981; Myers &Bridges, 1995; Scott & Scott, 1980; Wiener, Anderson, &Nietupski, 1982; Wolpert, 1978), and negative effect on neighborhoodamenities and quality of life (Baron & Piasecki, 1981; Berdiansky& Parker, 1977; Cupaiuolo, 1979; Eynon, 1989). Despite the large number of studies, research on communityopposition to group homes remains inconclusive INCONCLUSIVE. What does not put an end to a thing. Inconclusive presumptions are those which may be overcome by opposing proof; for example, the law presumes that he who possesses personal property is the owner of it, but evidence is allowed to contradict this presumption, and show who is . The literature includesa wide range of research questions, hypotheses, and findings, but we donot have a clear understanding of the NIMBY phenomenon--why it occurs orhow to prevent or overcome it (Gendron & Piat, 1991). Most studiesexamine only the perceptions of administrators, staff, or group homedevelopers, disregarding the general community's perspective. Inthis study, the community residents' perspectives, specificallythose opposing the group home, were pivotal to the study'sobjectives. Ultimately, it was hypothesized that eliciting the views ofcommunity residents directly involved would provide new insight intothis social problem. METHODS This study used a naturalistic paradigm. The underlying tenet TENET. Which he holds. There are two ways of stating the tenure in an action of waste. The averment is either in the tenet and the tenuit; it has a reference to the time of the waste done, and not to the time of bringing the action. 2. ofthis paradigm, developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) is that there are"multiple constructed realities that can be studied onlyholistically" (p.37). The aim of naturalistic inquiry is to"develop shared constructions that illuminate a particular contextand provide working hypotheses for the investigation of others"(Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Alien, 1993, p. 45). We chose thisapproach because it allowed the researcher to explore the differentperceptions of the various people and their experiences with communityopposition to group homes. Three incidents of community opposition were selected among theseven known cases in Montreal, Canada. These incidents occurred inopposition to a group home for adult ex-psychiatric patients, a grouphome for children with cognitive and physical disabilities, and a grouphome for criminal offenders. Incidents of community opposition to thegroup homes had occurred during a two-year period at the time of thestudy. I used maximum variation (Patton, 1990) to select the sample. Toobtain the widest variation of the NIMBY phenomenon, I used thefollowing variables to select the final sample: the type of group homeresident or disability in the group home, the number of people, averagelength of stay, socioeconomic status of the group home location, and thestrategy used to open the group home (Table 1). I conducted 19 in-depth interviews with four categories ofrespondents: (1) group home developers, (2) elected or public officials,(3) supporters of group homes, and (4) opponents of group homes. Grouphome developers included administrators or professionals responsible forimplementing the group home. Elected officials were people whorepresented the district in which the group home was located. People whoeither supported or opposed the group home were community residents. Inall, seven interviews were conducted with community residents opposing,six with community residents supporting, three with elected officials,and three with group home developers. Community residents were recruitedby two methods: (1) names of community residents (active in supportingor opposing) were taken from press clippings and after each interview,and (2) community residents were asked to recommend other communityresidents for the study. Two elements guided the development of the interview questions: theuse of open-ended questions and in-depth focused interviewing.Open-ended questions capture the points of view without predeterminingquestionnaire categories (Patton, 1990). In-depth focused interviewselicit as complete a report as possible of what is involved in theexperience of a particular situation (Merton, Fiske, & Kendall,1990). Interviews were 60 to 90 minutes long and were conducted in therespondent's home or place of work. Interviews were tape-recordedand transcribed verbatim ver��ba��tim?adj.Using exactly the same words; corresponding word for word: a verbatim report of the conversation.adv. . Notes were taken during the interview. Theseserved to formulate new questions or verify something said during theinterview or to use later in data analysis (Patton). Data analysis was inductive inductive1. eliciting a reaction within an organism.2.inductive heatinga form of radiofrequency hyperthermia that selectively heats muscle, blood and proteinaceous tissue, sparing fat and air-containing tissues. and ongoing and not an isolatedone-time event (Erlandson et al., 1993; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Ibegan to analyze the data after the first interview. Each interview wascoded, decontextualized, or divided into separate units of meaning. Thisentailed "disaggregating data into the smallest pieces ofinformation that may stand alone as independent thoughts"(Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 117). After this, similar units of meaningwere grouped together and assigned a category. The final step in thefirst level of analysis was to reconstruct the entire interview usingthese categories to retell re��tell?tr.v. re��told , re��tell��ing, re��tells1. To relate or tell again or in a different form.2. To count again.Verb 1. the story. The second level of analysisinvolved comparing and contrasting the 19 interviews and the fourrespondent categories. The goal was to discover patterns and commonissues shared among the different groups. This type of"emerging" analysis, in which there are no predetermined pre��de��ter��mine?v. pre��de��ter��mined, pre��de��ter��min��ing, pre��de��ter��minesv.tr.1. To determine, decide, or establish in advance: categories, falls under the naturalistic inquiry or constructivist con��struc��tiv��ism?n.A movement in modern art originating in Moscow in 1920 and characterized by the use of industrial materials such as glass, sheet metal, and plastic to create nonrepresentational, often geometric objects. paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). Ethical Considerations Participation in the study was voluntary. Before the interview eachrespondent was informed about the nature of the research, itsobjectives, and how the information would be used in the future. Noidentifying information was used. Fictitious Based upon a fabrication or pretense.A fictitious name is an assumed name that differs from an individual's actual name. A fictitious action is a lawsuit brought not for the adjudication of an actual controversy between the parties but merely for the purpose of names, including the threedifferent communities and group homes, were used throughout. Steps weretaken to avoid deception. Before each interview I explained to therespondent that the study would not affect whether the group homeremained in the community. After each interview I held a debriefing de��brief��ing?n.1. The act or process of debriefing or of being debriefed.2. The information imparted during the process of being debriefed.Noun 1. session, during which respondents were encouraged to raise questions orconcerns they had about the group home or about the research. The Three Cases: A Description At the time of the study, the group homes had been in operationbetween four months and one year. Foyer Flanders, the first casestudied, was operating under the auspices of a large public psychiatrichospital psychiatric hospitaln.A hospital for the care and treatment of patients affected with acute or chronic mental illness. Also called mental hospital. in Montreal. It provided mental health services health servicesManaged care The benefits covered under a health contract to 260,000people. At the time of the study, the hospital had 1,228 beds andoperated 165 foster homes, seven adjunct clinics, and nine group homes.The group home under scrutiny was located in the northeast section ofMontreal, which had a population of 73,120 (Statistics Canada, 1991).The total average family income of this working class community was$39,895 (Statistics Canada). The people who lived at Foyer Flanders hadbeen diagnosed with severe and persistent mental illness. Most had beenunder psychiatric care for 20 years and had been institutionalized in��sti��tu��tion��al��ize?tr.v. in��sti��tu��tion��al��ized, in��sti��tu��tion��al��iz��ing, in��sti��tu��tion��al��iz��es1. a. To make into, treat as, or give the character of an institution to.b. for11 to 14 years. Eight adults, ages 39 to 60 years, were selected forthis group home. None was considered dangerous or sexually deviant orhad a criminal record. The second case, Mansfield Services for Disabled Persons, was alsoa public agency that had operated in Montreal for more than 30 years. Itoffered a continuum of residential, vocational, and support services support servicesPsychology Non-health care-related ancillary services–eg, transportation, financial aid, support groups, homemaker services, respite services, and other services topeople with intellectual disabilities. At the time of the study,Mansfield Services managed three group homes for adults and providedsupport services for 12 other community residences. The group homedeveloper purchased the home in a quiet residential community with apopulation of 28,700 (Statistics Canada, 1991) and an average totalfamily income of $58,191 (Statistics Canada). The eight children withcognitive and physical disabilities selected to live in the Mansfieldgroup home previously had lived in institutions. They were 11 to 17years of age and came from different cultural backgrounds. The third case, Grandeville Group Home, provided transitionalhousing, rehabilitation rehabilitation:see physical therapy. , and support services for people completingprison sentences. Grandeville Group Home purchased a home in anupper-income community in Montreal, with a population of 63,317 (Villede Montreal 1994). The average total family income for people livingnear the group home was $88,547 (Statistics Canada, 1991). The grouphome residents were women who already had served one-sixth of theirprison sentence and were eligible to complete their sentences in thecommunity. Most of these offenders were under state jurisdiction andwere serving sentences of less than two years. The majority (85 percent)had been convicted of nonviolent offenses, such as shoplifting Ask a Lawyer QuestionCountry: United States of AmericaState: Floridacaught shoplifting at sears 12/05/05, first time, 20yearsold, have no criminal record. , fraud,and theft. Many were mothers with young children. Common Features It is important to note that although the three cases took place inthree different communities there are several issues common to all threecases. First, in all cases, community residents learned about the grouphome as a fait accompli, only after it moved into the community. Thegroup home developers deliberately chose a "low-profile"strategy because they did not believe that they had to inform or preparethe community for the arrival of the group home. More important, theyfelt that prior notice would allow community residents to block thegroup home. Thus only a select few were informed ahead of time:community leaders, elected officials, and board members of the grouphome. Ultimately, group home developers hoped that community residentswould be more understanding and supportive once the group home was inoperation. Community residents were informed about the group home at thepublic information meeting held after the group home had opened. Second, community residents in all three cases used the samestrategy to oppose the group home. On learning about the group home,they immediately began to organize their opposition efforts, spearheadedby one or two key community leaders. The opposition movement producedtwo critical events--a petition circulated door to door and a publicinformation meeting. At the public information meeting, communityresidents rejected the group home. However, this meeting marked aturning point; as in all three cases, the opposition movement dissipated dis��si��pat��ed?adj.1. Intemperate in the pursuit of pleasure; dissolute.2. Wasted or squandered.3. Irreversibly lost. Used of energy. after the public meeting. In the end efforts to oppose the group homesfailed, and community residents were left with no choice but to acceptthem. FINDINGS Two new findings never reported before emerged from the study. Thefirst finding was that community residents in all three cases did notsupport deinstitutionalization policies and used this as a major focusof their opposition to the group homes. Community residents felt thatthe group home was a financial venture. They accused the staff ofmistreating the residents. Other community residents questioned whoseresponsibility it was to care for deinstitutionalized people and arguedthat group homes should be located anywhere but in their neighborhood. The second finding was that community residents did not believethat deinstitutionalized individuals could be socially integrated intothe community. Community residents argued that group home residents wereunable and unwilling to become integrated in the community. Somecommunity residents felt that group home developers never intended tointegrate the group home residents, and they concluded that integrationdid not benefit anyone. It should be noted that although this articlefocuses on the opponents of group homes, it reports supporters'perspectives at specific points to contrast with or support thefindings. Case against Deinstitutionalization Opponents believed that the development of group homes wasmotivated by financial considerations, either by the government or bythe group home developers. Four of seven opponents interviewed statedthat the group home was a profit-making venture. It should be noted thatin all three cases the group home was purchased by the group homedevelopers. Extensive renovations were undertaken in two of the homes,the Mansfield group home and Foyer Flanders. Although the group homedevelopers were not-for-profit organizations, this was nevercommunicated to the community residents before or after the group homeopened. In the Mansfield group home case, two opponents were convincedthat the group home was a real estate investment and that the governmentpurchased the group home for financial reasons. Others alleged that theunderlying reason for group homes was cost reduction. Opponents statedthat it was more cost efficient to operate a group home than to maintainpeople in institutions. One opponent of the Foyer Flan ders projectarticulated this position when he stated: I cannot, as an intelligent and reasonable individual, accept thefact that we take handicapped individuals [ldots] that we place themwith families, or in the hospital [ldots] the major reason is to savemoney. Because that's the goal of politicians. The most importantgoal for politicians, in all this is money. The second argument against deinstitutionalization was to discredit TO DISCREDIT, practice, evidence. To deprive one of credit or confidence. 2. In general, a party may discredit a witness called by the opposite party, who testifies against him, by proving that his character is such as not to entitle him to credit or the group home developer's efforts to enable people to live in aleast-restrictive environment. Six of seven opponents accused the grouphome developers of mistreating the residents of the group home. In onecase community residents described the group home as a prison and aninstitution. In another case they argued that the children weremistreated, locked in the home, and rarely went outside. These kids are being put in a prison. If they would be in aninstitution there would be no difference at all. It's just becauseit's a house. But it's not different. In an institution theywill be locked in. Here they are locked in too. Two others criticized group home staff for being insensitive in��sen��si��tive?adj.1. Not physically sensitive; numb.2. a. Lacking in sensitivity to the feelings or circumstances of others; unfeeling.b. tocommunity residents. Another stated that the home did not provide afamily-type atmosphere and concluded that it was an institution based inthe community. Group home staff were described as unkind. They used theorganization to maintain their jobs rather than to help the group homeresidents. Condemning the quality of care provided in the group home wasan effective strategy, because it undermined the group homedeveloper's credibility and their efforts to provide a betterquality of life for people previously institutionalized. Furthermore, the group home served as an impetus for communityresidents to question whose responsibility it was to provide adequatehousing and support for deinstitutionalized people. Community residentsopposing the group home believed that the state was responsible for thecare of deinstitutionalized people. Four of the seven felt that it wasnot their responsibility to support group homes in their community. Theyargued that they supported group homes through their individual taxcontributions and that the state or natural parents should beresponsible for deinstitutionalized people. This position is bestexemplified by an opponent of the Grandeville Group Home: You know the reasons that they're in there is really not myconcern. It's not my concern because (a) I'm not a socialworker and (b) you know I have my own life to lead. If people are goingto commit crimes, they are going to eventually have to be sent to aprison and then have to go through these kinds of programs, I don'tsee why I have to be a part of that. If I wish to be a part of that thenmaybe I would have been a police officer, or I would have been a wardenin a jail, or I would have been working in one of those houses. But Idon't choose to have anything to do with that part of society. Ithas nothing to do with me. You know I pay my taxes that probably pay forthese institutes, which is normal and it protects me I hope as a citizenand I accept that. Another group of community residents condemned the natural parentsfor not caring for their dependent family member and placing them in agroup home. This argument was exemplified in the Mansfield group homecase, in which community members questioned who should be reprimanded:the neighbors for opposing the group home or the natural parents forrefusing to care for their disabled child? Most community residents felt that group homes should not belocated in their communities. Although the interviewees were notquestioned directly about this, the issue was raised spontaneously. Thesuggestions put forth all called for relocating the group homeelsewhere, although, at the time of the study, each of the three grouphomes was in full operation. Opponents were unanimous in their argumentthat group homes should not be located in their community. Theyrecommended locating group homes in lower-income areas, in institutionsoutside Montreal, and in other areas already zoned for institutions. Onecommunity resident, who lived next to the Grandeville Group Home, statedthat it was inappropriate to place criminal offenders in the community.The resident argued that socioeconomic differences between those livingin the group home and the community would hinder the rehabilitationprocess. He recommended placing offenders in neighborhoods that betterreflected their socioeconomic backgrounds, one in whic h they couldeventually live, find work, and make friends. Similarly, anothercommunity resident proposed that group homes be located in lower-incomeareas, where there was more collaboration among community residents,compared with this resident's neighborhood, where people"stayed behind closed doors." Three of the seven community residents recommended locating grouphomes in institutions outside Montreal. One community resident arguedthat the Mansfield group home did not meet the needs of children withcognitive disabilities. The resident recommended building a complex orcompound for children with disabilities outside Montreal and placingchildren with similar disabilities together so that they could bettercommunicate among themselves. Another community resident argued thatpsychiatric patients should be treated in institutions. The individualadvocated for the creation of a new type of institution where patientscould spend their day socializing with others. Other community residentsrejected the policy of developing group homes in the community, and onesuggested placing women offenders in the countryside: So, you know when they tell me that they have to be in a community,as far as I'm concerned they could be out on a farm with nobody formiles around and commute TO COMMUTE. To substitute one punishment in the place of another. For example, if a man be sentenced to be hung, the executive may, in some states, commute his punishment to that of imprisonment. to their jobs. They have to do a lot toconvince me that it's necessary for them to be brought up in thecommunity. Other community residents supported this view and recommendedplacing people outside the normal confines con��fine?v. con��fined, con��fin��ing, con��finesv.tr.1. To keep within bounds; restrict: Please confine your remarks to the issues at hand.See Synonyms at limit. of a community in a"neutral zone" and not in a neighborhood. Two other community residents supported group homes in areas thathave been zoned for institutions. They suggested that group homes shouldbe located in commercial or industrial areas where there were hospitalsand other institutions already. Another community resident argued thatMansfield Services should have built the group home in an area zoned forinstitutions. It is important to note that in the three cases, only tworespondents (a supporter and a group home developer from the same case)defended the current location of the group home. They believed thattheir community was a good place for a group home. Both disagreed withthe argument for placing clients from lower socioeconomic backgroundsinto group homes in poor neighborhoods. The developer of the GrandevilleGroup Home argued that despite the fact that the group home residentswere poor and from the "inner city," they were also capable ofenjoying the "birds and beautiful trees," as one'sappreciation for beauty did not take a special talent. Failure of Social Integration The second major finding of the study was the community's lackof support for the integration of deinstitutionalized people. Althoughprevious research does not identify social integration as an importantissue of the NIMBY phenomenon, findings from this study suggest thatcommunity perception of social integration of people living in grouphomes is an important element for understanding this social problem.Three of the four groups interviewed (opponents, supporters, and grouphome developers) questioned the feasibility of integratingdeinstitutionalized people into the community. Although only fiverespondents (four supporters and one elected official) defended socialintegration as a realistic goal, nine respondents (six opponents, twosupporters, and one group home developer) stated that integration wasimpossible. They identified the following issues as barriers tointegration: the group home residents were unable and unwilling tointegrate, the group home developers did not intend to integrate theresid re��sid?n. InformalResidual oil.Noun 1. resid - oil products that remain after petroleum has been distilledresidual oil ents, and integration did not benefit the community or the grouphome residents. In all three cases respondents argued that people living in grouphomes were unable to integrate successfully into the community. Despitethe variation in the cases studied, the majority of community residents(six of seven opponents) and one supporter argued that group homeresidents would never become "normal" and function like otherpeople in the community. In two cases, the Mansfield group home andFoyer Flanders, opponents alleged that people living in the group homealways would remain dependent, unable to function on their own. Anopponent of Foyer Flanders described why integrating people withpsychiatric problems into the general community was impossible: They're not able to function. They don't function. Theyhave to always be supervised. I'd say they're not able to livealone in an apartment, even if they've lived in this group home foryears. They can't live alone. Other respondents argued that the structure of the group home didnot allow for integration. They attributed the frequent staff rotationand the absence of a father or mother figure as obstacles tointegration. Community residents also stated that the people in the group homeswould never integrate because of their socioeconomic backgrounds. Theyargued that a fundamental incompatibility The inability of a Husband and Wife to cohabit in a marital relationship. incompatibilityn. the state of a marriage in which the spouses no longer have the mutual desire to live together and/or stay married, and is thus a ground for divorce existed between the group homeresidents' low socioeconomic status and theirs (upper middle class)and they claimed that placing these people in their community wasunfair: I don't know what they're (Grandeville Group Home) tryingnecessarily to achieve. I'm not sure that it's very fair totake a group of people that may be in there for [ldots] because of theirillegal reactions to [ldots] in certain cases, to poverty, and put themin a home where they can look out their windows and watch people backout of their driveways driving their Jaguars and their BMWs. I suspectthat may be a little bit irritating. I mean if I was in a home like thatI'm not sure that it would exactly set me on the straight path torehabilitation. It is important to note that this stance was not exclusive toopponents of the group homes. A supporter of Foyer Flanders alsobelieved that former psychiatric patients had difficulty integrating,saying that having been institutionalized for long periods, they weremore vulnerable than normal people and often felt more secure in ahospital setting. Other respondents argued that the group home residents did notalways want to integrate. The developer of the Mansfield group homeadmitted that not all people with cognitive disabilities wanted to beintegrated. They felt self-conscious and uncomfortable participating inroutine community activities. Two community residents adopted a similarposition. They stated that people living in the group home spent littletime in the community, used the group home as a hostel and thus were notinterested in becoming integrated. Five of seven community residentsstated that the group home developers did not intend or expect tointegrate the group home residents into their community. They feltmisled and condemned the group home developers for lying to them aboutintegration. They maintained that even the group home developers neverexpected to integrate people into the community. That the residents ofthe community had been lied to about the integration of the group homeresidents was stated emphatically em��phat��ic?adj.1. Expressed or performed with emphasis: responded with an emphatic "no."2. Forceful and definite in expression or action.3. : They didn't integrate anywhere. They're basically likemodules stuck out in space where the girls commute to and from,that's where they live. And then when they're not living theyhave to work. They have to go out to work. They're not working inthe neighborhood. They're not working in the community.They're working wherever they work, downtown or wherever. So thehypothesis that they integrate completely, it's a lie basically.It's just not true. This position also was put forth by supporters of different grouphomes. In the case of the Mansfield home, supporters felt that thechildren would never integrate because they had no contact with thecommunity. In the case of Foyer Flanders, supporters predicted thatformer psychiatric patients would never integrate into the community andthat community residents would never initiate contact with the residentsof the group home. Thus integration would be difficult, if notimpossible. Finally, one group home developer acknowledged thatintegration was "tough" and was the second biggest obstaclegroup home developers faced after moving people out of institutions. The final argument raised against integration was "whobenefits?" Four of the seven opponents stated that having the grouphome residents live in their community did not benefit anyone. Communityresidents argued that people living in group homes were not involved inthe community and thus were not "useful." Others criticizedthe group home developers for "parachuting" people into anenvironment that "didn't want them and vice versa VICE VERSA. On the contrary; on opposite sides. ."Community residents concluded that even after many years of living in agroup home, group home residents would be unable to contributesuccessfully to the community. DISCUSSION The findings of this study offer a new perspective on communityopposition to group homes. The arguments presented in opposition togroup homes provide insight into the complicated dynamics of developingcommunity-based residences for groups of people with special needs andthose heavily dependent on social services. Although the findingsreflect primarily the opposition's viewpoints, I presented themintentionally to better explain why residents in communities in whichgroup homes have been started oppose the group homes. The major finding is the community's lack of support fordeinstitutionalization and social integration policies. These issueshave not been addressed in earlier research on the NIMBY phenomenon, andthus it is difficult to link these findings to existing literature. Inthis study community residents not only opposed the group homes, butalso overwhelmingly rejected the underlying philosophy ofdeinstitutionalization and questioned the feasibility of socialintegration. Although community residents may have rationalized theiropposition, they did raise several important and relevant questionsabout the unstated rationale for deinstitutionalization and the use ofgroup homes. Community residents presented a convincing argument againstdeinstitutionalization. They challenged the underlying objective grouphomes--the roles and functions of the group home, its residents andstaff, and the responsibility that citizens have in supporting grouphomes. Oppenents also questioned the fundamental goal of group homes--the integration into the community of deinstitutionalized people. The findings of this study raise many questions and have importantimplications for social work practice. How do social workers expect tointegrate deinstitutionalized people into communities that are unwillingto accept them? How can integration occur when contact is not initiatedamong professionals, the group home, and community residents? Howrealistic is the goal of social integration for people who have lived ininstitutions for most of their lives? On the basis of this information,what strategies should social workers develop to deal with the NIMBYphenomenon? This study has demonstrated the necessity for social workers andpolicymakers to acknowledge community residents' concerns, becausethey are not based on hypothetical situations (as in attitude studies)but are grounded in the actual experience of having a group home in theneighborhood. To date people's opinions on deinstitutionalizationand social integration have remained largely unacknowledged by thesocial work profession. In addition, there is the reality that currentsocial policies clearly identify deinstitutionalization andnonhospitalization as a priority for services delivery and social workinterventions. In Canada, as in the United States United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. , recent socialpolicies support the shift to the community (Government ofQu[acute{e}]bec, 1989,1992; Montreal Regional Health Board, 1995, 1997).In Montreal, Canada, the Minister of Health and Social Servicesannounced plans to reduce the number of beds for psychiatric patients by3,000. The objective during the next five years is to transform existingservic es from a 64 percent institutional and 36 percent community-basedformula to 40 percent institutional and 60 percent community based. Toachieve this objective, the following priorities have been identified:access to adequate housing; crisis intervention crisis interventionPsychiatry The counseling of a person suffering from a stressful life event–eg, AIDS, cancer, death, divorce, by providing mental and moral support. See Hotline. 24 hours a day, sevendays a week; access to treatment in the community; rehabilitation andsocial integration services; and support services for families andcaregivers (Government of Quebec, 1997). Clearly, social workers must continue to play a crucial role indeveloping community-based housing as the need for different forms ofhousing, particularly for those being transferred from institutions,increases in the future. To implement a full range of housingalternatives that are appropriate for the residents and acceptable tohost communities, social workers must refocus Verb 1. refocus - focus once again; The physicist refocused the light beam"focus - cause to converge on or toward a central point; "Focus the light on this image"2. their strategies. Socialworkers must re--examine how they deal with negative community reactionand opposition to group homes. The present method of dealing withopposition on a case-by-case basis may be viable no longer. Asprofessionals mandated to support and maintain people away frominstitutions, social workers must develop a more broadly based strategySocial workers must innovate and propose new structures for involvingcommunity residents, because old models are no longer effective. Newsteps must be taken to open up the debate on deinstitutionalization andsocial integration. Most important, a concerted effort must be made t olisten to community residents' concerns about these socialpolicies. The fundamental issue emerging from this study is the incongruity in��con��gru��i��ty?n. pl. in��con��gru��i��ties1. Lack of congruence.2. The state or quality of being incongruous.3. Something incongruous.Noun 1. between ordinary citizens who do not support existing social policiesfor services-dependent groups and policymakers who advocate thecommunity as the best place for these groups to live. These findingssuggest that policymakers must re-evaluate how deinstitutionalizationand integration are implemented. The debate over the feasibility ofdeinstitutionalization and social integration of services-dependentgroups is one that involves all citizens. Every effort must be made toopen up this debate so that citizens and policymakers begin listening toeach other. Getting communities to accept people who are different is along-term project, requiring a long-term investment and commitment fromeveryone. Understanding the different perspectives and experiences ofthose directly involved in community opposition to group homes may be animportant step in the right direction. CONCLUSION This study focused on why community residents opposed group homes.Although the cases studied involved three different communities inMontreal, Canada, and three different group homes fordeinstitutionalized people, several themes emerged: Community residentsopposed the development of the group homes because they did not supportdeinstitutionalization and social integration policies. This finding hasfundamental implications for social workers and their interventions withdeinstitutionalized people and the communities in which they live. Giventhat the need to develop stable community-based housing fordeinstitutionalized people is bound to increase in the future and thatsocial workers will be responsible for developing these new resources,social workers must as a first step begin listening to the concerns ofcommunity residents and collaboratively begin to develop alternatives. In contrast to earlier studies, which relied solely on the grouphome developer's perspective, this study intentionally sought thecommunity residents' viewpoints. It should be noted that althoughthe sample was small and not representative, it was selected on thebasis of specific criteria. Future studies should be undertaken toinvestigate other cases of the NIMBY phenomenon in communities informedahead of time and for group homes for people with AIDS and for homelesspeople, because less is known about these more recently labeledservices-dependent groups. Finally, although generalization gen��er��al��i��za��tionn.1. The act or an instance of generalizing.2. A principle, a statement, or an idea having general application. was not anobjective of this study, the cases studied may serve as exemplary casesfrom which specific findings may be applied to other comparablesituations of community opposition. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Myra Piat, PhD, is associate researcher, Severe and PersistentIllness Program, Douglas Hospital, Qu[acute{e}]bec, and adjunctprofessor, School of Social Work, and lecturer, Department ofPsychiatry, McGill University McGill University,at Montreal, Que., Canada; coeducational; chartered 1821, opened 1829. It was named for James McGill, who left a bequest to establish it. Its real development dates from 1855 when John W. Dawson became principal. , Montr[acute{e}]al. Send correspondence toDouglas Hospital, 6875 LaSalle Boulevard, Verdun, Qu[acute{e}]bec,Canada H4H 1R3; e-mail: piamyr@douglas.mcgill.ca. REFERENCES Ashmore, R.D. (1975). Background considerations in developingstrategies for changing attitudes and behavior toward the mentallyretarded Noun 1. mentally retarded - people collectively who are mentally retarded; "he started a school for the retarded"developmentally challenged, retarded . In M. J. Begab & S.A. Richardson (Eds.), The mentallyretarded and society: A social science perspective (p. 159-174).Baltimore: University Park Press. Baillargeon, D., Martineau, S., & Proulx, S. (1991). Pas dansma rue . Vers une strategie pour reduire l'intolerance et favoriserla cohabitation A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage.Couples cohabit, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility before they commit to a legal union. sociale. Qu[acute{e}]bec, Canada: ConseilQu[acute{e}]becois de la Recherche La Recherche is a monthly French language popular science magazine covering recent scientific news. It is published by the Soci��t�� d'��ditions scientifiques (the Scientific Publishing Group), a subsidiary of Financi��re Tallandier. Sociale. Baron, R. C., & Piasecki, J.R. (1981). The community versuscommunity care. In R.D. Budson (Ed.), New directions for mental healthservices: Issues in community residential care (p. 63-76). SanFrancisco San Francisco(săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden : Jossey-Bass. Berdiansky H.A., & Parker, R. (1977). Establishing a group homefor the adult mentally retarded in North Carolina North Carolina,state in the SE United States. It is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean (E), South Carolina and Georgia (S), Tennessee (W), and Virginia (N).Facts and FiguresArea, 52,586 sq mi (136,198 sq km). Pop. . Mental Retardation mental retardation,below average level of intellectual functioning, usually defined by an IQ of below 70 to 75, combined with limitations in the skills necessary for daily living. ,15(4), 8-12. Bilodeau, N. (1992). Portrait des citoyens defavorables[grave{a}] l'arriv[acute{e}] sur leur rue, d'une ressourceaccueillant des personnes ayant une maladie mentale. Th[grave{e}]se dema[hat{I}]trise: Universit[acute{e}] Laval. Bogardus, E. S. (1933). Social distance scale. Sociology and SocialResearch, 17,265-271. Boudreault, P. (1989). La desinstitutionnalisation des personnesd[acut{e}]ficientes intellectuelles et leur appr[acute{e}]ciation de laqualit[acute{e}] de vie. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University ofQu[acute{e}]bec at Montr[acute{e}]al. C[hat{o}]t[acute{e}], F., Caron, M., & Ouellet, L. (1995).R[acute{e}]action du public face au voisinage d'une ressourcer[acute{e}]sidentielle pour personnes ayant un probl[grave{e}]meli[acute{e}] au sida, [grave{a}] l'alcolisme ou [grave{a}] latoxicomanie. Revue revue,a stage presentation that originated in the early 19th cent. as a light, satirical commentary on current events. It was rapidly developed, particularly in England and the United States, into an amorphous musical entertainment, retaining a small amount of qu[acute{e}]bacute{e}]coise de psychologie, 16(1),5-23. C[hat{o}]t[acute{e}], I., Ouellet, L., Lachance, R., & Lemay,D. (1992). Relation entre le contact et la distance sociale [acute{a}]l'[acute{e}]gard des personnes avec une maladie mentale. ServiceSocial, 41(3), 95--104. Cupaiuolo, A. (1979). Community interaction with VA family carehomes for the mentally ill: A comparative study of conflict andnon-conflict. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Columbia University Columbia University,mainly in New York City; founded 1754 as King's College by grant of King George II; first college in New York City, fifth oldest in the United States; one of the eight Ivy League institutions. , NewYork New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of . Dear, M. (1977). Impact of mental health facilities on propertyvalues. Community Mental Health Journal, 13, 150-157. Dear, M., & Taylor, S.M. (1982). Not on our street: Communityattitudes to mental health care. London: Pion pion(pī`ŏn)or pi meson,lightest of the meson family of elementary particles. The existence of the pion was predicted in 1935 by Hideki Yukawa, who theorized that it was responsible for the force of the strong . Dorvil,H. (1988a). L'accueil diff[acute{e}]rentiel de lacommunaut[acute{e}] [grave{a}] l'[acute{e}]gard du malade mental.Sant SANT South African Native Trust [acute{e}] mentale au Qu[acute{e}]bec, 13(1), 105--118. Dorvil, H. (1988b). De L'annonciation [acute{a}]Montr[acute{e}]al, histoire de la folie folie/fo��lie/ (fo-le��) [Fr.] psychosis; insanity.folie �� deux? (ah-ddbobr��dans la communaut[acute{a}]:1962-1987. Montr[acute{e}]al: Emile Nelligan. Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, E. (1993).Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications This article or section needs sourcesorreferences that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. . Eynon, T. G. (1989). Building community support. Corrections Today,51, 148-152. Farber, S. (1986). Market segmentation Market SegmentationA marketing term referring to the aggregating of prospective buyers into groups (segments) that have common needs and will respond similarly to a marketing action. and the effects of grouphomes for the handicapped on residential property values. Urban Studies,23, 519-525. Gardner, P. (1981). Community acceptance of alternative livingarrangements for the developmentally disabled mentally retarded citizensof Ohio. Unpublished manuscript. Gendron, J. L., & Piat, M. (1991). La rechercheam[acute{e}]ricaine sur l'intol[acute{e}]rance descollectivit[acute{e}]s grave{a}] l'endroit des ressourcesinterm[acute{e}]diaires. Service Social, 40, 147-157. Gottlieb, J. (1975). Public, peer and professional attitudes towardmentally retarded persons. In M. J. Begab & S. A. Richardson (Eds.),The mentally retarded and society: A social science perspective (pp.99-125). Baltimore: University Park Press. Gottlieb, J., & Strichart, S. (1981). Citizen advocacy:Perceptions of community attitudes. In P. Mittler (Ed.), Frontier ofknowledge in mental retardation: Vol. I--Social, educational andbehaviorial aspects (pp. 391--405). Baltimore: University Park Press. Government of Qu[acute{e}]bec Minister of Health and SocialServices. (1989). Mental Health Policy. Qu[acute{e}]bec, Canada. Government of Qu[acute{e}]bec Minister of Health and SocialServices. (1992). The Policy of Health and Well Being. Qu[acute{e}]bec,Canada. Government of Qu[acute{e}]bec Minister of Health and SocialServices. (1997). The transformation of mental health services:Orientations. Consultation document: Qu[acute{e}]bec, Canada. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. Harasymiw, S. J., Horne, M. D., & Lewis, S. C. (1976). Alongitudinal study longitudinal studya chronological study in epidemiology which attempts to establish a relationship between an antecedent cause and a subsequent effect. See also cohort study. of disability group acceptance. RehabilitationLiterature, 37, 98-102. Heal, L. W., Sigelman, C. K., & Switzky, H. N. (1978). Researchon community residential alternatives for the mentally retarded. In N.R. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation(Vol. 9, pp. 209-249). New York: Academic Press. Johnson, P. J., & Beditz, J. (1981). Community support systems:Scaling community acceptance. Community Mental Health Journal, 17,153-160. Julien, C. (1990). The impact of community correctional centres onneighborhood crimes in the District of Columbia District of Columbia,federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). . Washington, DC:Department of Corrections, Office of Planning and Program Analysis. Kastner, L. S., Repucci, N. D., & Pezzoli, J. J. (1980).Assessing community attitudes toward mentally retarded persons. AmericanJournal of Mental Deficiency mental deficiencyn.See mental retardation. , 84, 137-144. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. BeverlyHills Beverly Hills,city (1990 pop. 31,971), Los Angeles co., S Calif., completely surrounded by the city of Los Angeles; inc. 1914. The largely residential city is home to many motion-picture and television personalities. , CA: Sage Publications. Lubin, R. A., Schwartz, A. A., Zigman, W. B., & Janicki, M. P.(1982). Community acceptance of residential programs for developmentallydisabled persons. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 3, 191-200. Mambort, T., Thomas, E., & Few, R. (1981). Communityacceptance: A realistic approach. Montgomery County Montgomery County may refer to: Montgomery County, Alabama Montgomery County, Arkansas Montgomery County, Georgia Montgomery County, Illinois Montgomery County, Indiana Montgomery County, Iowa Montgomery County, Kansas , OH: MontgomeryCounty Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. Metropolitan Human Services Commission. (1986). Group home studyresearch report. Columbus, OH: Author. Merton, R., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1990). The focusedinterview (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook:Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks,residential city (1990 pop. 104,352), Ventura co., S Calif., in a farm area; inc. 1964. Avocados, citrus, vegetables, strawberries, and nursery products are grown. , CA: SagePublications. Montreal Regional Health Board. (1995). Transformation plan: Theorganization of health and social services on the island ofMontr[acute{e}]al--Achieving a new balance. Montr[acute{e}]al: Author. Montreal Regional Health Board. (1997). Accent on access: Choosingsolutions for the future to improve our services: The organization ofhealth and social services on the island of Montreal The Island of Montreal (in French, ?le de Montr��al), in extreme southwestern Quebec, Canada, is located at the confluence of the Saint Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers. It is separated from ?le J��sus (Laval) by the Rivi��re des Prairies. , 1998-2001.Montreal: Author. Moreau, F. A., Novak, A. R., & Sigelman, C. K. (1980). Physicaland social integration of developmentally disabled individuals into thecommunity. In A. R. Novak & L. W. Heal (Eds.), Integration ofdevelopmentally disabled individuals into the community (pp. 91-103).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Morin, P. (1988). Le r[hat{o}]le social des municipalit[acute{e}]sdans une politique de sant[acute{e}] mentale. Sant[acute{e}] mentale auQu[acute{e}]bec, 13(1), 119-124. Myers, L., & Bridges, S. (1995). Public discourse: Propertyrights, public good and NIMBY. In M. Silver & M. Melkonian (Eds),Contested terrain: Power, politics and participation in suburbia(p.133-148). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Pittock, F., & Potts, M. (1988). Neighbourhood attitudes topeople with a mental handicap mental handicapNounany intellectual disability resulting from injury to or abnormal development of the brainmentally handicapped adj : A comparative study. British Journal ofMental Subnormality subnormalitya state less than normal or that usually encountered. , 34, 35-45. Poulin, C., & L[acute{e}]vesque, M. (1995). Lesd[acute{e}]terminants socio-culturels des attitudes d'acceptationet de rejet des personnes d[acute{e}]sinstitutionnalis[acute{e}]es chez chez?prep.At the home of; at or by.[French, from Old French, from Latin casa, cottage, hut.]chezprepat the home of [French] les Montr[acute{e}]alais francophones. Montr[acute{e}]al: Sant[acute{e}]publique de Montr[acute{e}]al-Centre, [acute{E}]COHS COHS Cardinal O'Hara High School (Springfield, Pennsylvania)COHS Chesapeake and Ohio Historical Society . Rabkin, J. G., Muhlin, G., & Cohen, P. W. (1984). What theneighbors think: Community attitudes toward local psychiatricfacilities. Community Mental Health Journal, 20, 304-312. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Program on Chronic Mental Illness.(1990). Public attitudes toward people with chronic mental illness:Final Report. Los Angeles Los Angeles(lôs ăn`jələs, lŏs, ăn`jəlēz'), city (1990 pop. 3,485,398), seat of Los Angeles co., S Calif.; inc. 1850. : Author. Scott, N. J., & Scott, R. A. (1980). The impact of housingmarkets on deinstitutionalization. Administration in Mental Health, 7,210-222. Seltzer, M. M. (1985). Public attitudes toward communityresidential facilities for mentally retarded persons. In R. H. Bruininks& K. C. Lakin (Eds.), Living and learning in a least restrictiveenvironment As part of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the least restrictive environment is identified as one of the six principles that govern the education of students with disabilities. (pp. 99-113). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Sigelman, C. K., Spanhel, C. L., & Lorenzen, C. D. (1979).Community reactions to deinstitutionalization. Journal ofRehabilitation, 45, 52-55. Solomon, P., & Davis, J. (1984). Community attitudes towardresidential facilities for psychiatric patients. Psychosocial psychosocial/psy��cho��so��cial/ (si?ko-so��shul) pertaining to or involving both psychic and social aspects. psy��cho��so��cialadj.Involving aspects of both social and psychological behavior. Rehabilitation Journal, 8(2), 38-41. Statistics Canada. (1991). Profile of census division The term Census division or Census Division is officially used for the Census divisions of Canada and the Census divisions of the United States.••andsubdivision in Quebec. (Vol. 1, Part B, Catalogue 95-326) and Profile ofcensus tracts in Montreal (Part B, Catalogue 95-330). Ottawa Ministry ofSupply and Services. Tara, A. (1985). Community attitudes towards the mentally retarded:A neighborhood field study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UnitedStates International University, San Diego San Diego(săn dēā`gō), city (1990 pop. 1,110,549), seat of San Diego co., S Calif., on San Diego Bay; inc. 1850. San Diego includes the unincorporated communities of La Jolla and Spring Valley. Coronado is across the bay. . Tringo, J. L. (1970). The hierarchy of preference toward disabilitygroups. Journal of Special Education, 4, 295-306. Trute, B., Tefft, B., & Segall, A. (1989). Social rejection ofthe mentally ill: A replication study replication studyInternal medicine A clinical study that seeks to verify data from a prior study of public attitude. SocialPsychiatry social psychiatryn.The branch of psychiatry that deals with the relationship between social environment and mental illness. and Psychiatric Epidemiology Psychiatric Epidemiology is a field which seeks to measure the prevalence of mental illness in society. It is a subfield of the more general epidemiology. It is very difficult to accurately measure such a thing as mental illness prevalence, and current techniques are relatively , 24,69-76. Tully, H. A., Winter, J. P., Wilson, J. E., & Scanlon, T. J.(1982). Correctional institution Noun 1. correctional institution - a penal institution maintained by the governmentdetention camp, detention home, detention house, house of detention - an institution where juvenile offenders can be held temporarily (usually under the supervision of a juvenile impact and host community resistance.Canadian Journal of Criminology criminology,the study of crime, society's response to it, and its prevention, including examination of the environmental, hereditary, or psychological causes of crime, modes of criminal investigation and conviction, and the efficacy of punishment or correction (see , 24, 133-139. Vile de Montr[acute{e}]al. (1994). Profilsocio-[acute{e}]conomiques de la ville de Montr[acute{e}]al et de sesarrondissements. Montr[acute{e}]al: Bureau Acc[acute{e}]sMontr[acute{e}]al. Wiener, D., Anderson, R. J., & Nietupski. (1982). Impact ofcommunity-based residential facilities for mentally retarded adults onsurrounding property values using realtor analysis methods. Educationand Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17, 278-282. Willms, J. D. (1981). Neighborhood attitudes toward group homes formentally retarded adults. In P. Mittler (Ed.), Frontiers of knowledge inmental retardation: Vol. I--Social, educational and behavioral aspects(pp. 337-344). Baltimore: University Park Press. Wolpert, J. (1978). Group homes for the mentally retarded: Aninvestigation of neighborhood property impacts. Albany: New York StateOffice of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. Descriptive Summary MansfieldVariable Foyer Flanders Group HomeClientele by type of adults and elderly children with multipledisability people with chronic disabilities, ages 11 to 17 psychiqtric problemsNumber of residents in 8 8group homeAverage length of stay of long-term long-termresidents in grouphomeLocation of group residential working middle-income residentialhome (socioeconomic class Italian commun- communitystatus) nityDescription of group duplex, semide- large single-family dwellinghome tached next to adapted for people with single family homes disabilities (ramp)Strategy used to open low profile low profilegroup home GrandevilleVariable Group HomeClientele by type of women offendersdisabilityNumber of residents in 20group homeAverage length of stay of 2-6 monthsresidents in grouphomeLocation of group residential upper-incomehome (socioeconomic area, single-family homesstatus)Description of group beautiful large home, wellhome maintainedStrategy used to open low profilegroup homeNOTE: long term means a stay longer than 12 months.