292 1 J (.Corrections and Prison Practices—Civic Forensic**
the group home as a negative addition, only 2% felt that way at the time of report.
Once the residents actually had experience with a group home in their neigh-
borhood, they felt that its residence made good neighbors. They also found that
property values were not affected by the existence of a group home, as people had no
problems selling their homes. Wahl (1993) also learned that residents who lived near
a group home found the experience satisfactory and reported no impact on initial
fears concerning traffic, property values, crime, and neighborhood appearance. In
fact, more than one-quarter of respondents were unaware that a group home was
located near them. The author actually discovered more dissatisfaction among resi-
dents in the control group, who did not have a group home in their neighborhood,
Those respondents expected to have problems if a home were to be established. One
common complaint concerned the lack of communication with residents during
the process of establishing the group home. This was the dilemma with the Clallam
Bay Prison situation, and also with George and the adolescent group home.
Cook (1997) reported that residents who did not have a group home in their
neighborhood expected the impact to be higher than what was actually experi-
enced by residents who did have group homes near them. They overemphasized
potential problems, whereas the latter group was supportive of placing group homes
in communities. The author indicated that people with certain demographic char-
acteristics were generally opposed to group homes. These included residents who
were older, male, more affluent, educated, married, and homeowners. His study
found some support for this idea. His older residents were more likely to oppose
government support for group homes, and the more affluent neighbors were more
likely to contemplate relocating.
Wenocur and Belcher (1990) identified opposition from certain demographic
types. For instance, they found that group homes in single-family-type residences
were more likely to face problems than were homes in apartment buildings. They
reasoned that renters rather than owners lived in apartments, thereby housing a
more transient type of resident. They also found that opposition was more likely
to occur if other housing programs were already located in the community. Two
court cases in the state of New York addressed this opposition.
The City of Albany opposed a housing facility for mentally disabled persons
because their neighborhood already housed several group homes for various popu-
lations. The court ruled that the facility would not substantially change the character
of the neighborhood, so it was allowed (Jennings i^1. New York State Office of Mental
Health, 1997). The town of Gates, New York also opposed a home for develop-
mentally disabled adults in the community because several similar facilities already
existed there. The court ruled that the single-family home would not be distin-
guishable from any other home in the neighborhood and therefore allowed it to be
established (Town of Gates v. Commissioner of New York State Office of Mental Retarda-
tion and Developmental Disabilities and Finger Lakes Developmental Disabilities Services
Office, 1997).
Sigler and Lamb (1995) reported that successful community-based programs
require the participation and support of the neighborhood in which they are placed.