The reactions to proposals for community corrections facilites in residential neighborhoods are uniformly vehement. Building or renting facilities in rural, commercial or industrial areas has circumvented community opposition, but kept offenders distant from the residential neighborhoods into which they should be reintegrating. While this approach has opened facilities that otherwise might not now exist, critics say it has deluded the value of community corrections. Objecting neighbors envision escaping inmates who would burglarize their homes and attack their families. However, studies have found that neither crime rates nor property values could be tied to the presence of halfway houses. In addition to petition campaigns against residential facilities, opposition comes from mayors and city councils, in the form of new zoning rules, complex litigation, and environmental impact statements. Successful community correctional center operators cite neighborhood participation as the key to overcoming oppositions. Some centers have appointed 'community advisory boards' to review the background of prospective residents, resulting in the exclusion of those sex offenders, violent criminals, repeat offenders, and ex-drug addicts. Some seminars for community corrections administrators include training on how to deal with community opposition and to face zoning boards. Inmates are encouraged to do chores for incapacitated neighbors, volunteer for social service programs, and keep their centers clean and well-decorated. Many corrections agencies have contracted with private social service agencies (e.g., YMCA, Salvation Army) to find sites, to promote programs in the community, and sometimes to operate the centers.