What Works and Why: Affordable Housing Communications Campaigns 2000–2010

“What Works and Why: Affordable Housing Communications Campaigns 2000–2010” examines efforts by advocates and government agencies to build public and political support for affordable housing developments and to counteract negative attitudes toward affordable housing. The document describes 15 campaigns from New York to North Carolina to California, with reproductions of some of the advertisements used in those campaigns.

About This Report

This report was sponsored by the Marin Community Housing Action Initiative, a collaborative organization in Marin County, Calif., with support from the following partners:

• Greenbelt Alliance
• Marin Community Foundation
• The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California

The report was researched and written by the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (PSC). The full text of the report, with illustrations, is available for $12.00. The report is available at no charge to members of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. For information on membership, click here.

Executive Summary

Affordable housing developers and advocates face serious public relations challenges, whether they are trying to get entitlements to build a project or attempting to gain political support for government funding programs.

In the decade from 2000 to 2010, a substantial number of advocacy groups, coalitions, and government housing agencies across the country addressed those challenges with discreet and well-planned public communications campaigns.

These programs build on the idea of "social advertising," in which techniques normally employed to sell products are used to change public opinion or behavior. The most widely recognized social advertising campaigns are those sponsored by the Ad Council, composed of advertising industry companies, which was founded in 1942 to donate advertising time and space to causes and to create ads free of charge.  

Fifteen communication programs are described in “What Works and Why: Affordable Housing Communications Campaigns 2000­­-2010.” The report looks at campaigns with a distinct beginning and end or that created public communication materials that were widely disseminated. It focuses on public communication and education efforts aimed at broad audiences, including local officials and the general public, as opposed to lobbying efforts targeted to state and federal legislators.

For some of the organizations discussed in this report, public communication was closely linked to community organizing. The report does not fully document community organizing efforts.

In general, campaigns conducted in eastern states have shown a great deal of sophistication about advertising and produced more material suited to the mass media, as well as very good websites. For example, New York’s state housing agency developed public service announcements (PSAs) about affordable housing featuring several well-known celebrities.

On the West Coast, there has been less focus on mass media and more success in face-to-face community-oriented communications and organization. A number of effective efforts continue on an ongoing basis in the San Francisco Bay Area. These campaigns generally do not use mass media.

The most obvious positive results come from face-to-face communication and presentations to small groups. For example, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and the East Bay Housing Organization have scored victories on local election measures and project approvals using direct personal approaches.

It’s challenging to assess the effectiveness of websites and PSAs. These efforts generally do not revolve around a specific vote or project approval, but are intended to change public perceptions and opinions. To accurately measure the impact of websites and PSAs, costly public opinion surveys need to be conducted before and after a campaign begins. This level of assessment has generally been beyond the financial capacity of most campaigns. In fact, none of the campaigns described in this report provided empirical survey data on the impact of their communications for this report.

What is the most effective argument in changing the balance of support and opposition to affordable housing? It depends on the community being addressed.

The most commonly used message has been to showcase the kinds of people who need affordable housing, including firefighters, police officers, nurses, and teachers, and explaining that these people often can’t afford to live in the towns where they work.

Based on anecdotal evidence, the most effective campaigns relied on advertising messages that feature celebrities, such as Gov. Jesse Ventura in Minnesota and actor/producer Edward Norton in New York.

In campaigns that were more skewed toward targeted communications in a county or region, the most effective approach appears to be to enlist local business leaders to talk about the importance of affordable housing as a key factor in maintaining the area's job base and/or attracting new employers.

The following communication campaigns are described in this report:

California

• East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
• Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (HLCSMC)
• Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
• Orange County Housing Element Campaign
• Marin (County) Consortium for Workforce Housing
• Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Florida

• Florida Housing Coalition

Illinois

• Housing Illinois

Maine

• Maine State Housing Authority

Minnesota

• Minnesota Housing Partnership

New York

• Affordable Housing Works!

North Carolina

• The Campaign for Housing Carolina

Rhode Island

• HousingWorks RI

Vermont

• Vermont Housing Awareness Campaign

Download the full report for $12.00.  The report is FREE for members of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.