Community Norms and Governance of Housing

Abstract

Community norms can either promote a healthy, caring community or lead to a toxic community that is harmful. In public and subsidized housing for the elderly and disabled, failure to control bullying and mobbing (group bullying) creates a toxic community, while failing to prevent transmission of COVID-19 can create a deadly situation. Among the factors that may influence community norms and adherence to those norms are the goals and methods of several actors--norms of the local municipality, the landlord or local housing authority, the management and staff, and tenants, including tenants associations. One method of management to maintain community norms is compassionate: establishing trust and improving communication and understanding. Another method is assertive: intervening to stop inappropriate behavior by warnings and sanctions.

I have compared cases of five public and subsidized housing developments with respect to bullying, group bullying or mobbing, and conformity to social distancing protocols; and have done so before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the housing authority cases involved an ongoing effort to transition from a toxic situation. Several years later, there was new turmoil.

Findings

A compassionate approach to management succeeds in the absence of prior mobbing; and so does an assertive, interventionist approach. But on the record presented here, the assertive, interventionist approach is better suited to rapidly stopping prior group bullying/mobbing. Both approaches have proven merit in non-mobbing contexts , and a combination of these approaches or styles may be an effective management tool-kit. Tenants associations can have a positive or negative impact on community norms.

Note: The first use of a pseudonym is marked with quotation marks, thus: “Alice.”

Introduction

In public and subsidized housing for the elderly and disabled, failure to control bullying and mobbing (group bullying) creates a toxic community, while failing to prevent transmission of COVID-19 can create a deadly situation. Some landlords, local housing authorities, managers, and tenants are able to cooperate to establish and enforce community norms, prevent bullying, and enforce regulations on COVID-19. Others are unable or unwilling, or cannot overcome resistance.

Part of the problem may be failure to understand the differences between bullying, group bullying, and mobbing--they respond to different strategies of control.

Can we find examples of success and failure in establishing community norms? Can we understand what makes for these differences? Can we then go ahead and provide practical insights and policy directions to enable landlords, managers, tenants, and the makers of policy to improve the management of housing?

For this report, I have compared five housing developments with respect to bullying, group bullying or mobbing, and conformity to social distancing protocols; and both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I found that when all stakeholders seek a healthy environment, they can achieve it using a gentle, compassionate management style as well as when they use an assertive style, intervening quickly to set limits. The assertive management style is more effective, at least in the short run, in stopping group bullying/mobbing. A combination of compassionate and assertive styles is the most effective choice.

In the healthy environments I looked at, there was little or no group bullying/mobbing and no resistance to the COVID-19 public health measures. Where there was a recent history of mobbing, public health measures were resisted.

Bullying

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, bullying in public and subsidized housing for elderly and disabled tenants, comprising 1,400 developments with 92,000 units, has significant impact on tenants. A survey by the Commission on Bullying highlighted the extent of bullying--almost half of the respondents had been bullied, and about 30% were bullied and observed others being bullied.

Negative responses on any of these three questions seemed diagnostic of bullying:

  • Does the manager create a warm and welcoming environment
  • Does the social worker create a warm and welcoming environment?
  • Does the tenants association create a warm and welcoming environment?

Furthermore, I had observed that the policies of the landlord largely determined the approach of the management, and the social worker defers to management.

Social distancing & bullying

Social distancing and masking [were considered in 2020 to be] two essential components of an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a time when lives depend on avoiding exposure to COVID-19, a highly contagious disease which tends to strike the elderly and disabled with severe and often deadly impact, some residents of housing for elderly and disabled ignore or defy the public health orders and advice on social distancing. Rejection of social distancing and perpetrating bullying are two problems with common roots—rejection of the authority of the management and/or public health officials; a lack of concern for the common welfare or the rights of others; and a focus on the autonomy and power of a specific group; all based on the personal desire for inclusion in a peer group.

These behaviors pose challenges for all residents and especially for the landlord and management of a housing facility for the elderly and disabled.

I have been comparing the differences between communities that are toxic and plagued by bullying and mobbing, and healthy communities where people are more tolerant of and supportive of each other. Both bullying and the issues of compliance with public health mandates may be influenced by management and leadership approaches, as well as the actions of tenants and especially tenant groups and tenants associations.

Both COVID-19 and bullying spread by interpersonal contact. Bullying, and especially group bullying and mobbing will drive people out of the common areas of the housing development, forcing them to take refuge in their apartments if they do not have the ability to go out into the community. The protocols for protecting staff and tenants from COVID-19 include making all the common areas off limits and encouraging tenants to remain in their apartments. So both COVID-19 and the various forms of bullying deprive people of their normal social interactions. Isolation causes stress and both emotional and physical harm.

Why do they do that?

It is difficult to know why people don’t comply with requirements that are intended to benefit them as well as everyone in the community. Some consider that their freedoms and liberties are being infringed. They don’t think that anyone has the right to tell them what to do, and if there is a risk of getting sick, they are willing to accept that. Why can’t people visit their relatives who are in hospital? They don’t seem to understand that if they should catch COVID-19, they could transmit it to others. And in the comments section of news articles on the illness and deaths caused by COVID-19, we find rants against the social distancing and masking protocols; some believe that it is all a political hoax. To them, matters of life and death are viewed from the perspective of partisan identity politics, what many call “tribalism.”

The failure of the federal government to present a clear, consistent message about the best public health information and advice, coupled with the use of political loyalty as a basis for evaluating information, resulted in an unfortunate level of confusion among the public. Naturally, this echoed in the housing environment, and kept many people from acting to assure their own and their neighbors’ safety.

Group bullying and mobbing

Bullying and mobbing are often the symptom of a breakdown in trust and social order in a community. People may seek to overcome insecurity, or to retain or seek power by membership in a group that divides the world into “us” and “them.” Complete loyalty to “us” and winning becomes more important than anything else, negating ideas of justice or fair play or solving real-world problems.

The social, cultural, and political drama in public housing reflects the national scene, a scene which does not bode well for the nation. 

A reason that some tenants may ignore or flout rules and protocols meant to protect all may be related to bullying and group bullying, which can create a tenant group engaging in a pattern of a continuing effort to control other residents.

In multifamily residential settings, group bullying tends to emerge in the absence of a polity, an agreement on how behavior is to be regulated, and that is seen to be effectively and fairly implemented. A group engaged in bullying considers that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong, or that certain other residents are not good enough to live in the complex. Mobbing is aggressive action by a group, sometimes motivated by a desire to prevent chaos and often becomes an effort of the group to attack and get rid of anyone who is critical of the goals or actions of the leadership.

Success and failure in enforcing social distancing

In nursing homes and other closed residential communities, COVID-19 spreads like wildfire, killing many. Reports are emerging about COVID-19 killing residents in assisted living homes. In some of those places, according to reports, there has been a long history of inadequate staffing, failure to establish protocols against infection, lack of supplies, and ineffective oversight. Public and subsidized housing communities are also vulnerable to the spread of infection. Residents interact with each other, while some continue to work or shop and are thus exposed to infection and the possibility of becoming carriers of COVID-19. Visitors and providers of services are also a potential source of exposure.

In responding to the COVID-19 crisis, the leadership of the housing community will be better able to work with staff and residents to protect the community if they have established trust and collaboration. There is an adage about the best time to plant a tree: “Twenty years ago is the best time, but the next best time is today.” Changing the culture of a residential community takes time. So if there is a problem today, such as bullying or residents not following the protective protocols, it is important to begin the work of creating trust and collaborative relationships along with setting limits; even though it would have been better to have begun two years ago.

According to Atul Gawande, MD, we must adapt the strategies for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 in the hospital setting to any residential setting, such as Lasell Village, a community for seniors. He notes that creating a new cultural norm in a community takes effort, persistence, and motivation. Anne Doyle, the president of Lasell Village, told Gawande, “When you have a community that cares about each other, then people are interested in adhering [to the guidelines] for other people.”

Understanding mobbing

Bad apple, bad barrel

When a community harasses and bullies a victim, and the landlord initiates, condones, or ignores these attacks, that is mobbing.

(Within that category we can make finer distinctions, such as institutional bullying if the landlord allows it to happen and institutional mobbing, where the landlord also bullies.)

[I have seen no practical difference in the impact on tenants when the landlord bullies compared to the landlord just ignoring bullying. So in 2024 I would not make that distinction.—JH]

Mobbing is a form of assault that inflicts psychological injury that can create long-lasting psychological and physical symptoms. Mobbing is a much more sophisticated way of doing someone in than murder—and it is legal.

The dynamics of bullying by an individual are very different from the dynamics of a group or community seen in mobbing. Where mobbing exists, no effort by tenants to remedy the situation can succeed, and any attempts are likely to cause retaliation and harm for anyone who stands up for their rights or seeks to intervene. The methods that are promoted to deal with bullying can lead to disaster when applied to mobbing.

Bullying is a public health issue that seriously harms elderly and disabled residents and creates a toxic environment for all who live or work in infected communities. In a context of mobbing, a situation in which the institutional authority engages in and supports or allows people to be aggressive towards and bully a target, there is no possibility for relief within the institution, and therefore there must be intervention by appropriate external parties. However, neither bullying or mobbing are subject to action by the police or any social service protective agency. Victims of bullying can find no relief.

Janice Harper, PhD, has written on the problem of mobbing in a statement for the Commission on Bullying,

“Mobbing is common in workplaces, the military, communities, housing associations, and any group home setting where people live communally but cannot easily relocate. For this reason, housing for the elderly and disabled is a high-risk setting for mobbing behaviors, where interventions based on the bully paradigm fail to protect individuals who find themselves the target of group aggression. If anything, the target is likely to be called a bully by the very people who have engaged in bullying behavior, because bullies have been socially demonized as deserving of elimination, while the very label is a form of dehumanization. Accusing the target of always making complaints and being disliked by everyone can be used to portray the target of abuse as the abuser.”

In mobbing, the problem is the bad barrel, not just the bad apple. The social and administrative setting largely determines if bullying and mobbing can thrive and create a toxic community or will be suppressed, and if there will be a healthy community. Research on mobbing in the workplace is very clear—that to prevent bullying and mobbing, the leadership must use effective techniques of management, and that poor management tends to support bullying.

The roles of landlord and tenants

The landlord (housing authority) is legally responsible for “peaceful enjoyment” and obligated to act to prevent behavior threatening the well-being of tenants. Every tenant has the right to enjoy the use of their home and common spaces without interference. Only the landlord has the right to determine who may reside in a housing facility, or to determine that an eviction is necessary, subject to a court hearing. Landlords have limited tools for enforcement, and eviction may seem too drastic a sanction. And community norms reflect the values of the tenants and the actions of tenant groups, both informal and formal such as tenant associations.

A small number of subsidized housing developments are organized under a cooperative model. Under a different set of regulations outside of public housing or most subsidized housing, it is possible for tenants to have a primary role in management, including dealing with bullying or other disruptive behavior. Tenants take responsibility for maintenance, budgets, and most other functions of a landlord or management company. Only those applicants who are committed to the cooperative model, and who are willing to accept their peers as judges, are accepted to live in such as development. Tenants in some cooperative developments are happy with their lives, care for their neighbors, and rarely have to deal with the need to discipline others for bullying. And when they do sit in judgement, there is professional oversight.

Views of landlords & managers

I have asked landlords and managers about their experience and best practices for encouraging people to follow social distancing and/or for preventing bullying.

“Like many other owners, we have had challenges with residents who ignore social distancing advice. There are no easy answers but constant communication and education.”--CEO of a large, Boston-based developer.

Another manager said,

“A lease violation is the last resort.”

“Joan Archer,” executive director at “Rising Creek,” said,

“I put a stop to the malicious and false complaints among residents by requiring complaints to be put in writing. This immediately stopped the mobbing. I intervene and talk to a resident immediately whenever I learn of them bullying.”

When asked about the role of the landlord in bullying, Brian Costello, the former Executive Director of the Watertown Housing Authority and past President of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (MassNAHRO), said

“The landlord should be accountable for their primary purpose, which is quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the building. If residents feel their needs are not being met, then they should be able to reach out to a third party.[Explained as the board of the housing authority]”

Compassionate & assertive management styles

The consensus report of the Commission on Bullying supported providing resources to enable a compassionate and competent management style. We support the need for such resources, including social workers, mental health resources, guides to best practices, training and education, and more. The legislative proposal based on the consensus report of the commission, would create programs designed to improve the administration of housing programs.

But there is no enforcement mechanism, no oversight, nor is there a method for assuring change where the landlord is not fully prepared to adopt and implement these proposals. Alone, such legislation to enable a compassionate style of management will not assure tenants of protection from harm or preserve their rights, or hold landlords accountable.

Based on the findings of the Commission on Bullying, including research on the dynamics of mobbing by Janice Harper, PhD and others, as well as my own observations and what we learned from many tenants—we conclude that remedies such as those proposed under the administrative remedy bill are unlikely to reach their full potential, unless there are also complementary protections such as the ombuds bill. An ombuds office [in 2024 we now seek to create the office of the tenant advocate within the Office of the Attorney General—JH] would protect tenants from bullying and hold landlords accountable, filling a gap in the provision of justice.

Compassionate interventions and efforts by tenants to organize for their rights often fail in conditions when the landlord is not fully supportive. A group using bullying and mobbing creates fear of retaliation that can cancel the impact of any of the following compassionate interventions, interventions that may be effective only if mobbing does not exist in the institution. These are potentially useful and effective methods after mobbing has been eliminated: tenant association—a community organizer to empower tenants to seek their rights—assertiveness, standing up to the bully—complaining to management—training for awareness of bullying with how to confront, ignore, charm the perpetrator, or get along with the situation—“grow a thick skin” seeking protection from harassment in court—seeking to evict “the bully” or to “get rid of a bad tenant”—having an on-premses resident coordinator—having a mental-health resource—urging new modes of respectful, considerate behavior.

An assertive management style is very direct. The manager intervenes immediately on learning of a credible accusation of bullying, meets with the alleged perpetrator, and reminds of the obligations of each tenant to respect the peaceful enjoyment of others. Further steps may include a letter warning of a lease violation, and repeated offenses can lead to eviction. Managers can be compassionate while also setting limits to protect the community.

Case studies

Working together takes trust and solidarity. How is trust developed? What does it take for people to develop solidarity and community in a healthy way rather than toxic? I present here some situations that may help to understand these issues by comparing the healthy and the toxic, situations that exemplify the problem and/or a solution.

Public Housing in Georgetown: Trestle Way

Georgetown is a community of about 10,000 in Essex County, Massachusetts. According to the 2010 census the median income for a household in the town was $108,137. About 2.7% of families and 4.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.8% of those under age 18 and 5.5% of those age 65 or over.The Georgetown Housing Authority receives state aid and is overseen by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Trestle Way has 126 1-bedroom units of public housing for elderly and disabled.Diane Drinan [was in 2020—JH] the Executive Director in Trestle Way, where there has not been a problem with bullying for a decade. Drinan’s method is simple: she doesn’t tolerate false accusations, and when she hears of a problem, she intervenes. The other side of her personality is empathy.Today, the only problem with COVID-19 protocols at Trestle Way is that one of the oldest residents sometimes forgets to wear her face covering.

In Trestle Way, residents of the town have provided extensive support during the COVID-19 crisis. Drinan says,

“It is just so thoughtful and heartwarming--the help that comes to our Trestle Way community. This has never happened before, we have always been tucked away in our own housing community. And now, there has been an outpouring of support from groups and individuals, all sparked by the local Facebook community. People drive up with their trunks full of toilet paper, a group donated candy, someone delivered peanut butter, bread, jelly, and every day there is someone that comes in to be of help.

Drinan distributes the donations on a regular basis. Gift cards and donations enable Drinan to purchase a meal for all residents every week. She said,

“I call to order on Monday, and pick the food up on Tuesday so I get the senior discount. We provide this meal weekly, and when the money runs out, we’ll have meals on wheels.”

The donations and gifts have come in from the VFW, the Boosters, Kiwanis; and Drinan has a number of people she can call for help. Drinan concludes,

“COVID-19 has a silver lining, it is the wonderful generosity of people in Georgetown.”

Victory over mobbing at “Rising Creek”

It is possible to stop the bullying, as demonstrated in the story of “Rising Creek,” a residential complex in the town of “Bethlehem.” Bethlehem, in Essex County, is an upscale bedroom community with under 10,000 residents that combines magnificent colonial-era homes and open spaces.Rising Creek is managed under the supervision and control of the Bethlehem Housing Authority, overseen by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and it receives state aid. The Housing Authority Board has four locally elected members.

Many of the residents of Rising Creek are long-term residents of Bethlehem, and a number have advanced degrees and worked in skilled and professional capacities (publisher, teacher, clergyman).As of December, 2014, most residents were contented, and were being treated fairly and with respect. That is a contrast with the situation in June 2012, when out of sixty-four residents at Rising Creek, at least fourteen (and possibly as many as twenty) were victims of harassment and mobbing that began in 2010.Many of those targeted had attempted in January 2010 to form the Rising Creek Tenants Association. They had formed a steering committee and were in the process of establishing their association, and advised by a former manager of Rising Creek who saw the benefits of a tenants association.

However, they had been preempted by “Gertrude Smith,” the manager, who quickly established a management-controlled tenants association, in defiance of DHCD rules and regulations. The members of this association quickly became the “Rising Creek Guardians.” With the full support of the manager and maintenance staff person, they engaged in harassing other residents of Rising Creek, especially those who had formed the steering committee. The effort of the steering committee to create a tenants association addressing the concerns of residents resulted in almost five years of bullying and mobbing under three separate managers.

To make matters worse, the manager, Gertrude Smith was supported by the landlord--the Board of Directors of the Bethlehem Housing Authority. A board member even tried to dissuade people from having a tenants association. Residents were bullied by other residents; by the maintenance man; and by the manager. Some victims of the mobbing were forced to move; some victims, including Susan Anthony, experienced psychological issues including depression and anxiety requiring treatment.

Almost none of the efforts by residents to obtain relief were effective. These included reports to the police, appeals to the members of the Housing Authority; interventions by the protective services agency regarding elder abuse; reports to the DHCD; reports to the Attorney General; the Triad Council, and more. Residents contacted the offices of the Governor and senior officials to say,

"I am afraid. I am being threatened."

Most frustrating were the agency responses that referred the issues back to the Bethlehem Housing Authority--the source of the problems, according to residents. Despite support from the Mass Union of Public Housing Tenants, their pleas were unavailing. They were advised by more than one person to “stand down,” and “blend back into the community.” A police officer suggested to Susan Anthony that she might escape the harassment by moving away. She replied,

“I have lived in this town for sixty-two years, and in Rising Creek for fifteen, why should I leave?”

The manager wrote threatening and harassing letters to Anthony, attacking her character and accusing her of harassing, threatening, and being a nuisance. Anthony's attorney advised her that harassing to force someone to move is “constructive eviction” and is illegal; and that threatening her with eviction based on hearsay complaints was an “idle threat.”

A new manager

An experienced professional executive director, “Joan Archer,” was appointed from May 2014. She had soon created a positive atmosphere at Rising Creek. Archer reduced malicious and false complaints among residents by requiring complaints to be put in writing. Archer intervenes immediately whenever she learns of bullying. The bullying, harassing, and mobbing quickly ended.

What factors enabled change?


Status and background of the victims

Several of the victims were established, well-connected, and respected members of the town; with advanced education; professional careers; including veterans, teachers, clergy. Two of the activist residents actually applied for the position of manager.

Advocacy

Susan Anthony, Antoinette Freeman, and several other residents continued to protest and to reach out into the community and to many agencies and elected officials for remedies. They repeatedly took issues to the directors, despite the lack of a response. One of the residents, under threat of eviction from the manager, was a veteran and shared his concerns with other veterans; this brought his plight to the attention of a state representative, the Veterans Administration, and others.

In the summer of 2014, “Helen Desparta,” a hard-working, persistent advocate led an effort to form a new representative, democratic tenants association and force the Housing Authority to recognize it. Desparta had advice from many, including from a successful tenants association in a nearby town.

Legal action

Susan Anthony was helped by an attorney. Antoinette Freeman sought an accommodation for her health needs, but was denied by the manager. Assisted by an attorney from the North Shore Community Action Program (NSCAP), Antoinette Freeman appealed to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), and MCAD found in her favor. With that ruling in hand, Antoinette Freeman went to court, and won.A resident, George Carver, PhD, a retired professor and president of the new Rising Creek Tenants' Association, had applied for the position of manager. The successful candidate was appointed manager and within weeks threatened George Carver with eviction, and the case went to a hearing in Housing Court. The lawyer for the Bethlehem Housing Authority stated that they did not have a case and would not seek eviction. George Carver learned that if he could prove persecution and retaliation because of his activity on behalf of the Tenants' Association, he could sue the Housing Authority, including individual directors.

Publicity

Jason Peebles, one of the residents, was harmed by smoke coming from the adjacent apartment, and could not get management to remedy the situation. After an article about the problem was published in the local newspaper, one of the directors of the housing authority came to his home and admonished him,

“[Going to the newspaper] is not the way we do business in Bethlehem.”

Politics

There is a network of kinship and politics that runs throughout the housing authority, town, and state government. At least one elected state representatives took an interest and may have influenced town or state officials. This state representative might have changed the balance of forces.

Changing the balance

Rising Creek went through a five-year period of bullying and mobbing. I have outlined the reported sources of the mobbing, and identified several factors that seem to have combined to restore a healthier environment. Another factor to consider in the change is that of competing values. There are two beliefs that competed.

One belief is that people in public housing are not deserving of respect.

A competing belief or value is that society has an obligation to care for the weak, including the elderly and the disabled. The belief is that they are indeed entitled to respect as well as housing.

As we observe in housing developments like Rising Creek in Bethlehem, the local community in which they are embedded can exhibit a variety of responses based on different values, values that can co-exist within each person or social group. Susan Anthony, a life-long resident of Bethlehem and an eighteen-year resident of Rising Creek, has deep roots in the community going back to the 1600s and proudly states,

“I am a defender of human rights.”

According to Anthony, many people in Bethlehem consider that people living in public housing have a sense of entitlement and others must support them with taxes. Some say that people living at Rising Creek are “on the dole.”

These two beliefs have deep roots in our culture, and play out in national and local political life. The balance between them changes, in part due to the actions of individuals joining together in advocacy.

The activist residents of Rising Creek, while not financially independent, exemplify an ethos of self-reliance and communal action. Susan Anthony bravely advocated for victims of bullying and mobbing, including herself, during several tumultuous years. It was a difficult time for Susan Anthony because the manager was supported by the influential Board of Directors of the Bethlehem Housing Authority.

“When I approached people in town whom I had known for years, they would say ‘I can't help you, Susan,’ or ‘I...cannot get involved.’

We were pretty much hung out to dry.” But they persisted and finally overcame the barriers.

The mobbing depended on the persistence of a closed administrative, social, and political system that prevented the victims from invoking their rights and legal remedies. Their program of advocacy was finally able to go beyond that closed system and reach the wider community to invoke the values of dignity, respect, and mutual responsibility that are deeply rooted in New England and in Bethlehem. Bethlehem should be proud of meeting the challenge. The positive changes at Rising Creek, including the choice of the new manager, came from the same town that had condoned the mobbing.

“Constitution City”

The housing authority in Constitution City, located in Essex County, manages several hundred units in several locations scattered over the city. These include three apartment buildings situated in or adjacent to the busy, historic downtown—“Constitution Tower,” “Riverview,” and “Riverside.” “Safe Harbor” is a garden type apartment complex.

For decades, the long-time executive director had dominated the decisions of the housing authority board, and managed tenant relations in a formal and authoritative style. Some tenants recalled that regime as efficient and that the director would intervene when issues arose among tenants. Others resented being “badgered,” threatened, and bullied by management and staff. For a few years, a city-wide tenants association sought to give voice to the needs of tenants, but eventually disbanded.

In 2015, a new tenants association, Constitution Tower Tenants Association (CTTA), rose up in Constitution Tower, a large (100 or more units) apartment building. “Jack” and “Jill” were the leaders of the CTTA who, supported by citizens and advocacy organizations, stubbornly and bravely fought with the housing director and housing authority for recognition. The goal of the CTTA was that the tenants association would lead tenants in building community, including to prevent bullying, and that the housing authority would be supportive. After many years of conflict between management and tenants and a recognition in Constitution City that the management style was not in line with current standards of efficiency and emerging demands for respect for tenants, it was time for a change. A major factor in the movement for change was that the political leadership of Constitution City, the Governor, and the state Department of Housing and Community Development intended to enlist the housing authority as a partner in developing much-needed housing in Constitution City.

Public-private partnerships in housing development

Federal and state funding for maintaining and developing public housing is insufficient to prevent deterioration and decay of the public housing stock. State officials now favor a model in which public housing properties, often in highly desirable locations, would be turned over to a developer. The private developer develops new mixed-income housing for a combination of market rate, affordable, and public subsidized units. In some situations, the existing public housing tenants would be relocated for 2-3 years while old buildings were razed and replaced, and new market rate and affordable units would be added on the property. Future management of the new community would be by the developer, with oversight by the state and the local housing authority. Tenant advocacy groups are concerned, fearing that their rights under state regulations might be lost. The history of public housing development shows that there is often a conflict between what tenants want and need, and the goals and process of development. This can exacerbate the tensions and conflicts of interest in the housing environment.

A new beginning

All parties in Constitution City seemed united on making a new start that would be responsive to the needs of residents, empowering tenants to have a greater say in all aspects of the housing authority. As one of the housing board members said in an effort to reduce angry outbursts by tenants,

“I'm hopeful we can turn the page and have a real partnership, where tenants can bring issues and communicate with management, or where management has a concern, to communicate with residents; we should be able to communicate.”

Communication, but for what purpose? What is the scope of the negotiation among the parties? Specifically, the goal of involving the housing authority in developing new housing offered both new challenges and new opportunities. Would all tenants support the expansion of housing under private development? How would tenants be represented--by the one existing tenants association, by a tenants association in each of the housing developments, or by a city-wide association? The housing authority, new executive director, tenants, and many citizens and politicians all saw themselves as stakeholders with the right to a seat at the table.

Documenting the change in Constitution Tower

In 2018 I joined my friend, Mikhail Kazachkov, a human rights activist and film producer, to develop a documentary film on bullying in public and subsidized housing. I decided to focus on Constitution City as a case study late in 2018 because the ongoing transition in leadership on the housing authority board and management seemed to have most of the elements to assure success. In my research on the underlying factors supporting bullying and mobbing, the most salient finding was that the role of the landlord was significant. Where the landlord and management tolerated bullying of tenants or among tenants, or supported and engaged in bullying, the social life of the community was toxic.

In 2018, the social situation for tenants in Constitution Tower was toxic, and management did not prevent bullying, while some considered the director to be a perpetrator of bullying. One individual would be critical of another, and decree that they didn’t belong in the building. Tenants would label another as a bully but feared to report them for fear of retaliation.

In a survey of tenants done by the Constitution Tower Tenants Association (CTTA), 60% of the 24 respondents had suffered or witnessed abuse and about 60% found that the homeless people residing in the building was a problem. The CTTA intended to organize the tenants to solve these problems.

“Jack,” the leader of the CTTA, was ambitious, trying to enforce rules that empower tenants and get a voice for the tenants, and to prevent bullying; and he was a challenge to the housing authority. The state housing authority and the Governor appointed the mayor to serve on the housing authority board with a view to improving administration and expanding housing stock in Constitution City. The mayor and other civic leaders seemed determined to replace the members of the housing authority and select an excellent director, and to improve communication with the residents. Tenant leaders were determined to empower tenants to have a role in the governance of their homes, and they were supported by a number of activist citizens. Other factors were also pointing in a positive direction--the social worker created a warm and welcoming environment.

Testing the hypothesis

Based on my understanding of the dynamics that are found in a healthy community compared to a toxic community, I expected that the transition in the housing authority and in the management would favor a more healthy community that would replace the existing toxic situation. My plan was to follow events and see what changes in the policies and administration of the housing authority might mean for tenants. Would the changes lead to a healthy social setting? Would bullying be diminished? If so, might the methods and procedures to introduce change be a guide to other housing authorities? Would a new compassionate regime that improved trust, engaged with tenants, and supported positive community norms create a healthy community? Documenting the change process would help to evaluate the idea that the management style and relationships among management, landlord, and tenants would determine outcomes--would the emerging community be toxic or healthy? At the start of the transitional process, my hypothesis was that the outcome would be a more healthy community in Constitution Tower.

The transition

The housing authority transition began late in 2018, with the housing authority in shambles. At public meetings of the housing authority in 2019, news cameras and reporters documented tenants and citizens shouting criticism at the board members. Despite the objections of the mayor, newly appointed to the board, the board voted to approve spending several thousand dollars of public housing money on a party for the director who had recently retired. Tenants had not been invited to the party, and to add insult to injury, the party was not even set for a facility in Constitution City. At the next meeting, two board members had been replaced, the board voted with the mayor, and the approval for the party was rescinded.

 

Signs displayed by tenant leaders at a meeting of the Constitution City Housing Authority

Early in 2019, the meetings of the Constitution City Housing Authority saw tenants demanding change, change that respected and involved tenants. There were two distinct groups of advocates. Jack, the leader of the CTTA, pushed to reinforce and strengthen the role of the CTTA. He demanded to have a say in selecting board members and insisted on the right of the CTTA to influence policy.

Others argued for the creation of a city-wide tenants association, noting that the CTTA only represented a single development:

“In the future, you will be fully transparent. You will be fully supportive of a city-wide tenants association, and you will tap into the wealth of knowledge and information we have,” a tenant leader said. “You will do your jobs. You will get the appropriate training you need that’ll teach you how to be on a board of directors.”

Even when the CTTA leaders acted egregiously, any criticism or challenge of the CTTA made by managers or housing authority members in the monthly public meetings of the housing authority was met with shouts of derision from tenants and citizens. In their eyes, the CTTA could do no wrong.

A process of change, including extensive engagement with residents, had begun. The search for a new executive director was carried out by a committee including tenants as well as board members. The final choice was made in a public interview of two well-qualified finalists, with the selection made unanimously.

The chosen candidate, “Fannie Mendel,” had experience as a mental health professional as director of mental health institutions, as well as a strong track record as an executive director of housing. People welcomed her in part because of her experience in mental health. Prior to the installation of Fannie Mendel as the new executive director, Constitution Towers was beset by mistrust, conflict, hostility, aggression, bullying and group bullying/mobbing. It felt like everyone was hyper-vigilant. Many people saw the source of the problems as mental health issues in the tenant population. Others blamed what they saw as the tenant association’s divisive tactics.

Fannie Mendel focused on building trust, seeking to establish a positive culture in the housing community. Rather than imposing sanctions, a process that in the view of the new director tends to diminish trust and never ends, the director wanted to create a new framework for trust and positive change. Soon, the monthly meetings of the housing authority were no longer theatrical hostile shouting matches, but instead consisted of motions, discussions, and votes. There was opportunity for tenants to speak, and discussions were respectful.

Members of the board of the housing authority who had experience in community organization spent time advising the CTTA and helping the CTTA to form new tenant groups in other developments. There was a groundswell of community support for establishing new tenant associations and for including tenants in advising the managerial process. Fannie Mendel began to engage with tenants in an open dialogue about their issues, relationships, and feelings.

“Constitution Tower”

However, the transition was not all smooth sailing. Fannie Mendel made efforts to stop all smoking in apartments and on the property. In Constitution Tower, the gentle, compassionate approach of the new executive director faced a serious challenge because of the past animosity and distrust between tenants and management, and among tenants.The long struggle of the CTTA for recognition against the previous, authoritarian managerial regime seems to have formed the style of the association--a closed circle, angry and insecure, demanding respect and authority, using bullying, threats, and intimidation to prevent other tenants from challenging the goals or tactics of the CTTA.

The anti-authoritarian attitude of the CTTA towards management was in stark contrast to their aggressive use of bullying and gossip to control other residents and enforce the loyalty of their members. Jack, the head of the association, would declare that he would “make a law” to force tenants to do what the CTTA considered appropriate. For example, Jack wanted to prohibit Hester (a target of Jack and Jill and the CTTA) from even passing through the lobby or using the elevator. This style carried over even when the door was opened to participation by tenants in the policy and actions of the housing authority.

When tenants feel that the management does not protect them from a tenant that they fear or believe does not belong in the facility, they sometimes will form a group and use bullying tactics to impose their own sense of order. They feel justified in using group bullying against a target because they see no hope of relief from management. This is one of the ways that group bullying and mobbing can emerge in housing.

Although a tenants association is mandated to enable full participation of all tenants and to represent the needs of all, the leadership of the Constitution Tower Tenants Association (CTTA) is reported to have promoted the power and solidarity of the association rather than respond to the needs of all the tenants. Thus, membership was limited to those who were loyal to the leaders, and people were fearful of challenging the leadership.

A couple of tenants who were deemed “crazy” or who had challenged Jack and Jill were targeted and bullied (and labeled as bullies!) because, they said, everything would be great if they were evicted or had to move out. Since management did not act to get rid of their targets in accordance with the wishes of the association, the leaders likely felt justified in using bullying. However, only the management has the legal right to admit or to evict tenants subject to court action, and attempts by the tenants association to force another tenant out of the building is mobbing, and likely a lease violation, and unlawful deprivation of rights.

As a long-time advocate for empowering tenants, I saw the use of aggressive tactics, including group bullying and even assault, as destructive of the potential for the tenant association as a force for good. They demanded that their association be given a major voice in all activities, seeking rights they claimed were granted by state regulations.The new director, Fannie Mendel, made clear that only management could decide on evictions, not the CTTA.

Nevertheless, the tenants association in Constitution Tower continued their aggressive pressures on tenants. Two different members of the tenant association assaulted one of their targets, Hester, justifying their actions by calling their victim a bully. The first assault took place prior to Fannie Mendel beginning as executive director; the assailant was sentenced to probation. Leaders of the CTTA then went to court to seek an order of protection from Hester, but the court denied their petition.Thus began a continuing negotiation about the boundaries of management and tenants associations.

Spanish-speaking residents

Constitution City is home to a diverse immigrant population. A good number of residents in Constitution Tower are from the Dominican Republic and are not comfortable using English. In social gatherings at Constitution Tower facilitated by the social worker, they would sit apart, and the leaders of the CTTA would sit at the opposite corner, and there was no interaction between the groups. Nevertheless, some of the Dominican-Americans were happy and content with their situation, and one was proud to have been recruited to join the board of the CTTA.

The new director was determined to change the culture, a process that takes time and persistence, and depends on patience and support from the housing authority members, and collaboration with residents. After several months, it looked like the change process was moving in a positive direction, although much remained to be done, and some residents were frustrated by the slow pace of change. Others resisted any change. Efforts by management to enforce the no-smoking rule were met by some residents with resentment, hostility, and threats. Bullying by the CTTA continued.

Notes on the CTTA

I am unable to give a full accounting of the accomplishments of the CTTA, and have had to rely on residents of Constitution Tower and others for information about life in that residence.

In 2018, “Hester,” a tenant in Constitution Tower, was trying to get management to remediate problems in her apartment. I put Hester in touch with an elected official who was able to assist. Hester had also sought assistance from the CTTA; something happened in that process to fracture their relationship. I had talked with “Jack,” the head of the CTTA, about his plans and organizational efforts in 2018 and looked forward to following his efforts to work with and get respect from the housing authority management.

In March, 2019, before the transition to Fannie Mendel’s leadership of the Constitution City Housing Authority had begun, I was invited by the CTTA to give a presentation on bullying in Constitution Tower; it was a very successful workshop with good participation. However CTTA members singled out a tenant who they claimed was a bully and should be gotten out of the building. I made clear that their effort was bullying or mobbing, and that no tenant or tenant group had the right to decide who was a suitable tenant, this is the responsibility of the landlord and manager. Whatever the origin of the hostility, it does not justify mobbing and bullying. As a long-time advocate for empowering tenants, I saw the use of such tactics as destructive of the potential for the tenant association as a force for good, and likely to cause residents to reject any tenant association.

At the time, the CTTA and the Stop Bullying Coalition looked forward to collaborating on legislative advocacy. When I began in March, 2019, to observe meetings of the housing authority, “Hester” was one of the few tenants I knew in Constitution City except for the people who had attended the workshop; the others were “Jack” and “Jill,” two leaders of the CTTA, and a former leader of the city-wide tenants association. I did know that the CTTA was in conflict with Hester, but had not grasped the intensity of the mutual hatred. I made no judgement about the right or wrong of the parties in their dispute. I knew that the CTTA had very ambitious goals, including to organize housing tenants on a citywide basis. When the CTTA leaders learned that I was a friend of Hester, they decided I was an enemy, but we still chatted from time to time when we attended meetings of the housing authority.

Later, in June, 2019, harassment and mobbing of Hester by the CTTA put Hester in danger because the stress was severely impacting her health. She claimed she received no support from management, and I felt it was imperative to stop the mobbing. Therefore, I reached out to civic leaders and tenant advocates, asking them to influence the CTTA to back off. Each of them said that the CTTA was “good people,” Hester was a “bad person, a terrible person, she doesn’t belong here” who deserved what the CTTA was doing. They resented my calling out the CTTA for “mobbing,” a term used by many authorities for aggressive behavior by a group.

The tenant leaders of the tenant advocacy organization that was the official, state-supported representative of tenants associations had strongly supported the work of the Stop Bullying Coalition. We had worked closely together to make significant progress. A few people affiliated with that group had helped to develop the CTTA, and saw it as having made great progress. Some of the civic leaders in Constitution City were also strong allies of the CTTA. But they were quick to approve the bullying and mobbing efforts to get rid of Hester. I was dismayed that people who claimed to be empowering tenants and advocating for legal protections against bullying, would condone bullying. I wanted to make every effort to be able to present a fair and balanced assessment of the CTTA. But these leaders refused to be interviewed about the positive accomplishments of the CTTA. The CTTA seemed to think that any constructive question or criticism of their actions was a hostile effort to destroy them. They believed that Hester, who had her own ideas about the way a tenants association should operate, had been enlisted by management to attack the CTTA. Jack, Jill, and their supporters saw me as seeking the downfall of the CTTA. In December, 2019, I made a final effort to interview the leaders of the CTTA, but they refused me. Their decision was strongly influenced by one of their supporters and advisers, an influential community leader, who misinterpreted my clearly stated goals and concerns.

Although I had been critical about the use of bullying as a tactic, I wanted to present a balanced and accurate picture, and I therefore needed to hear and be able to report their perspective and their goals and accomplishments. I had been targeted and shunned, the tactic used by the CTTA to dominate Constitution Tower. And I became concerned about endangering tenants who had volunteered to help me, for fear they would experience retaliation by the CTTA. One CTTA member retracted a promise to assist me because they were afraid of retaliation. Tenants were told that Hester would report them to Mendel to get them in trouble, and that the CTTA would protect them only if they shunned Hester. Some people in the tenants association felt they could do anything to Hester because as a “bully,” she was an outcast.

In a mobbing situation, individuals who seek recognition and acceptance by the group may attack the target as proof of their own worth as members. Hester was assaulted twice. I know from personal experience how easily--when we are under attack--we slip into aggressive response patterns. But when we adopt tit-for-tat tactics to confront a group of bullies, we become bullies ourselves. Thus, people on both sides, with good intentions, can do bad things. That is why it is so important to have a legitimate, lawful policy implemented by the landlord and considered legitimate by the residents. And why in order to prevent bullying it is essential to create an ombuds [tenant advocate] office to provide oversight to hold an errant landlord to account, and why effective oversight over tenants associations as well as landlords is needed.

COVID-19 interrupts the process

But in March, 2020, COVID-19 interrupted the ongoing process of building trust and changing the culture of Constitution Tower, a method that depended on open communication among all the parties. When COVID eliminated the ability of people to meet in groups or to network, it also created new fear and anxiety. People became physically separated and isolated, lacking their usual social supports. The new source of stress may have caused some to dwell on their past experiences of disaster and trauma, become depressed, and to become hyper vigilant, aggressive, and to resort to bullying as an expression of their internal turmoil, and to group bullying as a way to confirm solidarity with a reference group.

Constitution Tower

In Constitution Tower, despite repeated admonitions and clear directions posted in the lobby, several members of the CTTA tended to congregate in the lobby, where they didn’t wear face coverings or maintain a 6 foot distance from each other. They defied efforts to regulate their actions, and continued to use gossip, bullying, and retaliation. The impact of COVID may have reinforced their old ways of coping, undoing any progress that had been made to change the culture of the building. The policies of the health department and management intended to protect residents from the spread of COVID-19 were not enforced by the management, the police, or by the health department using citations and/or by civil fines. The infractions continued.


Riverside in Constitution City

Riverside is a small (under 50 units) apartment building managed by the Constitution City Housing Authority. Prior to the COVID-19 crisis, residents comprised a friendly community who would check on each other and offer to do errands for each other. A couple of tenants did not hesitate to speak to individuals who broke the norms, and with very few exceptions, there were no overt conflicts among the residents. The introduction of new regulations to protect from COVID-19 was effective, with only a couple of minor problems. And neighbors continued to be supportive of each other.

Riverview in Constitution City

The medium size (over 50 units) Riverview apartments in Constitution City are adjacent to the Riverside apartments, sharing a common parking lot. The Riverview Tenants Association (RTA) was formed just a few weeks before the COVID-19 crisis. The organizer had many years of experience in community organization, and the new association brought together several residents to create a safe, secure, and supportive environment for all residents. They worked out a system of collaboration with the management to enforce the parking regulations; tenant volunteers would give warning notices to non-resident parkers, and in the event of repeated infractions, the management would be called in to arrange for the car to be towed. The RTA had a furnished office with equipment that they obtained from donations. They had a wall chart system for tracking the goals that tenants had proposed, along with a list of goals that had been accomplished. We are not aware of any bullying that took place, either before or after the COVID crisis.

Safe Harbor in Constitution City

Safe Harbor is a large size (over 100 units) garden type apartment complex. A tenants association has been formed. We have not received any reports of either bullying or opposition to the infection-prevention orders. 


What we observed

Trestle Way, Georgetown

In Georgetown, there was an assertive manager who would not tolerate bullying; there was none, before or after the COVID event. And there was an outpouring of support by people in the town.

Rising Creek, Bethlehem

Rising Creek had experienced significant mobbing, but Joan Archer stopped it and maintains an assertive, quick-to-intervene approach to any bullying; compliance with public health directives is not a problem.

Constitution City--significant progress

Constitution City had a prior authoritarian management regime. Between the time that the former director resigned and the installation of the new executive director, Constitution Tower was a toxic environment, and there was open hostility between the management and the housing authority board on one side, and the CTTA and their supporters on the other side. The new transition saw Fannie Mendel, a compassionate director supported by the civic leadership and the housing authority board, and by many tenants.

In contrast to the situation prior to the transition, about a third of the public housing tenants in Constitution City were represented in three tenants associations, and each of these associations was an active partner with the housing authority and director. In one development, Constitution Tower, we found a toxic situation with group bullying/mobbing prior to the transition; when COVID-19 happened, the bullying had moderated but had not stopped, and there was resistance to the protective protocols.

The new approach to tenant engagement implemented by the housing authority and director created an environment where there were no longer barriers to forming new tenants associations. Two new tenant associations were formed by people with good management and organizational skills, and a desire to cooperate with management--organizations which probably could not have been so quickly created under the prior admininstration. This is a promising result for the efforts of the housing authority board and by Fannie Mendel and her staff, and the hard work of tenant leaders.

Jack and Jill, the leaders of the CTTA, had shunned Hester for many months. Jack began to greet Hester when they saw each other. After Hester had her hair cut short and without added color leaving it white, several of the people who had been hostile to her greeted her warmly. They thought she was a new tenant and wanted to recruit her to join the tenants association.

Overall in the Constitution City Housing Authority, there has been meaningful progress. Each of the three tenants associations participates constructively in the work of the housing authority. They attend the online meetings of the authority, they advocate for COVID-19 testing, and Fannie Mandel, the director, considers them as important allies in reaching out to tenants in the other housing authority developments for engagement in the new annual planning process. They also may have a chance to be part of the planning for expanding and creating housing developments.

But the new housing authority regime has not yet fully diminished the aggressive methods and non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols demonstrated by some tenants, including members of the tenants association in Constitution Tower. The downside is the risk to health posed by the tenants who congregate, and the continued fear, turmoil, and harm to targets resulting from the tactics of the CTTA.Paradoxically, the tenants who were victims of bullying, and those who feared the perpetrators, are safer from infection with COVID-19 because they limit their interaction with others in public or common areas of their housing development.

Outcomes—establishing community norms

I wanted to test the prediction that we would see movement towards a more healthy community if all the stakeholders wanted the change—civic leaders, housing authority, management, social workers, and tenants. Constitution City demonstrates that such progress can happen when the executive director uses a compassionate approach and works to develop trust.

But this method had only partial success by the time that COVID-19 happened. Progress was limited by the continuing impact of some members of the tenants association, a group who had used group bullying/mobbing. Bullying and mobbing was related to resistance to public health protocols.

A compassionate approach to management succeeds in the absence of prior mobbing; and so does an assertive, interventionist approach. But on the record presented here, the assertive, interventionist approach is better suited to stopping prior group bullying/mobbing. A combination of these approaches or styles may be the most effective management tool-kit. The outcomes depend on the methods of the tenants association as well as on the competence and diligence of the landlord and management. 

[Several years after the turmoil and hiring a new director, the meetings of the housing authority erupted in turmoil as members of the staff brought unsubstantiated accusations against the tenant commissioner. I believe that there are fundamental structural issues in public housing that create conflict where collaboration would serve everyone better.—2024 JH]


 

Resources

Janice Harper, PhD, Bullying and Mobbing in Group Settings; a statement presented to the Massachusetts Commission on Bullying, 7 August 2017. http://stopbullyingcoalition.org/harper-mobbing

“Office of the Attorney General Advisory: The failure of management and the landlord to assure peaceful enjoyment for all tenants is unlawful, according to the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” tinyurl.com/2e4fspb4

FR–5248–F–02 Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment and Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices Under the Fair Housing Act, Final Rule published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2016, CFR Citation: 24 CFR 100, p. 63075 tinyurl.com/y4vkvhs9 “A Rule by the Housing and Urban Development Department”

Molly Rockett, Private Property Managers, Unchecked: The Failures of Federal Compliance Oversight in Project-Based Section 8 Housing, 134 Harv. L. Rev. F. 286 March 2021 https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-134/private-property-managers-un… 

Duffy, Maureen and Len Sperry, Mobbing: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Duffy, Maureen and Len Sperry, Overcoming Mobbing: A Recovery Guide for Workplace Aggression and Bullying, (New York:Oxford University Press, 2013).

Office of the Tenant Advocate  A bill presented by Senator Joan Lovely and Representative Sally Kerans and others; H3868, is modeled on the carefully drafted Fair Housing Law rule on hostile environment harassment. H3868 provides protection for all tenants in multifamily subsidized and public housing without limitation to members of a protected class. 

Halberstadt, Jerry, Sticks, Stones, Gossip & Governance Part 1 of 2

Halberstadt, Jerry, Sticks, Stones, Gossip & Governance Part 2 of 2

Halberstadt, Jerry, Bullying & Democracy At Apple Village

Halberstadt, Jerry, Community Norms and Governance of Housing, 2020

Jerry Halberstadt and Marvin So, Statewide Survey on Bullying of Tenants in Public and Subsidized Multifamily Housing: Report of the Committee for Research on Conditions and Prevalence of the Commission on Bullying.

 

 


 

Tags