THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM: STABLE FOR WHOM? JAMES C. FRASER Vanderbilt University DEIRDRE OAKLEY Georgia State University INTRODUCTION The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was established after the 2008 housing crisis to provide funding to local governments and other housing providers for stabilizing communities hardest hit by foreclosure and abandonment. Using a neighborhood in Nashville, Tennessee as a case example, the purpose of this essay is to provide commentary on some of the preexisting NSP-targeted neighborhood investments, challenges arising from the program itself, as well as the mixed agendas that have emerged. Currently, Abt Associates is conducting a national study on NSP to gain a deeper understanding of the program effectiveness and challenges localities have faced in implementing NSP. Yet it is quite likely that some of the most important questions about the program may not be captured in this U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-funded (HUD) study. For example, how do the recent investment and/or disinvestment history of NSP-targeted neighborhoods impact the overall NSP strategies and impacts on the local level? Likewise, given that NSP was a relatively small investment in most places compared to the rates of foreclosures and vacant properties, what lasting effects will the program have on the neighborhoods that received investment, and what would we expect them to be? While the first question has largely gone unanswered—and perhaps will continue to be, due to the complexities of untangling the recent past—some existing studies have already concluded that the strategic small investments made by NSP projects in cities across the country will have multiplier effects and spur other private investments in the target areas (Reid, 2011). Thus, NSP, though modest, may very well stimulate market demand. However, in terms of timing, speculative capital may be investing in NSP-targeted census tracts regardless of the program. Likely, both phenomena are operative. One known outcome is that many NSP awardees have purchased properties to “land bank” them for future affordable housing development (Alexander, 2009). Still, another set of outcomes may be produced by the NSP. Evidence suggests that multiple localities have built organizational and coalitional capacities that they did not have prior to the NSP experience, although this has not occurred without a great deal of inter-organizational learning (Searfoss, 2011). These could have lasting effects for future affordable housing and neighborhood stabilization efforts that go beyond the NSP intervention. Finally, there are questions about the ways in which the NSP intersects with other efforts to transform neighborhoods. While cities across the country applied for NSP funding by documenting places with high levels of foreclosures and vacant lots, many of these vulnerable areas had been previously earmarked for stabilization, redevelopment, or revitalization. Cities are in a constant state of becoming, and documenting the history of public Direct correspondence to: James C. Fraser, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College #90, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN. E-mail: James.C.Fraser@vanderbilt.edu. JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 37, Number 1, pages 38–41. Copyright C  2015 Urban Affairs Association All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0735-2166. DOI: 10.1111/juaf.12159