Case Studies

Conflict Over the Creation of a Homeless Shelter

A group of charitable organizations came together to create a non-profit homeless shelter in West Chester, PA, but faced objection by local businesses and residents due to fears about public safety. The County subsequently established a mediated process for working through these issues. Over the course of four sessions and many private caucuses, parties reached and amicably formalized agreement about what services the homeless shelter would provide and when.

Location: West Chester, PA
Objective: For parties to come to common agreement about organizing a homeless shelter that would benefit the homeless without threatening local businesses.
Duration: Six months (1994-1995)
Parties: Safe Harbor of Greater West Chester, West Chester businesses, Safe Harbor’s potential neighbors, and

The Issue
Growing signs of socioeconomic stress in the City of West Chester led local charitable foundations to form a non-profit shelter, Safe Harbor of Greater West Chester. The shelter was to provide meals and counseling for the homeless. However, the proposed location for the shelter, near the city’s downtown business district, raised concern and ire from nearby businesses and neighbors.

History
While West Chester is located in a generally prosperous county, not all of its citizens are well-off. For two winters in the early 1990s, Safe Harbor (a local non-profit) operated a temporary shelter. The shelter was hosted by a different church each month so as to avoid permit requirements that would otherwise have been imposed by the county government.

During this time, Safe Harbor evaluated several potential sites for a permanent facility and in 1994 found an abandoned downtown garage that had the space necessary to serve the homeless population. Local business owners were alarmed at the prospect of a downtown shelter and felt deeply frustrated by the fact that a shelter was allowed under existing zoning. In the hopes of calming these fears, Safe Harbor held two public breakfasts with business leaders. However, the meetings were very tense and did little to reduce the concerns of the shelters’ opponents.

In response to growing tension, the Chester County Commissioner suggested mediation, and the county hired a team of three mediators.

The Process
The primary objectives of this mediation were to overcome general objections to the shelter and to establish ground rules for the coexistence of the stakeholders. The first step in the process was a series of assessment interviews so that mediators could get a clear understanding of the nature and history of the dispute. Based on this information, the mediators suggested a series of four sessions.

In the first session, participants were given the opportunity to voice their feelings regarding the shelter. As a result of this meeting, it became clear that the business community was concerned that the presence of the shelter would lead to increased loitering, panhandling and crime.

To respond to these safety concerns, representatives of homeless shelters and their neighboring business owners from Harrisburg and Philadelphia were invited to attend the next meeting. They provided information about how Safe Harbor could deter criminals from using the facility to gain easy access to the downtown area. Moreover, Safe Harbor pledged to work actively with both local law enforcement and the business community to address potential problems.

Although this session appeased some of the opponents’ concerns, many representatives of the business community continued in their opposition. The mediators responded by meeting privately with several individuals. During the mediators’ caucus with one of the shelter’s staunchest adversaries, it became evident that his opposition to the shelter stemmed primarily from a friend’s negative experiences at a homeless shelter. This disclosure resulted in an in-depth discussion of Safe Harbor’s counseling and referral services. According to participants, this discussion significantly altered this opponent’s opinion of the project and subsequently changed the course of the entire mediation.

Results
During the final session, Safe Harbor presented its detailed business plan for the shelter. To demonstrate that they truly understood the business community’s fears, and as a way of pledging to be a good neighbor, Safe Harbor issued a statement of commitment to the surrounding community. This statement and the language of the final settlement substantially contributed to the fostering of good will between Safe Harbor’s supporters and the business community.

As part of this settlement, Safe Harbor agreed to postpone opening the shelter on a 24-hour basis until the shelter had demonstrated its ability to deliver basic emergency shelter services to the community’s homeless population. In response, representatives of the business community signed an agreement recognizing that there was a pressing need for a shelter and that the proposed location was the most appropriate one.

Four years later, the shelter expanded its operations to include 24-hour accessibility, counseling, and access to other rehabilitative services. The controversy was gone and the shelter enjoyed widespread community support.

Major Lessons
1) Pre-Assessment: Careful evaluation of the parties involved and their specific interest was required for a successful mediation. The exclusion of any legitimate stakeholders or failure to resolve the conflict’s underlying issues could have resulted in a re-emergence of the conflict. In addition, it was very important that the stakeholders who were disillusioned with early attempts to deal with the conflict believed that the process was worth their time.

(2) Trusting the Parties: It was the stakeholders themselves, not the mediator, who had to construct the mutually satisfactory agreement. The mediator assisted those involved in identifying goals. The mediator’s most important tasks were to ensure that participants had a forum in which to speak, to keep confidentiality, and to operate in a non-partisan matter. This ensured an environment in which all stakeholders could voice their concerns with confidence, facilitating the exchange of information necessary for participants to formulate solutions.

(3) Value of Communication: A major milestone occurred when the parties finally began communicating clearly with one another. Proponents of Safe Harbor began to better understand the support that the business community could provide and, at the same time, the business community realized that Safe Harbor’s shelter was the most viable solution to the downtown area’s homeless problem. It was this interaction that allowed the stakeholders to establish a mutually supportive and long-lasting relationship.

Sources
Susskind, Lawrence, Mieke van der Wansem, and Armand Ciccarelli (2000). Mediating Land Use Disputes Pros and Cons. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 24-25.

Susskind, Lawrence and the Consensus Building Institute (1999). Using Assisted Negotiationto Settle Land Use Disputes; a Guidebook for Public Officials. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 7.