Public Housing
HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites Gao ID: GAO-04-109 November 21, 2003Congress established the HOPE VI program in 1992 to revitalize severely distressed public housing by demolition, rehabilitation, or replacement of sites. In fiscal years 1993-2001, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded approximately $4.5 billion for 165 HOPE VI revitalization grants to public housing authorities (grantees). GAO was asked to examine (1) the types of housing to which the original residents of HOPE VI sites were relocated and the number of original residents that grantees expect to return to the revitalized sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved residents in the HOPE VI process, and (3) how the neighborhoods surrounding the 20 sites that received HOPE VI grants in fiscal year 1996 have changed.
The largest percentage of the approximately 49,000 residents that had been relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, were relocated to other public housing, and about half were expected to return to the revitalized sites. Although grantees, overall, expected 46 percent of relocated residents to return, the percentage of original residents that were expected to return (or the reoccupancy rate) varied greatly from site to site. The level of resident involvement in the HOPE VI process varied at the 1996 sites. While all of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents about revitalization plans and solicit their input, some took additional steps to involve residents. For example, in Tucson, the housing authority submitted the revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site to the city council for approval only after the residents had voted to approve it. The neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located generally have experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income, and housing, although GAO could not determine the extent to which the HOPE VI program contributed to these changes. In a comparison of four 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods to four comparable neighborhoods, mortgage lending activity increased to a greater extent in three of the HOPE VI neighborhoods. But, a comparison of other variables (such as education and new construction) produced inconsistent results, with HOPE VI neighborhoods experiencing both greater positive and negative changes than comparable neighborhoods.
GAO-04-109, Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-109
entitled 'Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in
Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites' which was released on December
22, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S.
Senate:
November 2003:
PUBLIC HOUSING:
HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant
Sites:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-109] GAO-04-109:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-109, a report to Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress established the HOPE VI program in 1992 to revitalize
severely distressed public housing by demolition, rehabilitation, or
replacement of sites. In fiscal years 1993–2001, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded approximately $4.5 billion
for 165 HOPE VI revitalization grants to public housing authorities
(grantees). GAO was asked to examine (1) the types of housing to which
the original residents of HOPE VI sites were relocated and the number
of original residents that grantees expect to return to the
revitalized sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have
involved residents in the HOPE VI process, and (3) how the
neighborhoods surrounding the 20 sites that received HOPE VI grants in
fiscal year 1996 have changed.
What GAO Found:
The largest percentage of the approximately 49,000 residents that had
been relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, were relocated
to other public housing, and about half were expected to return to the
revitalized sites. Although grantees, overall, expected 46 percent of
relocated residents to return, the percentage of original residents
that were expected to return (or the reoccupancy rate) varied greatly
from site to site.
The level of resident involvement in the HOPE VI process varied at the
1996 sites. While all of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform
residents about revitalization plans and solicit their input, some
took additional steps to involve residents. For example, in Tucson,
the housing authority submitted the revitalization plan for the Connie
Chambers site to the city council for approval only after the
residents had voted to approve it.
The neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located generally
have experienced improvements in indicators such as education,
income, and housing, although GAO could not determine the extent to
which the HOPE VI program contributed to these changes. In a
comparison of four 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods to four comparable
neighborhoods, mortgage lending activity increased to a greater
extent in three of the HOPE VI neighborhoods. But, a comparison of
other variables (such as education and new construction) produced
inconsistent results, with HOPE VI neighborhoods experiencing both
greater positive and negative changes than comparable neighborhoods.
What GAO Recommends:
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-109.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact David G. Wood at
(202) 512-8678 or woodd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Largest Percentage of Original Residents Were Relocated to Other Public
Housing, and About Half Are Expected to Return to HOPE VI Sites:
Resident Involvement in the HOPE VI Process Has Varied:
Community and Supportive Services Yielded Some Positive Outcomes:
Indicators for Education, Income, and Housing Have Generally Improved
in 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhoods:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Technical Methodology:
Data Sources:
Data Reliability:
Limitations of Analysis:
Analytical Approach and Results:
Appendix III: Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and
Summary Crime Data:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Number of Residents That Have Enrolled in and Completed
Community and Supportive Services Programs:
Table 2: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Education for Each 1996
HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods:
Table 3: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Income, Poverty, and
Unemployment for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable
Neighborhoods:
Table 4: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Housing for Each 1996
HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods:
Table 5: Loans Originated for Home Purchase for Each 1996 HOPE VI
Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods:
Figures:
Figure 1: Initial Relocation of HOPE VI Residents:
Figure 2: Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites:
Figure 3: Percentage of Public Housing Units Being Replaced at 1996 HOPE
VI Sites:
Figure 4: Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing Units
at 165 HOPE VI Sites:
Figure 5: Neighborhood Changes between 1990 and 2000 for Selected
Cities:
Figure 6: Summary of Crime Data at HOPE VI and Comparable Sites:
Abbreviations:
GED: General Educational Development:
HMDA: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
PHA: public housing authority:
NOFA: notice of funding availability:
Letter November 21, 2003:
The Honorable Jack Reed:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Reed:
The public housing program began in the late 1930s and 1940s as a means
to provide temporary housing for the working poor. By the 1960s and
1970s, public housing had become the housing of last resort. Over time,
some of the nation's public housing became old and deteriorated,
leaving residents to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. In 1989,
Congress formed the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public
Housing (the Commission) and tasked it with proposing a national action
plan to eradicate severely distressed public housing by the year 2000.
In 1992, the Commission reported that approximately 86,000, or 6
percent, of the nation's public housing units were severely distressed-
-characterized by physical deterioration and uninhabitable living
conditions; high levels of poverty; inadequate and fragmented services;
institutional abandonment; and location in neighborhoods often as
blighted as the sites themselves. Therefore, the Commission recommended
increased funding for support services to residents of severely
distressed public housing, resident participation in revitalization
efforts, and revitalization consistent with any occurring in
surrounding neighborhoods.
In response to the Commission's report, Congress, in October 1992,
established the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program, commonly
known as HOPE VI, which is administered by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). By providing funds for a combination of
capital improvements and supportive services, such as child care and
job training, HOPE VI seeks to fulfill its legislative goals of (1)
improving the living environment for public housing residents of
severely distressed public housing through the demolition,
rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete public
housing; (2) revitalizing sites on which such public housing is located
and contributing to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood;
(3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of
very low-income families; and (4) building sustainable communities. In
fiscal years 1993-2001, HUD awarded approximately $4.5 billion in HOPE
VI revitalization grants to 98 public housing authorities (grantees)
for 165 sites.[Footnote 1]
You requested that we comprehensively review the HOPE VI program.
Because of the scope of the request, we agreed with your office to
provide the information in a series of reports. The first report,
issued in November 2002, discussed the financing of HOPE VI
sites.[Footnote 2] The second report, issued in May 2003, described
HUD's management of the HOPE VI program.[Footnote 3] This third and
final report focuses on the effect that the HOPE VI program has had on
residents and the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI sites.
Specifically, as agreed with your office, this report examines (1) the
types of housing to which the original residents of HOPE VI sites were
relocated and the number of original residents that grantees expect to
return to the revitalized sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996 grantees
have involved residents in the HOPE VI process, (3) the types of
community and supportive services that have been provided to residents
and the results achieved, and (4) how the neighborhoods surrounding the
sites that received HOPE VI grants in fiscal year 1996 have
changed.[Footnote 4]
To address these objectives, we first obtained and analyzed information
from HUD's HOPE VI reporting system on the 165 revitalization grants
awarded through fiscal year 2001, including relocation, reoccupancy
(the movement of some original residents to completed units), and
community and supportive services data. Second, we visited the 18
housing authorities that were awarded revitalization grants in fiscal
year 1996 and interviewed resident representatives at 19 of the 20
sites.[Footnote 5] We selected the 1996 grants because they were the
first awarded after HUD issued a rule allowing revitalization to be
funded with a combination of public and private funds, which has become
the HOPE VI model. Third, to determine how neighborhoods have changed,
we analyzed Census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and
reviewed crime data summaries.[Footnote 6] Finally, we interviewed the
HUD headquarters officials responsible for administering the program.
We assessed the reliability of the HUD, Census, HMDA, and summary crime
data we used by reviewing information about how the data were collected
and performing electronic testing to detect obvious errors in
completeness and reasonableness. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We performed our work in Washington, D.C. and other U.S. cities from
November 2001 to October 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Appendixes I and II provide additional
details on our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
The largest percentage of residents at sites that received HOPE VI
grants were relocated to other public housing, and grantees expect that
about half of the original residents will return to the revitalized
sites. According to HUD data, approximately 50 percent of the almost
49,000 residents that had been relocated as of June 30, 2003, were
relocated to other public housing; about 31 percent used vouchers to
rent housing in the private market; approximately 6 percent were
evicted; and about 14 percent moved without giving notice or vacated
for other reasons.[Footnote 7] Because HUD did not require grantees to
report the location of original residents until 2000, grantees have
lost track of some original residents. Although grantees, overall,
expect 46 percent of all the residents that occupied the original sites
to return to the revitalized sites, the percentage varies greatly from
site to site. For example, the planned or actual reoccupancy rate is
less than 25 percent at 40 sites and 75 percent or greater at 31 sites.
Additionally, the percentage of residents expected to return has
decreased over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for
which we could obtain data), fiscal year 1993-1998 grantees estimated
that 61 percent of the original residents would return to the
revitalized sites. By June 30, 2003, the same grantees estimated that
44 percent of the original residents would return. A variety of factors
may affect the expected return rates, such as the numbers and types of
units to be built at the revitalized site and the criteria used to
select the occupants of the new public housing units.
The extent to which the 1996 grantees involved residents in the HOPE VI
process varied. All of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform
residents about revitalization plans and solicit their input. However,
some of them took additional steps to involve residents in the HOPE VI
process. For example, in Tucson, the housing authority waited until the
residents had voted their approval before submitting the revitalization
plan for the Connie Chambers site to the city council. In other cases,
litigation or the threat of litigation ensured resident involvement.
For instance, under a settlement agreement, the Chicago Housing
Authority's decisions regarding the revitalization of Henry Horner
Homes are subject to the approval of the Horner Resident Committee.
Grantees overall have provided a variety of community and supportive
services to residents under the HOPE VI program; limited HUD data and
information collected during our site visits suggest that the services
have yielded at least some positive outcomes. Services provided include
case management (in which case managers assess the needs of each family
and make referrals to appropriate service providers) and direct
services such as computer and job training. According to HUD data on
the 165 sites awarded grants through fiscal year 2001, about 55 percent
of the residents that had enrolled in job skills training programs
since the inception of HOPE VI had completed the programs as of June
30, 2003, and over 1,000 residents obtained jobs in the second quarter
of 2003. Also, 22 percent of the community and supportive services
caseload, which consisted of about 53,000 residents, was employed as of
June 30, 2003. However, we cannot determine the extent to which the
employment was a result of these services.
According to our analysis of census, HMDA, and crime data, the
neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have generally
experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income, and
housing, although we cannot determine the extent to which HOPE VI
contributed to these changes. For example, in 18 of these 20
neighborhoods, the percentage of the population with a high school
diploma increased, in 13 neighborhoods average housing values
increased, and in 14 neighborhoods the poverty rate decreased between
1990 and 2000. To better isolate the effects of the HOPE VI program, we
compared each of four neighborhoods in which HOPE VI sites are located
with a local neighborhood in which a comparable public housing site is
located. The HOPE VI neighborhoods showed greater improvements in some
indicators, but not all. For example, mortgage lending activity
increased in three of the four HOPE VI neighborhoods to a greater
extent than in the comparable neighborhoods. In contrast, new housing
construction increased to a greater extent in two of the four HOPE VI
neighborhoods than in the comparable neighborhoods, but it decreased in
one of the HOPE VI neighborhoods between 1990 and 2000 to a greater
extent than in the comparable neighborhood. The HOPE VI program may
also influence changes in neighborhood indicators by demolishing old
public housing alone. For example, in the six HOPE VI neighborhoods
where the original public housing units have been demolished, but no
on-site units have been completed, educational attainment and income
levels increased. Several studies conducted by universities and private
institutions also showed that the neighborhoods in which HOPE VI sites
are located have experienced improvements in key indicators.
We provided a draft of this report for HUD's review. HUD stated that it
regards our study as an important tool in its continuing efforts to
improve the HOPE VI program.
Background:
HUD's requirements for HOPE VI revitalization grants are laid out in
each fiscal year's notice of funding availability (NOFA) and grant
agreement.[Footnote 8] NOFAs announce the availability of funds and set
forth application requirements and the selection process. Grant
agreements are executed between each grantee and HUD and specify the
activities, key deadlines, and documentation that grantees must meet or
complete. Both NOFAs and grant agreements also contain guidance on
resident involvement in the HOPE VI process. For example, the fiscal
year 2002 NOFA stated that residents and the broader community should
be involved in the planning, proposed implementation, and management of
revitalization plans. In additional guidance on resident involvement,
HUD encourages grantees to communicate, consult, and collaborate with
affected residents and the broader community through resident councils,
consultative groups, newsletters, and resident surveys. HUD's guidance
states that residents should be included in all phases of HOPE VI
development, but also states that grantees have the final decision-
making authority.
The majority of HOPE VI grants involve the relocation of residents from
a public housing site prior to demolition or rehabilitation. Grantees
must conduct the relocation process in accordance with laws such as the
Uniform Relocation Act and HUD guidance.[Footnote 9] Before the
relocation process can begin, the grantee must develop a HOPE VI
relocation plan that includes the number of families to be relocated, a
description of the counseling and advisory services to be offered to
families, a description of housing resources that will be used to
relocate families, an estimate of relocation costs, and an example of
the notice the grantee will provide to residents concerning relocation.
Residents are generally given three basic relocation options: (1) using
a housing choice voucher (formerly Section 8) to move into the private
market, (2) moving to a different public housing site, or (3) leaving
federally assisted housing.[Footnote 10]
Revitalized HOPE VI sites often contain fewer public housing units and
have more stringent screening criteria. HUD guidance states that
grantees must collaborate with residents and other stakeholders to
establish criteria that residents must meet in order to return to the
site. Residents are not guaranteed that they will automatically return
to the site. Typically, grantees offer original residents who remain in
good standing the first priority right to return to the revitalized
site.
Grantees must offer community and supportive services--such as child
care, transportation, job training, job placement and retention
services, and parenting classes--to all original residents, regardless
of their intention to return to the revitalized site. HUD guidance
states that services for original residents should begin as soon as
possible following the grant award and help residents make progress
toward self-sufficiency. Additionally, HUD guidance suggests that
grantees offer residents community and supportive services that are
specifically designed to help them meet the criteria for their return
to the revitalized site. New households that move to the revitalized
site also are eligible to receive services. HUD guidance emphasizes
that HOPE VI grantees should use case managers to assess the needs and
circumstances of residents and then make appropriate referrals to a
range of service providers. Grantees must submit to HUD a community and
supportive services plan that contains a description of the supportive
services that will be provided to residents, proposed steps and
schedules for establishing arrangements with service providers, plans
for actively involving residents in planning and implementing
supportive services, and a system for monitoring and tracking the
performance of the supportive services programs, as well as resident
progress.
Largest Percentage of Original Residents Were Relocated to Other Public
Housing, and About Half Are Expected to Return to HOPE VI Sites:
According to HUD data, the largest percentage of residents living at
HOPE VI sites were relocated to other public housing. Because HUD has
not always required grantees to track original residents during the
development process, housing authorities lost track of some original
residents. Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of the original
residents would return to the revitalized sites. However, the
percentage of original residents expected to return varied greatly from
site to site. Several factors may affect planned and actual reoccupancy
rates, including the planned mix of units and the criteria used to
screen the occupants of the new units.
Half of Original Residents Relocated to Other Public Housing:
As shown in figure 1, a majority of the almost 49,000 residents that
had been relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, moved to
other public housing (about 50 percent) or received vouchers (about 31
percent). Additionally, approximately 6 percent were evicted, and about
14 percent were classified as "other," which includes either residents
who moved without giving notice or who moved out of public housing.
Grantees lost track of some original residents for a number of reasons.
HUD did not emphasize the need to track original residents until 1998
and did not require grantees to report the location of residents until
2000. Also, four of the 1996 grantees we interviewed stated that it was
difficult to track residents who had left federally-assisted housing
(i.e., were no longer in public housing or using a voucher.):
Figure 1: Initial Relocation of HOPE VI Residents:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD's HOPE VI
reporting system (as of June 30, 2003). Percentages do not add to 100
because of rounding.
[End of figure]
In a June 2002 report to Congress, HUD acknowledged that efforts to
track original residents during the development process had been uneven
and stated that the agency and grantees were working to improve
resident tracking.[Footnote 11] All but one of the 1996 grantees
developed some means of tracking original residents, although three
stated that they only tracked a subset of original residents, such as
those still in public housing or using a voucher.[Footnote 12] The
Housing Authority of Louisville created a database to track residents
and used it to determine the status of the 1,304 families that resided
at Cotter and Lang Homes prior to relocation. The housing authority
concluded that 65 percent had been relocated to other public housing or
given vouchers, and 33 percent had vacated Cotter or Lang prior
to being relocated.[Footnote 13] It could not determine if the
remaining 2 percent had been relocated or vacated prior to relocation.
In addition, two 1996 grantees took steps to locate original residents
with whom they had lost contact. The Chicago Housing Authority hired a
consultant to help it find relocated residents. To track down those
original residents that did not remain in public housing or take a
voucher, the Spartanburg Housing Authority posted public notices
stating that the authority was trying to track down original residents
and held meetings to get their addresses.
Various Factors May Affect the Return Rate for Original Residents:
Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of all the original
residents of HOPE VI sites would return to the revitalized sites.
However, as shown in figure 2, the percentage of original residents
that were expected to return varied greatly from site to site. For
example, at the 113 sites where reoccupancy was not yet complete, the
planned reoccupancy rate was less than 25 percent at 23 sites; in
contrast, the planned rate was 75 percent or greater at 24 sites. At
the 39 sites where reoccupancy was complete, the actual reoccupancy
rate was less than 25 percent at 17 sites and 75 percent or greater at
7 sites. Also, the percentage of residents that were expected to return
decreased over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for
which we could obtain data), fiscal year 1993-1998 grantees estimated
that 61 percent of the original residents would return to the
revitalized sites. By June 30, 2003, the same grantees estimated that
44 percent of the original residents would return.
Figure 2: Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD's HOPE VI
reporting system (as of June 30, 2003). We excluded 10 sites from our
analysis because they did not involve relocation. For example, at
several sites, relocation was completed prior to the grant award and
was not reported as part of the development process. We excluded an
additional 3 sites because the reoccupancy data reported as of June 30,
2003 was incorrect.
[End of figure]
Several factors may affect planned and actual reoccupancy rates,
including the mix of units. To reduce the concentration of poverty at
HOPE VI sites, HUD recommends a mix of public housing, affordable
housing (low-income housing tax credit or other subsidized housing),
and market-rate housing.[Footnote 14] As a result, grantees, as of June
30, 2003, had demolished or planned to demolish 76,393 public housing
units and rebuild or renovate 44,781 replacement public housing
units.[Footnote 15] At the 1996 sites, the percentage of public housing
units being replaced ranged from 10 percent to 102 percent (see fig.
3). Resident and low-income housing advocates have criticized the HOPE
VI program for reducing the number of public housing units. However,
HUD, in its June 2002 report to Congress, pointed to the number of
affordable units and vouchers that the program would provide. HUD also
noted that over 20,000 of the units to be demolished were long-standing
vacancies when the housing authorities applied for a HOPE VI grant, and
that a majority of the vacant units were uninhabitable.
Figure 3: Percentage of Public Housing Units Being Replaced at 1996
HOPE VI Sites:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD's HOPE VI
reporting system (as of June 30, 2003) and data collected during our
site visits. We excluded the Hollander Ridge site from our analysis
because the HOPE VI funds were transferred to another public housing
site.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 4, the percentage of revitalized units that are
public housing units varied from site to site. Among the 143 sites
where construction was not yet complete, as of June 30, 2003, public
housing units constituted less than 50 percent of total units at 69
sites. At all but three of the 22 sites where construction was
complete, 50 percent or more of the units were public housing
units.[Footnote 16] Additionally, the number of planned public housing
units decreased over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date
for which we could obtain data), fiscal year 1993-1998 grantees
estimated that they would construct 34,199 public housing units. By
June 30, 2003, the same grantees estimated that they would construct
30,772 public housing units--about a 10-percent decrease. (This
decrease in the number of planned public housing units may help explain
why the percentage of residents that the grantees expected to return
decreased over time, as discussed previously in this report.):
Figure 4: Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing Units
at 165 HOPE VI Sites:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD's HOPE VI
reporting system (as of June 30, 2003).
[End of figure]
Another factor that may affect reoccupancy is the screening criteria
that original residents must meet to return to the revitalized sites.
HUD allows grantees to determine the screening criteria for each site.
Consequently, the screening criteria varied at the 1996 sites we
visited. For example, the Charlotte Housing Authority required
returning Dalton Village residents to
participate in the family self-sufficiency program.[Footnote 17]
Residents that do not successfully complete the program within 5 years
and are not in violation of their lease will be transferred to another
public housing site. In addition to participation in the family self-
sufficiency program, the Spartanburg Housing Authority required
returning Tobe Hartwell residents to agree to random drug testing. In
contrast, there were no special criteria at some sites. In Tucson,
there were no new screening criteria for the original residents of the
Connie Chambers site. Under a settlement agreement, all of the
residents of Henry Horner Homes in Chicago, Illinois, were eligible to
return.
Other factors that may affect reoccupancy include resident preferences
and the time between relocation and completion of construction of the
new units. According to three of the 1996 grantees, some relocated
residents did not want to return to the revitalized sites because they
preferred a voucher or were satisfied at their new location. Another
1996 grantee observed that, because of the length of time between
relocation and construction, some residents did not want to move again.
For the 1996 grantees, the average time between the completion of
relocation and the projected or actual completion of construction was
86 months (times ranged from 26 months to 129 months).[Footnote 18]
Resident Involvement in the HOPE VI Process Has Varied:
The extent to which grantees involved residents in the HOPE VI process
has varied at the 1996 sites. HUD has provided guidance on resident
involvement in its NOFAs and grant agreements and on its Web site. The
1996 grantees have taken a variety of steps to involve residents in the
HOPE VI process, ranging from holding informational meetings and
soliciting input to involving residents in major decisions.
HUD Has Provided General Guidance on Resident Involvement:
HUD's guidance on resident involvement in the HOPE VI process consists
of annual NOFAs and grant agreements, as well as information located on
its Web site. For example, the fiscal year 2002 NOFA stated that
residents should be involved in the planning, proposed implementation,
and management of revitalization plans. The NOFA required that, prior
to applying for a HOPE VI revitalization grant, housing authorities
conduct at least one training session for residents on the HOPE VI
development process and at least three public meetings with residents
and the broader community to involve them in developing revitalization
plans and preparing the application. The fiscal year 2002 grant
agreement (between HUD and the winning applicants) stated that grantees
were required to foster the involvement of, and gather input and
recommendations from, affected residents throughout the entire
development process. Specifically, grantees were responsible for, among
other things, holding regular meetings to provide the status of
revitalization efforts, providing substantial opportunities for
affected residents to provide input, and providing reasonable resources
to prepare affected residents for meaningful participation in planning
and implementation.
HUD's published guidance on resident involvement provides general
guidelines that grantees must meet. For example, it states that full
resident involvement is a crucial element of the HOPE VI program. HUD
requires grantees to give all affected residents reasonable notice of
meetings about HOPE VI planning and implementation and provide them
with opportunities to give input. The guidance states that, at a
minimum, grantees are required to involve residents throughout the
entire HOPE VI planning, development, and implementation process and to
provide information and training so that residents may participate
fully and meaningfully throughout the entire development process.
Although grantees are required to solicit and consider input from
residents, the guidance makes it clear that the grantees have final
decision-making authority.
Resident Participation Has Varied at 1996 Sites:
The amount and type of resident participation varied at the 1996 sites.
All of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents about
revitalization plans and solicit their input. For example, residents of
Dalton Village in Charlotte and Bedford Additions in Pittsburgh were
asked to provide input on the design plans for the new sites. As the
following examples illustrate, some of the grantees we visited took
additional steps to seek a greater level of resident involvement in the
HOPE VI process:
* In Tucson, the housing authority first asked residents to vote on the
revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site. Only after the
residents expressed their support for the plan did the mayor and city
council vote to submit the plan to HUD.
* The Chicago Housing Authority formed working groups at each of its
HOPE VI sites to solicit input on plans and the selection of
developers. These groups include representatives from the resident
council, the housing authority, and city agencies.
* The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority's plans for its
Riverview/Lakeview grant involved acquiring 54 off-site public housing
units and, in many cases, the residents to be relocated selected the
single-family homes that the housing authority then purchased for them.
* The Jacksonville and Chester Housing Authorities worked with
residents to develop screening criteria used to select the occupants of
the new development.
* The Holyoke Housing Authority asked residents to be part of its HOPE
VI Implementation Team and the mayor's HOPE VI Advisory Task Force.
At one site we visited, the resident leader stated that residents were
not adequately involved early in the HOPE VI process. Not until the
residents at Robert Jervay Place in Wilmington, North Carolina, sent a
letter to HUD describing the lack of progress at the site did the
housing authority start moving forward with the project and involving
residents in design meetings.
In some cases, litigation or the threat of litigation has led to
increased resident involvement. Due to a settlement agreement, any
decisions regarding the revitalization of Henry Horner Homes in Chicago
are subject to the approval of the Horner Resident Committee. According
to the president of the St. Thomas resident council, the Housing
Authority of New Orleans agreed to provide an additional 100 off-site
public housing eligible rental units and change the screening criteria
so that most of the original residents would be able to return in
response to petitions filed by the attorney for St. Thomas residents
with HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
Community and Supportive Services Yielded Some Positive Outcomes:
Grantees have provided a variety of community and supportive services,
including case management and direct services such as job training
programs. HUD data and information obtained during our site visits
suggest that the supportive services yielded at least some positive
outcomes. However, the data are limited and do not capture outcomes for
all programs or reflect all services provided. Also, we could not
determine the extent to which the HOPE VI program was responsible for
these outcomes.
Grantees Have Provided a Variety of Community and Supportive Services
to Residents:
Grantees are using HOPE VI and other funds to provide a variety of
community and supportive services, including case management and direct
services such as job training programs. In our November 2002 report on
HOPE VI financing, we reported that the housing authorities that had
been awarded grants in fiscal years 1993-2001 had budgeted a total of
about $714 million for community and supportive services.[Footnote 19]
In addition to their HOPE VI funds, grantees are encouraged to obtain
in-kind, financial, and other types of resources necessary to carry out
and sustain supportive service activities from organizations such as
local boards of education, public libraries, private foundations,
nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and economic
development agencies. Of the $714 million budgeted for community and
supportive services, $418 million were HOPE VI funds (59 percent), and
$295 million (41 percent) were leveraged funds.[Footnote 20] Although
the majority of funds budgeted overall for supportive services were
HOPE VI funds, we noted that the amount of non-HOPE VI funds budgeted
for supportive services had increased since the program's inception.
In recent years, HUD has stressed the importance of grantees using
community and supportive services funding to provide case management
services to residents. In fact, all of the 1996 grantees have used the
case management approach. For example, the Housing Authority of New
Orleans hired a social service provider located near the St. Thomas
site to perform assessments and provide case management plans for
residents. The Holyoke Housing Authority has three case managers, who
help residents of its 1996 grant site find employment, acquire General
Educational Development (GED) certificates, take English as a Second
Language courses, and receive homeownership counseling. The Chester
Housing Authority established a "one-stop shop" at a local hospital,
which serves as the coordinating point for all programs and partners
servicing the authority's residents.
Grantees have also used funds set aside for community and supportive
services to construct facilities where services are provided by other
entities. For example, the Charlotte Housing Authority spent $1.5
million in HOPE VI funds to construct an 11,000-square-foot community
and recreational center consisting of a gymnasium, four classrooms, and
a computer lab near its 1996 grant site. In exchange, the residents
annually will receive $60,000 in services from the center, which is run
by the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department. The Tucson
Community Services Department, which serves as Tucson's public housing
authority, used some of its 1996 HOPE VI funds to fund the construction
of a child development center and learning center. Two day care
programs--one operated by Head Start and the other by a local nonprofit
organization--are operating in the child development center, and a
computer library run by the Tucson-Pima Public Library is operating in
the learning center. The Spartanburg Housing Authority used a portion
of its HOPE VI funds to build a community center containing a computer
center, health clinic, and gymnasium. The Spartanburg Technical College
provides adult and student computer training, and the University of
South Carolina Spartanburg School of Nursing performs health
assessments and tracking at the center.
Grantees also provided direct services such as computer and job
training. For instance, the New York City Housing Authority instituted
a computer incentive program that provides a personal computer system
to Arverne and Edgemere residents who either work 96 hours volunteering
on HOPE VI recruiting and other HOPE VI activities or who participate
in a HOPE VI training program. HOPE VI residents enrolled in the San
Francisco Housing Authority's family self-sufficiency program can
receive up to $1,200 per household to participate in training for
various trades. The Detroit Housing Commission formed a number of
partnerships to provide training in retail sales, computers,
manufacturing, and child care to Herman Gardens residents. For example,
18 different unions formed a partnership that offers a
preapprenticeship program.
Limited Data Show That HOPE VI Services Have Helped Achieve Positive
Outcomes:
Limited HUD data on all 165 grants awarded through fiscal year 2001 and
information collected during our visits to the 1996 sites indicated
that HOPE VI community and supportive services have achieved or
contributed to positive outcomes. We recommended in July 1998 that HUD
develop consistent national, outcome-based measures for community and
support services at HOPE VI sites.[Footnote 21] Since June 2000, HUD
has used its HOPE VI reporting system to collect data from grantees on
the major types of community and supportive services they provide and
the outcomes achieved by some of these services. HUD collects data on
services provided to both original and new residents. According to the
data, as of June 30, 2003, for the 165 sites awarded grants through
fiscal year 2001, about 45,000 of the approximately 70,000 original
residents potentially eligible for community and supportive services
made up the grantees' caseload. The remaining original residents were
not part of the caseload because, among other things, they declined or
no longer needed services, or the grantee could not locate them.
Additionally, about 8,000 new residents were included in the grantees'
caseload, bringing the total to approximately 53,000.
As shown in table 1, the community and supportive services programs in
which the most residents enrolled, as of June 30, 2003, were employment
and counseling programs. HUD also collects data on the number of
residents that have completed certain of these programs. For example,
about 55 percent of the residents that enrolled in job skills training
programs, as of June 30, 2003, completed the program. About 35 percent
of the residents that signed up for high school or equivalent education
classes completed them.
Table 1: Number of Residents That Have Enrolled in and Completed
Community and Supportive Services Programs:
Community and supportive services: Employment preparation/placement/
retention; Number of residents enrolled: 25,831; Number of completions:
N/A.
Community and supportive services: Counseling programs; Number of
residents enrolled: 23,458; Number of completions: N/A.
Community and supportive services: Transportation assistance; Number of
residents enrolled: 18,202; Number of completions: N/A.
Community and supportive services: Job skills training programs; Number
of residents enrolled: 11,860; Number of completions: 6,477.
Community and supportive services: Child care; Number of residents
enrolled: 9,274; Number of completions: N/A.
Community and supportive services: High school or equivalent education;
Number of residents enrolled: 7,136; Number of completions: 2,530.
Community and supportive services: Homeownership counseling; Number of
residents enrolled: 4,901; Number of completions: 2,093.
Community and supportive services: Substance abuse programs; Number of
residents enrolled: 2,108; Number of completions: N/A.
Community and supportive services: Entrepreneurship training; Number of
residents enrolled: 1,634; Number of completions: 789.
Community and supportive services: English as a Second Language course;
Number of residents enrolled: 1,089; Number of completions: N/A.
Source: HUD.
Note: This table is based on data from HUD's HOPE VI reporting system
(as of June 30, 2003).
[End of table]
HUD also collects data on selected outcomes such as employment and
homeownership, although the outcomes cannot always be attributed to
participation in or completion of HOPE VI programs or services. Other
factors such as welfare-to-work requirements may have contributed to
these outcomes. The data collected, as of the quarter ending June 30,
2003, showed that over 1,000 residents obtained jobs in that quarter.
Overall, 22 percent of the grantees' caseload was employed, and 16
percent had been employed 6 months or more. In addition, 344 resident-
owned businesses had been started, as of June 30, 2003, and 967
residents had purchased a home.
HUD has made modifications to the community and supportive services
data that it collects and worked with grantees to help them better
understand their reporting responsibilities. Seven of the 1996 grantees
stated that they were not always certain about what to report, and 11
stated that the system did not reflect some of the services, such as
those for youth and seniors, that they provided. To improve reporting,
HUD hired the Urban Institute to help identify reporting problems and
make refinements to the system. Also, HUD staff and one of two outside
technical assistance providers review the data provided each quarter
for consistency. As a result, the data are more reliable now than they
were initially, according to the HOPE VI official that oversees
community and supportive services. The same official stated that, while
HUD encourages grantees to provide services to youth and seniors, it
does not collect data on these services in order to limit the reporting
burden on grantees.
Limited data collected during our site visits also suggest that
community and supportive services have helped achieve some positive
outcomes. For example, the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh
offered in-home health worker training courses, in which 49 Bedford
Additions residents have participated since October 2000. Thirty-one of
the 49 participants obtained employment, and 12 were still employed, as
of September 2003. In Louisville, 114 former Cotter and Lang residents
had enrolled in homeownership counseling, as of June 2003, 41 had
completed the counseling, and 34 had purchased a home. Between January
and June 2003, 76 St. Thomas residents in New Orleans got a job, 12
residents got a GED, and 5 residents became homeowners. Finally,
residents of Arverne and Edgemere Houses in New York City had earned
242 computers, as of July 2003, as part of the computer incentive
program described in the previous section.[Footnote 22]
Indicators for Education, Income, and Housing Have Generally Improved
in 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhoods:
According to our analysis of census and other data, the 20
neighborhoods in which the 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have
experienced improvements in a number of indicators used by researchers
to measure neighborhood change, such as educational attainment levels,
average household income, and average housing values. However, for a
number of reasons, we could not determine the extent to which the HOPE
VI program was responsible for these changes. For example, we relied
primarily on decennial census data (adjusted for inflation), comparing
measures from 1990 with those of 2000. However, the HOPE VI sites were
at varying stages of completion in 2000. We also used data available
under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act for numbers of home mortgage
originations in 1996 and 2001. Further, a number of factors--such as
changes in national or regional economic conditions--can influence the
indicators we compared.
In an attempt to more directly gauge the influence of the HOPE VI
program, we compared each of four selected HOPE VI neighborhoods with a
comparable non-HOPE VI public housing neighborhood in the same city.
Some variables indicated greater improvements in the HOPE VI
neighborhoods than their comparable neighborhoods, such as in mortgage
lending activity, but other variables indicated inconsistent results
among the sites. We also found that the demolition of old public
housing alone may influence changes in neighborhoods. Analysis of six
HOPE VI neighborhoods where the original public housing units have been
demolished, but no on-site units have been completed, also shows
improvements in educational attainment, unemployment rates, income, and
housing. Finally, other studies have shown similar findings in HOPE VI
neighborhoods.
1996 HOPE VI Neighborhoods Have Generally Experienced Positive Changes:
The 20 neighborhoods in which the 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have
experienced positive changes in education, income, and housing
indicators as measured by comparing 1990 and 2000 Census and 1996 and
2001 HMDA data. When using census data, we defined the neighborhood as
consisting of the census block group or groups in which a public
housing site is located and the immediately adjacent census block
groups. When using HMDA data, which is not available at the census
block group level, we defined the neighborhood as the census tract in
which a public housing site is located (see app. II). Since 2000 data
is the most recent census data available, it reflects the neighborhood
conditions at the 1996 HOPE VI sites, which were at various stages of
completion, at that time. Finally, not all of the changes in census
data from 1990 to 2000 were statistically significant (see app.
III).[Footnote 23] Moreover, at five sites, revitalization work had
begun prior to receipt of HOPE VI funds with various non-HOPE VI
funding sources.[Footnote 24] As a part of its fiscal year 2001 and
2002 performance goals, HUD specified that neighborhoods with
substantial levels of HOPE VI investment would show improvements in
such dimensions as household income, employment, homeownership, and
housing investment. As a result, we used similar indicators, as well as
other indicators generally used by researchers, to analyze neighborhood
changes. However, it was not possible to determine the extent to which
the HOPE VI program was responsible for the changes in these
neighborhoods. Many factors, such as national and regional economic
trends, can also affect neighborhood conditions. According to
experts, it is extremely rare for any one program or actor to be able
to change a neighborhood single-handedly.[Footnote 25]
Our analysis of census and HMDA data for the 20 1996 HOPE VI
neighborhoods showed the following positive changes:
* In 18 of the 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods, the percentage of the
population with a high school diploma or equivalent increased, from a
minimum of 4 percentage points in Detroit to a maximum of 21 percentage
points in Baltimore.
* In 11 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods, the percentage of the population
with an associate's degree or better increased, from a minimum of 3
percentage points in Tucson to a maximum of 14 percentage points in San
Francisco.
* Average household income increased in 15 of the 1996 HOPE VI
neighborhoods, from a minimum of 18 percent in Detroit to a maximum of
115 percent in Chicago (Henry Horner).
* The percentage of the population in poverty decreased in 14 of the
HOPE VI neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in Atlanta
and Detroit to a maximum of 20 percentage points in Baltimore. Despite
these decreases, 9 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods remained "high-poverty
neighborhoods" (having poverty rates of 30 percent or more), and 5
remained "extremely high-poverty neighborhoods" (having poverty rates
of 40 percent or more).[Footnote 26] According to the Urban Institute,
areas where 30-40 percent of the population lives in poverty represent
significantly more deteriorated and threatening living environments
than those with poverty rates below those thresholds.[Footnote 27]
* Average housing values increased in 13 of the 20 HOPE VI
neighborhoods, ranging from a minimum of 11 percent in Tucson to a
maximum of 215 percent in Chicago (Henry Horner). It is generally
accepted among researchers that housing values represent the best
available index of expectations regarding future economic activity in
an area.
* Rental housing costs increased in 15 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods,
from a minimum of 9 percent in Tucson to a maximum of 61 percent in
Louisville. Increasing rental-housing costs are an indication that
there is a greater demand for housing in that area.
* The number of mortgage loans originated in 10 of the HOPE VI
neighborhoods increased between 1996 and 2001. These increases ranged
from a minimum of 21 percent in Holyoke to a maximum of 728 percent in
Charlotte--where the number of loans originated increased from 7 to 58.
However, some of the HOPE VI neighborhoods showed negative changes for
certain indicators. For example:
* The percent unemployed rose at 4 of the 20 sites, from a minimum of 2
percentage points in Charlotte to a maximum of 8 percentage points in
Kansas City.
* In the Holyoke HOPE VI neighborhood, average housing values declined
by 26 percent.
* The number of mortgage loans originated in seven of the HOPE VI
neighborhoods decreased between 1996 and 2001. These decreases ranged
from a minimum of 5 percent in Atlanta to a maximum of 58 percent in
Wilmington.
Appendix III shows the census and HMDA data for all of the indicators
we analyzed for each of the 1996 HOPE VI sites.
By Some Measures, HOPE VI Neighborhoods Have Experienced More Positive
Change Than Neighborhoods with Comparable Public Housing:
Comparison of four HOPE VI neighborhoods with neighborhoods in which
comparable public housing sites are located (comparable neighborhoods)
showed that HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced greater positive changes
in some, but not all, of the variables that we evaluated.[Footnote 28]
We conducted this comparative analysis to attempt to better isolate the
effects of the HOPE VI program, although it was not possible to
directly link changes to the HOPE VI program (see app. II). In
addition, 2000 census data may not reflect some of the changes that
could occur over time in these neighborhoods because the demolition and
new construction at these sites did not begin until the late 1990s.
Moreover, in these four HOPE VI neighborhoods, the units put back on-
site were all public housing and, thus, not representative of the
majority of HOPE VI projects, which are mixed-income.
Three of the four HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced greater increases
in mortgage loan originations than their comparable neighborhoods,
according to HMDA data. From 1996 to 2001, the percentage of loans
originated for home purchases increased 25 percent in Kansas City, 50
percent in Jacksonville, and 166 percent in Chester, while the
percentage decreased in the comparable neighborhoods. In Spartanburg,
the percentage of mortgage loans originated in the HOPE VI neighborhood
decreased 33 percent, in contrast to a 46-percent decrease in the
comparable neighborhood.
While crime data summaries were not available at the neighborhood
level, we were able to obtain crime data summaries for each of the
sites being compared. Available crime data summaries show that three of
the four HOPE VI sites experienced greater decreases in crime than
their comparable sites (see app. III). Although incidents of crime
generally decreased at both the HOPE VI and comparable site in
Spartanburg, South Carolina, they decreased to a greater extent at the
HOPE VI site. In both Chester, Pennsylvania, and Jacksonville, Florida,
crime decreased at the HOPE VI sites while it increased at the
comparable sites. In contrast, crime incidents at Kansas City's HOPE VI
site have generally increased. According to officials from the Housing
Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, in 1996 the HOPE VI site had a 24-
percent occupancy rate because most of the residents had already been
relocated, and a 98-percent occupancy rate in 2002. They attribute the
increase in crime during this time period to this increased occupancy
rate. Officials from the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri,
also reported that crimes per household decreased from .51 to .31 at
the HOPE VI site from 1996 to 2002.
Comparison of census data for the HOPE VI and comparable neighborhoods
between 1990 and 2000 showed some positive and some negative changes.
However, we were able to compare only a small number of variables
because the differences in the changes for others were not
statistically significant (see fig. 5). Kansas City, Missouri, had the
largest number of statistically significant differences between the
HOPE VI and comparable neighborhoods; specifically, in Kansas City, the
differences between the HOPE VI and comparable neighborhood were
statistically significant for four variables. It should be noted that
Kansas City's HOPE VI neighborhood has been changing for a longer
period of time than the other HOPE VI neighborhoods in our analysis.
The first phase of revitalization in this neighborhood began in May
1995 with non-HOPE VI funds, whereas the other three sites in our
comparative analysis did not begin revitalization activities until
after being awarded HOPE VI revitalization grant funds in 1996. While
the Kansas City HOPE VI neighborhood experienced greater positive
changes in new construction, it also experienced a greater increase in
unemployment, and a greater decrease in the percentage of the
population with both a high school diploma and an associate's degree or
better. In Spartanburg, South Carolina, the differences between the
HOPE VI and its comparable neighborhood were statistically significant
for two variables. The percentage of the population with a high school
diploma increased to a greater extent in the HOPE VI neighborhood than
the comparable neighborhood, while new construction decreased to a
greater extent in the HOPE VI neighborhood relative to the comparable
neighborhood. In addition, in Jacksonville, Florida, the HOPE VI
neighborhood experienced a greater increase in new construction
relative to its comparable neighborhood.
Figure 5: Neighborhood Changes between 1990 and 2000 for Selected
Cities:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data are aggregated by neighborhood, which is defined as the
census block group or groups in which a site is located, plus all of
the immediately adjacent census block groups. Statistical significance
testing was not conducted on the "Population" variable because it is
based upon 100-percent census figures. Differences for poverty rate,
unemployment rate, population with high school degree, population with
a degree, housing units constructed within the last 10 years, and
occupied housing units are based upon percentage point differences.
Differences for average household income, average housing value,
average gross rent, and population are calculated as percent changes.
[A] 1990 dollar values were adjusted to make them comparable to 2000
dollar values.
[B] An associate's degree or better.
[C] The change in estimates from 1990 to 2000 is statistically
significant.
[D] The difference between the percent changes in the HOPE VI and in
the comparable neighborhoods is statistically significant.
[End of figure]
Changes in Indicators Suggest That HOPE VI Can Influence Neighborhoods
through the Demolition of the Old, Deteriorated Public Housing Alone:
Even in the six 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods where the original public
housing units had been demolished, but no units had been completed on-
site as of December 2002, a comparison of 1990 and 2000 Census data
showed that positive changes occurred in educational attainment,
unemployment, income, and housing.[Footnote 29] For example:
* The percentage of the population with a high school diploma or
equivalent increased in all six neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4
percentage points in Detroit to a maximum of 21 percentage points in
Baltimore. Similarly, the percentage of population with an associate's
degree or better increased in five neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4
percentage points in Atlanta and Baltimore to a maximum of 14
percentage points in San Francisco.
* The unemployment rate decreased in four of the six HOPE VI
neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in Cleveland to a
maximum of 6 percentage points in Baltimore and Detroit.
* Average household income increased in all of the neighborhoods, from
a minimum of 18 percent in Detroit to a maximum of 46 percent in
Cleveland.
* The poverty rate decreased in five of the neighborhoods, from a
minimum of 4 percentage points in Atlanta and Detroit to a maximum of
20 percentage points in Baltimore.
* Average housing values increased in four of the neighborhoods, from a
minimum of 26 percent in Atlanta to a maximum of 116 percent in
Detroit.
* The percentage of occupied housing units increased in four
neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in Atlanta to a
maximum of 8 percentage points in Cleveland and New Orleans.
* Rental-housing costs increased in all six neighborhoods, from a
minimum of 11 percent in New Orleans to a maximum of 38 percent in
Baltimore.
In contrast, the level of mortgage lending activity decreased in four
of these neighborhoods from a range of 5 percent in Atlanta to 57
percent in Baltimore between 1996 and 2001. Moreover, new construction
decreased by 2 percentage points in Cleveland, New Orleans, and San
Francisco between 1990 and 2000.
We cannot attribute these changes solely to the HOPE VI program. To the
extent that they do reflect the program's influence, however, they
suggest that demolition of old, deteriorated public housing alone may
influence surrounding neighborhoods. For example, average housing value
and average household income increased even though no new units had
been constructed. It is possible that the HOPE VI program influenced
these indicators by removing blight from the neighborhoods and
temporarily relocating large numbers of low-income households during
demolition.
Studies Have Shown Positive Changes in HOPE VI Neighborhoods:
Studies by housing and community development researchers have shown
positive changes in HOPE VI neighborhoods as reflected in income,
employment, community investment, and crime indicators.[Footnote 30] In
reviewing the literature, we identified one report that discussed
changes in the neighborhoods surrounding eight HOPE VI sites and two
reports that evaluated changes at two of the sites we visited.[Footnote
31] While each study covered a small number of HOPE VI neighborhoods,
they showed positive changes:
* Per capita incomes in eight selected HOPE VI neighborhoods increased
an average of 71 percent, compared with 14.5 percent for the cities in
which these sites are located between 1989 and 1999.
* The percentage of low-income households living in eight selected HOPE
VI neighborhoods decreased from 82 to 69 percent from 1989 to 1999.
* Median income increased 80 percent from 1990 to 2000 in Chester's
1996 HOPE VI neighborhood.
* Unemployment rates decreased from 24 to 15 percent between 1989 and
1999 in eight selected HOPE VI neighborhoods.
* The number of small business loans closed in seven selected HOPE VI
neighborhoods grew by an average of 248 percent from 1998 to 2001,
compared with 153 percent in the neighborhoods' respective counties.
* The number of new business licenses issued in Tucson's 1996 HOPE VI
neighborhood increased from 6 in 1996 to 28 in 2002. In addition, the
number of business closures in the neighborhood decreased from 23 in
1996 to 15 in 2001.
* The vacancy rate decreased from 9 to 6 percent between 1990 and 2000
in Chester's 1996 HOPE VI neighborhood, while the vacancy rate for the
city increased from 12 to 14 percent during the same period.
* Overall and violent crime rates decreased by 48 and 68 percent,
respectively, between 1993 and 2001 in four of the HOPE VI
neighborhoods where crime data were available. Overall and violent
crimes decreased by 25 and 38 percent, respectively, during the same
time period for the cities in which these sites are located.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its comment and review.
We received comments from the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing (see app. IV) who thanked GAO for its thorough review of the
HOPE VI program and stated that HUD regards our study as an important
tool in its continuing efforts to improve the program.
:
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee
on Housing and Community Opportunity, House Committee on Financial
Services; and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House Committee
on Financial Services. We also will send copies to the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. We also will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] http://www.gao.gov.
Please call me at (202) 512-8678 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Key contributors to this report are listed
in Appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
David G. Wood:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to examine (1) the types of housing to which the
original residents of HOPE VI sites were relocated and the number of
original residents that grantees expect to return to the revitalized
sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved residents in
the HOPE VI process, (3) the types of community and supportive services
that have been provided to residents and the results achieved, and (4)
how the neighborhoods surrounding the sites that received HOPE VI
grants in fiscal year 1996 have changed.
To accomplish these objectives, we analyzed the data contained in HUD's
HOPE VI reporting system on the 165 sites that received revitalization
grants in fiscal years 1993-2001.[Footnote 32] To assess the
reliability of the data in HUD's HOPE VI reporting system, we
interviewed the officials that manage the system; reviewed information
about the system, including the user guide, data dictionary, and steps
taken to ensure the quality of these data; performed electronic testing
to detect obvious errors in completeness and reasonableness; and
interviewed grantees regarding the data they reported. We determined
that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report. For the second and fourth objectives, we then focused on and
visited the 20 sites in 18 cities that received HOPE VI revitalization
grants in fiscal year 1996. We selected the 1996 grants because they
were the first awarded after HUD issued a rule allowing revitalization
to be funded with a combination of public and private funds, which has
become the HOPE VI model. We also analyzed Census and Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act data and reviewed crime data summaries. In addition, we
interviewed the HUD headquarters officials responsible for
administering the HOPE VI program.
To determine the types of housing to which the original residents of
HOPE VI sites were relocated and the number of original residents that
grantees expect to return to the revitalized sites, we analyzed the
relocation and reoccupancy data in HUD's HOPE VI reporting system.
Specifically, we determined what percentage of the original residents
that had been relocated as of June 30, 2003, were relocated to other
public housing, given vouchers, or evicted. We also determined the
percentage of original residents overall and at each site that was
expected, as of June 30, 2003, to return to the revitalized sites. At
the 113 sites where reoccupancy was not yet complete, we divided the
number of original residents the grantee estimated would return by the
total number of residents the grantee estimated would be relocated. At
the 39 sites where reoccupancy was complete, we divided the number of
original residents who actually returned by the total number of
residents relocated. We excluded 10 of the 165 sites from our analysis
because they did not involve relocation and an additional three sites
because the reoccupancy data reported as of June 30, 2003, was
incorrect. To determine how reoccupancy estimates changed over time, we
compared the data in HUD's HOPE VI reporting system as of September 30,
1999 (the earliest date for which we could obtain data) with data as of
June 30, 2003. Finally, to determine what factors affected whether
residents returned to the revitalized sites, we interviewed HUD
officials, public housing authority (PHA) officials responsible for
managing the fiscal year 1996 grants, and resident representatives at
19 of the 20 fiscal year 1996 sites.[Footnote 33]
For all 165 sites, we used data from HUD's HOPE VI reporting system to
calculate the percentage of revitalized units that would be units under
an annual contributions contract (that is, public housing
units).[Footnote 34] At the 143 sites where construction was not yet
complete, we divided the number of planned public housing units by the
total number of planned units. At the 22 sites where construction was
complete, we divided the actual number of public housing units by the
total number of units. To determine how the number of planned public
housing units has changed over time, we compared the number of public
housing units planned as of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for
which we could obtain data) with data as of June 30, 2003. For 19 of
the 20 1996 HOPE VI sites, we used data from HUD's HOPE VI reporting
system and data collected during our site visits to calculate the
percentage of public housing units being replaced.[Footnote 35]
To determine how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved residents
in the HOPE VI process, we obtained and reviewed HUD's guidance on
resident involvement, including the portions of the fiscal year 2002
notice of funding availability and fiscal year 2002 grant agreement
that address resident involvement. For the 1996 grants, we interviewed
PHA officials and resident representatives to determine the extent to
which residents had been involved in the HOPE VI process. Finally, we
interviewed two resident advocate groups--Everywhere and Now Public
Housing Residents Organizing Nationally Together and the National Low
Income Housing Coalition--regarding resident involvement and other
resident issues.
To identify the types of community and supportive services that have
been provided to residents of HOPE VI sites, we obtained and reviewed
HUD's draft guidance on community and supportive services. To obtain
specific examples of community and supportive services provided at the
fiscal year 1996 sites, we interviewed PHA officials and obtained and
reviewed community and supportive services plans. We also obtained data
from HUD's HOPE VI reporting system to determine the number of
residents that have participated in different types of community and
supportive services. To determine the results that have been achieved,
we obtained data from HUD's HOPE VI reporting system on selected
outcomes, including the number of new job placements and the number of
residents that have purchased homes. We also obtained information
during our site visits that documents the results achieved by various
community and supportive services programs.
To determine how the neighborhoods surrounding the sites that received
a 1996 HOPE VI revitalization grant have changed, we analyzed nine key
variables from 1990 and 2000 census data for each neighborhood,
including the average household income, the percentage of the
population in poverty, and the percentage of occupied housing units.
When using census data, we defined a "HOPE VI neighborhood" as
consisting of the census block group in which the original public
housing site was located, as well as all of the immediately adjacent
census block groups (see app. II). We also analyzed changes in mortgage
lending activity using 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
(HMDA) data. These data are only available by census tract, which
encompasses a larger area than a census block group. As a result, for
this analysis we used only the census tract in which the original
public housing site was located as the proxy for the neighborhood.
In addition to using the census and HMDA data to analyze changes in the
neighborhoods around all 20 1996 HOPE VI sites, we performed additional
analysis for those sites where demolition, but no on-site construction,
was complete and those that were the closest to completion. To explore
the change in neighborhoods where only demolition had occurred, we used
the HOPE VI reporting system to identify the six sites that had
demolished all of the original public housing units, but not completed
any on-site construction as of December 31, 2002.[Footnote 36] We also
used the HOPE VI reporting system to identify the five sites where on-
site construction was 75 percent or more complete as of December 31,
2002. We then compared changes in census, HMDA, and summary crime data
for four of the five HOPE VI neighborhoods with changes in comparable
public housing neighborhoods--neighborhoods containing public housing
sites that PHAs identified as similar in condition to the HOPE VI sites
prior to revitalization.[Footnote 37] However, these comparisons are
not perfect. For example, in two cases the HOPE VI sites are about 10
years older than the comparable sites. In Chester, Pennsylvania, the
comparable site was rehabilitated in 1997, and units were enlarged.
We obtained crime data summaries for the Lamokin Village (HOPE VI) and
Matopos Hills (comparable) sites from the Chester Housing Authority;
for the Durkeeville (HOPE VI) and Brentwood Park (comparable) sites
from the Jacksonville Housing Authority; for the Theron B. Watkins
(HOPE VI) and West Bluff (comparable) sites from the Housing Authority
of Kansas City, Missouri; and for the Tobe Hartwell/Extension (HOPE VI)
and Woodworth Homes (comparable) sites from the Spartanburg Housing
Authority. Each of these PHAs obtained site-specific crime data
summaries from their local police departments. We reviewed the crime
data summaries for reasonableness and followed up on anomalies. Because
we did not have disaggregated crime data directly from each city's
police department, we were unable to perform tests of statistical
significance on the summary crime trends. Although we did not do
extensive testing of the summary crime data, we feel that it is
sufficiently reliable for the informational purposes of this report.
Finally, we obtained and reviewed reports by various universities and
private institutions that discussed the social and economic impacts of
the HOPE VI program. We focused on one report that discussed changes in
the neighborhoods surrounding eight sites and two reports that
evaluated changes at sites we visited. See appendix II for more
detailed information on the methodology we used to determine how the
1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods have changed.
We performed our work from November 2001 through October 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Technical Methodology:
This appendix provides detailed information on the methodologies we
used to analyze neighborhood changes observed in the HOPE VI
neighborhoods (for recipients of 1996 HOPE VI revitalization grants)
and, where applicable, four comparison neighborhoods.
Data Sources:
To analyze changes observed in HOPE VI neighborhoods, we first defined
HOPE VI neighborhoods as the census block group in which the public
housing site was located and the adjacent census block groups.[Footnote
38] This definition allowed us to examine changes observed in HOPE VI
neighborhoods and the extent to which some of the goals of the HOPE VI
program may have been addressed, such as improvements in household
income, employment, and housing investment. Census block groups were
used, as this geographic area was likely to better represent the area
of the housing site and its adjacent neighborhood than a larger census
entity, such as a census tract, would have. That is, use of block
groups lessened the likelihood that both community residents and
characteristics that are not influenced by the housing development were
included in the analyses. The block groups in which HOPE VI sites were
located, and the adjacent block groups, were identified by
electronically mapping the addresses using MapInfo.
Next, we obtained 1990 and 2000 census data on nine population and
housing characteristics for the census block groups in which the HOPE
VI sites were located and the adjacent block groups. In order to make
valid and reliable comparisons between decennial censuses, we had to
ensure that the geographic regions in 1990 and in 2000 shared the same,
or nearly the same, physical boundaries and land area. We visually
inspected a map of the 1990 boundaries for each of the block groups
contained in a HOPE VI neighborhood and compared them with the 2000
boundaries.
In some cases, we had to reclassify block groups in order to maintain
comparability between the two census years. For example, in 2000,
Wilmington's Jervay Place site was located in block group 11002. One of
its adjacent block groups, part of the Jervay Place "neighborhood" (as
defined by our study), was block group 10001. However, in 1990, the
same area constituting block group 10001 had been partitioned into two
block groups, 10001 and 10003, of which only 10003 was adjacent to the
site block group, 11002. In order to have consistent and comparable
geographic areas, we added the respondents of 1990 block group 10001
and their characteristics into the calculations for the 1990
descriptive statistics.
We also obtained 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data
from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Specifically, for each of the 20 HOPE VI neighborhoods and the four
comparable neighborhoods we compared the number of loans originated in
1996 with the number originated in 2001. However, the smallest
geographic unit for which HMDA data are available is the census tract.
Therefore, analyses of these data were conducted at the census tract
level, and each neighborhood was defined as consisting of the census
tract in which the site was located.
Data Reliability:
We reviewed information related to the census data variables and
performed electronic data testing to identify obvious gaps in data
completeness or accuracy. We determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable for use in this report. We conducted a similar review of
information related to the HMDA variables. Finally, since we found no
issues impacting the use of these data as a result of electronic data
testing, we concluded that the data elements being used were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report.
Limitations of Analysis:
In evaluating community development initiatives such as HOPE VI, we
note that it is difficult to determine the impact of a program or to
definitely conclude that a program caused a specified outcome to occur.
For example, several factors--such as other community initiatives, re-
emphasis on the Community Reinvestment Act (Zielenbach, 2002), or
national trends in the economy and unemployment (Zielenbach, 2002)--in
conjunction with HOPE VI efforts may have contributed to observed
changes in the geographic region surrounding a HOPE VI site.
To attempt to isolate the influence of HOPE VI activities, an ideal
evaluation research design would include the identification of a
neighborhood identical to the HOPE VI community based on key
characteristics (such as size, ethnic distribution, income
distribution, number of social institutions, crime rates) and ideally
use an in-depth, longitudinal case study to track changes in the HOPE
VI and comparison communities from the inception of HOPE VI work until
its completion. While we recognized that such a method would permit the
greatest understanding of community changes and their relationship to
HOPE VI, we could not utilize it for two reasons. First, in-depth,
longitudinal case studies of multiple HOPE VI sites would be very
resource-intensive and were outside the scope of this study. Second, it
is unlikely that we or other analysts could identify a series of
identical neighborhoods given the natural variation in population,
business, and housing development characteristics that occurs within a
city over the length of a longitudinal study. Therefore, in an attempt
to limit the potential factors that could explain changes observed in
HOPE VI communities, we worked with the public housing authorities that
managed the four 1996 HOPE VI sites that had completed 75 percent or
more of their on-site construction, as of December 31, 2002, to
identify comparison neighborhoods. These comparison neighborhoods
contained public housing sites that were comparable to the original
HOPE VI sites in terms of age, size, or condition. Each of these
comparison sites was located in the same city as the HOPE VI site, but
had not received any HOPE VI revitalization funding.
The decennial nature of the Census also constrained our analysis. The
HOPE VI sites were awarded their grants in 1996; however, relocation
did not begin at most sites until 1997 or later. Demolition did not
begin at over half of the sites until 1999 or later, and construction
did not begin at the majority of sites until 2000 or later. In
addition, as of June 30, 2003, the majority of sites had not completed
construction. Thus, data collected during the 2000 Census may not have
detected neighborhood changes. However, the 2000 data are the most
current available. Similarly, at the time of our analysis, 2001 HMDA
data were the most current available. Despite these limitations, we
believe that we have constructed a design that is as methodologically
sound as possible given resource and data constraints and the varying
stages of implementation of HOPE VI plans.
Analytical Approach and Results:
To analyze census data, we selected nine population and housing
characteristics. Those characteristics were average household income,
percent of population living in poverty, percent unemployed, percent of
the population with a high school degree, average housing value,
percent of housing units constructed within the last 10 years, percent
of occupied housing units, average gross rent, and population total.
For the six percentage characteristics, we calculated the percent
change by finding the difference between the 1990 sample estimate and
the 2000 sample estimate. For the three average characteristics, we
calculated the percent change by finding the difference between the
1990 sample estimate and the 2000 sample estimate and then dividing
this difference by the 1990 sample estimate. In our comparison of four
HOPE VI sites with comparable public housing sites, we also analyzed
census data on population totals for each neighborhood. Populations
were based on a 100 percent count of the individuals living in the
block groups.
With the exception of the population total, each of the census
variables is based on sample data. Since this sample is only one of a
large number of samples that might have been drawn and each sample
could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in
the precision of this particular sample's results as a 95 percent
confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 7 percentage points).
This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for
95 percent of the samples that could have been drawn. As a result, we
are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this
report will include the true values for the population. We used the
methodology described in the Census Bureau's documentation for the 1990
and 2000 Censuses (Appendix C: Accuracy of the Data, 1990, and Chapter
8: Accuracy of the Data, 2000) to calculate standard errors and
confidence intervals. Essentially, we used the Census Bureau's formulas
to compute the standard error for the sample estimate under the
assumption of simple random sampling. We then multiplied this result by
a design effect factor to adjust for the survey's sample design to give
the appropriate standard error.
In order to determine whether the 1990 and 2000 percent change
estimates were statistically significant, we interpreted the confidence
interval. For example, if the confidence interval includes zero, then
the difference between the 1990 and 2000 estimates is not considered a
statistically significant difference. If the confidence interval does
not include zero, then the percent change between the 1990 and 2000
estimates is considered statistically significant (see app. III). We
also calculated 95 percent confidence intervals to determine whether
there are statistically significant differences between the HOPE VI and
non-HOPE VI (comparable) neighborhoods on the percent differences from
1990 to 2000.
In addition to sampling errors, sample data (and 100 percent data) are
subject to nonsampling errors, which may occur during the operations
used to collect and process census data. Examples of nonsampling errors
are not enumerating every housing unit or person in the sample, failing
to obtain all required information from a respondent, obtaining
incorrect information, and recording information incorrectly.
Operations such as field review of enumerators' work, clerical handling
of questionnaires, and electronic processing of questionnaires also may
introduce nonsampling errors in the data. The Census Bureau discusses
sources of nonsampling errors and attempts to control in detail.
To analyze the HMDA data for each of the 20 HOPE VI sites and the four
comparable sites, we compared the number of loans originated in 1996
with the number originated in 2001 (see app. III). The HMDA data
contain all of the loans originating in these time periods; therefore,
it is not a sample, and confidence intervals did not need to be
computed for these data.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and Summary
Crime Data:
We obtained 1990 and 2000 census data for each neighborhood in which a
1996 HOPE VI site is located, as well as for four neighborhoods in
which public housing that is comparable to selected 1996 HOPE VI sites
is located. When using census data, we defined a neighborhood as
consisting of the census block group in which a site is located, as
well as the adjacent census block groups. We selected nine census data
variables, which are generally used by researchers to measure
neighborhood change, and analyzed the changes in these variables from
1990 to 2000 (see tables 2 through 4). We also determined whether these
changes were statistically significant.
For these same 20 HOPE VI and four comparable neighborhoods, we
obtained 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. With
this data, we compared the number of loans originated for the purchase
of a home in 1996 with the number originated in 2001 (see table 5).
When using HMDA data, we defined each neighborhood as consisting of the
census tract in which each site is located.
We also obtained 1996 and 2002 crime data summaries for each of the
four HOPE VI sites that had completed 75 percent or more of their on-
site construction (as of December 2002), as well as for four comparable
public housing sites. This data was obtained from public housing
authority officials and consisted of the total number of crimes that
occurred in selected categories. We then calculated the percent change
in the total number of crimes over time (see fig. 6).
Table 2: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Education for Each 1996
HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Atlanta, Georgia: Heman E.
Perry Homes;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 48;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 59;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 11[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 6;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 11;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 4[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Baltimore, Maryland:
Hollander Ridge;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 59;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 80;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 21[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 10;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 15;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 4[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Charlotte, North Carolina:
Dalton Village;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 66;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 68;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 2;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 14;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 13;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 0.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chester, Pennsylvania: Lamokin
Village; (Matopos Hills);
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 58; (61);
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 73; (74);
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 14[A]; (12[A]);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 10; (10);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 9; (10);
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 0; (0).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: ABLA
Homes - Brooks Extension;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 44;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 56;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 12[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 13;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 22;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 9[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: Henry
Horner Homes;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 40;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 54;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 14[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 6;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 16;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 10[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: Robert
Taylor Homes B;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 46;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 57;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 11[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 9;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 8;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: -1.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview
and Lakeview Terraces;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 52;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 64;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 12[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 16;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 21;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 6[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Detroit, Michigan: Herman
Gardens;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 66;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 70;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 4[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 13;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 14;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 2.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Holyoke, Massachusetts:
Jackson Parkway;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 63;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 66;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 3;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 19;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 18;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 0.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Jacksonville, Florida:
Durkeeville; (Brentwood Park);
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 50; (53);
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 61; (63);
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 10[A]; (10[A]);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 11; (11);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 12; (11);
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 0; (0).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Kansas City, Missouri: Theron
B. Watkins Homes; (West Bluff);
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 57; (60);
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 64; (76);
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 7[A]; (16[A]);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 13; (22);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 13; (36);
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 0; (14[A]).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Louisville, Kentucky: Cotter
and Lang Homes;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 61;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 71;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 10[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 10;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 14;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 4[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): New Orleans, Louisiana: St.
Thomas;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 67;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 75;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 8[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 29;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 37;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 8[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): New York, New York: Arverne/
Edgemere Houses;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 58;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 65;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 7[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 11;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 18;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 7[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Bedford Additions;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 58;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 69;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 11[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 12;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 19;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 6[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): San Francisco, California:
North Beach;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 80;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 87;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 8[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 52;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 66;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 14[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Spartanburg, South Carolina:
Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension; (Woodworth Homes);
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 44; (62);
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 58; (67);
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 14[A]; (4[A]);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 13; (21);
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 17; (20);
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 4; (0).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Tucson, Arizona: Connie
Chambers;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 51;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 58;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 7[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 13;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 16;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 3[A].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Wilmington, North Carolina:
Robert S. Jervay Place;
Percent with a high school diploma: 1990: 52;
Percent with a high school diploma: 2000: 61;
Percent with a high school diploma:
Percentage point difference: 8[A];
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 1990: 12;
Percent with an associate's degree or better: 2000: 15;
Percent with an associate's degree or better:
Percentage point difference: 3.
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
[A] The difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly
different, and the 2000 estimate is larger than the 1990 estimate.
[End of table]
Table 3: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Income, Poverty, and
Unemployment for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable
Neighborhoods:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Atlanta, Georgia: Heman E.
Perry Homes;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 23,394;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 31,522;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 35[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 46;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 42;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -4[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 14;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 19;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: 5[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Baltimore, Maryland:
Hollander Ridge;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 36,672;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 49,470;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 35[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 26;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 6;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: - 20[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 11;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 4;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -6[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Charlotte, North Carolina:
Dalton Village;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 34,443;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 42,208;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 23[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 21;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 21;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: 0;
Percent unemployed: 1990: 6;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 8;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: 2[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chester, Pennsylvania: Lamokin
Village; (Matopos Hills);
Average household income[A]: 1990: 27,289; (30,313);
Average household income[A]: 2000: 29,468; (31,730);
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 8; (5);
Percent in poverty: 1990: 33; (32);
Percent in poverty: 2000: 31; (33);
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -2; (1);
Percent unemployed: 1990: 13; (13);
Percent unemployed: 2000: 13; (11);
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: 0; (-2).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: ABLA Homes
- Brooks Extension;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 22,124;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 34,398;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 55[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 52;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 40;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -13[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 22;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 14;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -8[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: Henry
Horner Homes;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 15,106;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 32,494;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 115[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 67;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 48;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -18[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 34;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 25;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -9[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: Robert
Taylor Homes B;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 18,086;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 23,951;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 32[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 67;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 58;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -8[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 35;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 32;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -2.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview
and Lakeview Terraces;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 22,006;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 32,074;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 46[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 52;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 34;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -18[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 18;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 14;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -4[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Detroit, Michigan: Herman
Gardens;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 33,072;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 39,190;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 18[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 32;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 27;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: - 4[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 17;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 11;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -6[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Holyoke, Massachusetts:
Jackson Parkway;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 35,815;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 37,332;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 4;
Percent in poverty: 1990: 29;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 26;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -2;
Percent unemployed: 1990: 11;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 7;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -4[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Jacksonville, Florida:
Durkeeville; (Brentwood Park);
Average household income[A]: 1990: 17,261; (23,454);
Average household income[A]: 2000: 21,208; (25,936);
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 23[B]; (11);
Percent in poverty: 1990: 51; (38);
Percent in poverty: 2000: 41; (33);
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -10[B]; (-4[B]);
Percent unemployed: 1990: 16; (14);
Percent unemployed: 2000: 16; (13);
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: 0; (-1).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Kansas City, Missouri:
Theron B. Watkins Homes; (West Bluff);
Average household income[A]: 1990: 22,378; (35,596);
Average household income[A]: 2000: 28,857; (39,668);
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 29[B]; (11);
Percent in poverty: 1990: 43; (32);
Percent in poverty: 2000: 34; (22);
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -8[B]; (-10[B]);
Percent unemployed: 1990: 14; (9);
Percent unemployed: 2000: 22; (8);
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: 8[B]; (-1).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Louisville, Kentucky: Cotter
and Lang Homes;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 28,086;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 35,890;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 28[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 38;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 26;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -12[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 17;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 10;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -7[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): New Orleans, Louisiana: St.
Thomas;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 37,103;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 45,095;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 22[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 47;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 38;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: - 8[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 16;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 11;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -5[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): New York, New York: Arverne/
Edgemere Houses;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 35,724;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 35,868;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 0;
Percent in poverty: 1990: 35;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 30;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: - 5[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 15;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 19;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: 4[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Bedford Additions;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 22,686;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 25,704;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 13;
Percent in poverty: 1990: 39;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 36;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -2;
Percent unemployed: 1990: 20;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 17;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -4.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): San Francisco, California:
North Beach;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 82,104;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 106,942;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 30[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 9;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 7;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -2;
Percent unemployed: 1990: 4;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 2;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: - 1.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Spartanburg, South Carolina:
Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension; (Woodworth Homes);
Average household income[A]: 1990: 23,898; (34,801);
Average household income[A]: 2000: 26,248; (34,730);
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 10; (0);
Percent in poverty: 1990: 37; (24);
Percent in poverty: 2000: 34; (24);
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -3; (- 2);
Percent unemployed: 1990: 10; (8);
Percent unemployed: 2000: 14; (9);
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: 4; (0).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Tucson, Arizona: Connie
Chambers;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 24,345;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 30,472;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 25[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 39;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 30;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: - 9[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 14;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 10;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -4[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Wilmington, North Carolina:
Robert S. Jervay Place;
Average household income[A]: 1990: 19,489;
Average household income[A]: 2000: 23,610;
Average household income[A]:
Percent change: 21[B];
Percent in poverty: 1990: 46;
Percent in poverty: 2000: 36;
Percent in poverty:
Percentage point difference: -10[B];
Percent unemployed: 1990: 16;
Percent unemployed: 2000: 14;
Percent unemployed:
Percentage point difference: -2.
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data.
[A] The 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to
the 2000 dollar figures.
[B] The difference of the two estimates is statistically
significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is larger than the
1990 estimate.
[End of table]
Table 4: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Housing for Each 1996
HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Atlanta, Georgia: Heman E.
Perry Homes;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 56,952;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 71,784;
Percent change: 26[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 0;
Percent occupied: 1990: 86;
Percent occupied: 2000: 90;
Percentage point difference: 4[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 360;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 432;
Percent change: 20[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Baltimore, Maryland:
Hollander Ridge;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 112,561;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 111,732;
Percent change: -1;
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 5;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 1;
Percent occupied: 1990: 94;
Percent occupied: 2000: 68;
Percentage point difference: -26[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 478;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 662;
Percent change: 38[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Charlotte, North Carolina:
Dalton Village;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 69,341;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 81,912;
Percent change: 18[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 10;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 13;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 4[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 93;
Percent occupied: 2000: 91;
Percentage point difference: -2;
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 504;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 561;
Percent change: 11[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chester, Pennsylvania:
Lamokin
Village; (Matopos Hills);
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 52,290; (59,790);
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 47,895; (56,094);
Percent change: -8; (-6);
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 7; (8);
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 3; (3);
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -4[B]; (-4[B]);
Percent occupied: 1990: 92; (94);
Percent occupied: 2000: 92; (91);
Percentage point difference: 0; (-2);
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 426; (428);
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 480; (427);
Percent change: 12[B]; (0).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: ABLA
Homes - Brooks Extension;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 140,772;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 238,934;
Percent change: 70[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 9;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 7;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -2[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 81;
Percent occupied: 2000: 81;
Percentage point difference: 0;
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 370;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 487;
Percent change: 32[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: Henry
Horner Homes;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 65,884;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 207,676;
Percent change: 215[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 8;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 15;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 7[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 75;
Percent occupied: 2000: 83;
Percentage point difference: 7[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 285;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 390;
Percent change: 37[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Chicago, Illinois: Robert
Taylor Homes B;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 76,587;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 111,666;
Percent change: 46;
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 2;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 3;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 1[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 77;
Percent occupied: 2000: 74;
Percentage point difference: -4;
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 372;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 397;
Percent change: 7.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview
and Lakeview Terraces;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 48,877;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 100,494;
Percent change: 106[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 5;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 2;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -2[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 76;
Percent occupied: 2000: 83;
Percentage point difference: 8[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 308;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 424;
Percent change: 37[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Detroit, Michigan: Herman
Gardens;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 32,110;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 69,266;
Percent change: 116[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 0;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 1;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 0;
Percent occupied: 1990: 89;
Percent occupied: 2000: 94;
Percentage point difference: 5[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 497;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 586;
Percent change: 18[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Holyoke, Massachusetts:
Jackson Parkway;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 131,763;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 97,858;
Percent change: -26[ B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 0;
Percent occupied: 1990: 94;
Percent occupied: 2000: 92;
Percentage point difference: -2;
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 510;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 480;
Percent change: -6.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Jacksonville, Florida:
Durkeeville; (Brentwood Park);
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 41,565; (44,572);
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 47,740; (50,936);
Percent change: 15; (14[B]);
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 3; (4);
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 18; (1);
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 14[B]; (-2[B]);
Percent occupied: 1990: 80; (82);
Percent occupied: 2000: 82; (85);
Percentage point difference: 2; (3);
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 309; (384);
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 387; (426);
Percent change: 25[B]; (11[B]).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Kansas City, Missouri: Theron
B. Watkins Homes; (West Bluff);
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 39,630; (65,204);
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 59,743; (72,286);
Percent change: 51[B]; (11);
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 2; (14);
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 7; (10);
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 51[B]; (-3);
Percent occupied: 1990: 76; (79);
Percent occupied: 2000: 82; (90);
Percentage point difference: 5[B]; (10[B]);
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 381; (462);
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 425; (571);
Percent change:; 12[B]; (24[B]).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Louisville, Kentucky: Cotter
and Lang Homes;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 42,829;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 67,118;
Percent change: 57[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 3;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 14;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 11[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 88;
Percent occupied: 2000: 92;
Percentage point difference: 3[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 300;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 483;
Percent change: 61[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): New Orleans, Louisiana: St.
Thomas;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 186,924;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 221,355;
Percent change: 18;
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 2;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -2[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 71;
Percent occupied: 2000: 79;
Percentage point difference: 8[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 494;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 546;
Percent change: 11[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): New York, New York: Arverne/
Edgemere Houses;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 143,812;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 173,972;
Percent change: 21;
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 2;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 2[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 97;
Percent occupied: 2000: 87;
Percentage point difference: - 10[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 484;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 513;
Percent change: 6.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Bedford Additions;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 41,035;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 52,056;
Percent change: 27[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 11;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 9;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -2;
Percent occupied: 1990: 84;
Percent occupied: 2000: 84;
Percentage point difference: 0;
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 330;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 360;
Percent change: 9.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): San Francisco, California:
North Beach;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 681,610;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 895,089;
Percent change: 31[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 7;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 4;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -2[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 91;
Percent occupied: 2000: 91;
Percentage point difference: 0;
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 983;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 1,182;
Percent change: 20[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Spartanburg, South Carolina:
Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension; (Woodworth Homes);
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 52,912; (65,382);
Average housing value[A]: 2000:; 65,711; (76,930);
Percent change:; 24[B]; (18[B]);
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 16; (9);
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000:; 3; (4);
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -12[B]; (-4[B]);
Percent occupied: 1990: 92; (93);
Percent occupied: 2000: 89; (90);
Percentage point difference: -3; (- 4[B]);
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 332; (454);
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 338; (472);
Percent change: 2; (4).
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Tucson, Arizona: Connie
Chambers;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 66,704;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 74,308;
Percent change: 11[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 26;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 13;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: -13[B];
Percent occupied: 1990: 88;
Percent occupied: 2000: 89;
Percentage point difference: 1;
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 413;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 448;
Percent change: 9[B].
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Wilmington, North Carolina:
Robert S. Jervay Place;
Average housing value[A]: 1990: 46,992;
Average housing value[A]: 2000: 92,038;
Percent change: 96[B];
Percent built within last 10 years: 1990: 5;
Percent built within last 10 years: 2000: 6;
Percent built within last 10 years:
Percentage point difference: 0;
Percent occupied: 1990: 82;
Percent occupied: 2000: 87;
Percentage point difference: 5[B];
Average gross rent[A]: 1990: 358;
Average gross rent[A]: 2000: 498;
Percent change: 39[B].
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
[A] The 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to
the 2000 dollar figures.
[B] The difference of the two estimates is statistically
significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is larger than the
1990 estimate.
[End of table]
Table 5: Loans Originated for Home Purchase for Each 1996 HOPE VI
Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods:
Atlanta, Georgia:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Heman E. Perry Homes; 1996:
63; 2001: 60; Percent change: -5.
Baltimore, Maryland:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Hollander Ridge; 1996: 7;
2001: 3; Percent change: -57.
Charlotte, North Carolina:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Dalton Village; 1996: 7;
2001: 58; Percent change: 728.
Chester, Pennsylvania; 1996:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Lamokin Village; 1996: 6;
2001: 16;
Percent change: 166.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): (Matopos Hills); 1996: (5);
2001: (3); Percent change: (-40).
Chicago, Illinois:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): ABLA Homes - Brooks
Extension; 1996: 0; 2001: 0; Percent change: 0.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Henry Horner Homes; 1996: 7;
2001: 7; Percent change: 0.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Robert Taylor Homes B; 1996:
3; 2001: 11; Percent change: 266.
Cleveland, Ohio:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Riverview and Lakeview
Terraces; 1996: 9; 2001: 18;
Percent change: 100.
Detroit, Michigan:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Herman Gardens; 1996: 194;
2001: 137;
Percent change: -29.
Holyoke, Massachusetts:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Jackson Parkway; 1996: 117;
2001: 142; Percent change: 21.
Jacksonville, Florida;
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Durkeeville; 1996: 2; 2001:
3; Percent change: 50.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): (Brentwood Park); 1996: (80);
2001: (65); Percent change: (-18).
Kansas City, Missouri:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Theron B. Watkins Homes;
1996: 8; 2001: 10; Percent change: 25.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): (West Bluff); 1996: (37);
2001: (12);
Percent change: (-68).
Louisville, Kentucky:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Cotter and Lang Homes;
1996: 32; 2001: 54; Percent change: 68.
New Orleans, Louisiana:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): St. Thomas; 1996: 42; 2001:
56; Percent change: 33.
New York, New York:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Arverne/Edgemere Houses;
1996: 29; 2001: 46; Percent change: 58.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Bedford Additions; 1996: 0;
2001: 0; Percent change: 0.
San Francisco, California:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): North Beach; 1996: 70; 2001:
60; Percent change: -14.
Spartanburg, South Carolina;
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe
Hartwell Extension; 1996: 6; 2001: 4; Percent change: -33.
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): (Woodworth Homes); 1996:
(103); 2001: (56); Percent change: (-46).
Tucson, Arizona;
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Connie Chambers; 1996: 66;
2001: 32; Percent change: -52.
Wilmington, North Carolina:
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood): Robert S. Jervay Place; 1996:
19; 2001: 8; Percent change: -58.
Sources: 1996 and 2001 HMDA data.
[End of table]
Figure 6: Summary of Crime Data at HOPE VI and Comparable Sites:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of summary crime data
provided by the Chester Housing Authority; Jacksonville Housing
Authority; Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri; and Spartanburg
Housing Authority.
[A] The Jacksonville Housing Authority was unable to provide 1996
summary crime data for their comparable public housing site. The
earliest data they could provide was from 1999.
[B] The first phase of revitalization at the Kansas City HOPE VI site
began in May 1995 with non-HOPE VI funds.
[C] Not defined.
[D] Not available.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
20410-5000:
NOV 4, 2003:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING:
TO: David Wood, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment,
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO):
FROM: Michael Liu, A Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing:
SUBJECT: Comments on GAO Draft Report, "HOPE VI Resident Issues and
Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites" (Report to the
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate):
The Department would like to thank GAO for its thorough and discerning
review of the HOPE VI Program and the opportunity to respond to this
third and final report addressing the effects of the HOPE VI program on
residents and the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI sites.
Review of the report found that it does not include formal
recommendations, but rather presents descriptions and analyses of the
various issues and changes related to the aspects of study. The
Department values GAO's consideration and presentation of these
subjects, given the many complexities and challenges involved with HOPE
VI resident and community issues. Specifically, the Department
appreciates GAO's discussion of the complexity of the reoccupancy
issue. It is important to understand that, under the HOPE VI program,
residents retain the ability to make choices that can affect the kind
of housing in which they will live. Residents can and do choose to
leave public housing and not return to the revitalized sites.
As this is the last report in the study of HOPE VI, the Department
thanks GAO for the time and dedication it has committed to the review
of the program. The Department regards this study as an important tool
to be used in its continuing efforts to improve the HOPE VI program,
its implementation and effectiveness.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
David Wood (202) 512-8678 Paul Schmidt (312) 220-7681:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those individuals named above, Kristine Braaten, Jackie
Garza, Catherine Hurley, Grant Mallie, Alison Martin, John McGrail,
Sara Moessbauer, Marc Molino, Lisa Moore, Barbara Roesmann, Sidney
Schwartz, Paige Smith, Ginger Tierney, and Carrie Watkins made key
contributions to this report.
(250142):
:
FOOTNOTES
[1] HUD did not award the 28 fiscal year 2002 revitalization grants
until March 2003; therefore, they are not covered in this report. HUD
also has awarded about $15 million in HOPE VI planning grants and
approximately $336 million in HOPE VI demolition grants, but they are
not the focus of this report.
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging
Has Increased, but HUD Has Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement, GAO-
03-91 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2002).
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Housing: HUD's Oversight of
HOPE VI Sites Needs to Be More Consistent, GAO-03-555 (Washington,
D.C.: May 30, 2003).
[4] The 1996 grantees and sites are as follows: Housing Authority of
the City of Atlanta (Heman E. Perry Homes); Housing Authority of
Baltimore City (Hollander Ridge); Charlotte Housing Authority (Dalton
Village); Chester Housing Authority (Lamokin Village); Chicago Housing
Authority (Henry Horner Homes, ABLA Homes--Brooks Extension, and Robert
Taylor Homes B); Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (Riverview and
Lakeview Terraces); Detroit Housing Commission (Herman Gardens);
Holyoke Housing Authority (Jackson Parkway); Jacksonville Housing
Authority (Durkeeville); Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri
(Theron B. Watkins Homes); Housing Authority of Louisville (Cotter and
Lang Homes); Housing Authority of New Orleans (St. Thomas); New York
City Housing Authority (Arverne and Edgemere Houses); Housing Authority
of the City of Pittsburgh (Bedford Additions); San Francisco Housing
Authority (North Beach); Spartanburg Housing Authority (Tobe Hartwell
Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension); Tucson Community Services
Department (Connie Chambers); and Wilmington, North Carolina Housing
Authority (Robert S. Jervay Place).
[5] At 16 sites, we interviewed resident leaders. At three sites, we
could not interview resident leaders because there was no resident
council. Instead, we interviewed individuals that the housing authority
identified as residents of the original site. At the remaining site,
despite repeated attempts, we were not able to interview the resident
leader.
[6] HMDA requires certain financial institutions, including banks,
savings associations, credit unions, and other mortgage lending
institutions, to submit loan data to the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council. Data collected includes the number of mortgage
loans originated by census tract.
[7] Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
[8] The HOPE VI program's authorization is found at 42 U.S.C. 1437v.
HUD had planned to develop regulations for the HOPE VI program but, as
of March 2002, had withdrawn its plans to do so.
[9] The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (URA) was enacted to protect the rights of
tenants, homeowners, and nonresidential tenants and owners who are
displaced as a result of federally funded projects for rehabilitation,
acquisition, or demolition of real property. The URA requires that
displaced tenants be provided with assistance and services to help them
in reestablishing themselves in a comparable residential situation.
[10] The housing choice voucher program is the federal government's
main program for assisting very low-income families in renting housing
in the private market. Housing assistance is provided on behalf of the
family or individual, and participants find their own housing using the
voucher. Vouchers are administered locally by public housing
authorities, which receive federal funds from HUD to administer the
program.
[11] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI: Best
Practices and Lessons Learned 1992-2002 (Washington, D.C.: June 14,
2002).
[12] The residents at one site had not yet been relocated as of June
30, 2003; therefore, there was no need for the housing authority to
track them.
[13] The 33 percent that vacated prior to being relocated included
families that were evicted for nonpayment of rent or drug involvement,
families that moved without notice, and families that left the city.
[14] Low-income housing tax credits provide tax incentives for private
investment in the development and rehabilitation of housing for low-
income households. Under this program, states are authorized to
allocate federal tax credits as an incentive to the private sector to
develop rental housing for low-income households.
[15] As of June 30, 2003, grantees had completed the demolition of
60,580 public housing units and the construction of 19,070 replacement
public housing units.
[16] HUD did not start encouraging mixed-income development until 1995;
therefore, some of the earlier grant sites were all public housing.
[17] When a family volunteers to participate in the family self-
sufficiency program, the housing authority and the head of the family
execute a contract of participation that specifies the rights and
responsibilities of both parties. The 5-year contract specifies goals
and services for each family. The housing authority establishes an
interest-bearing escrow account for each participating family and
credits the account, based on increases in earned income of the family,
during the term of the contract. If the family completes the contract
and no member of the family is receiving welfare, the amount of the
account is paid to the head of the family.
[18] We excluded 6 of the 20 1996 sites from our analysis. At 4 sites,
construction was begun prior to the completion of relocation. At 1
site, relocation has been postponed until after the completion of off-
site construction. At the remaining site, no construction was planned
because the funds were transferred to another site.
[19] GAO-03-91.
[20] Numbers do not add because of rounding.
[21] U. S. General Accounting Office, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in
Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing, GAO/RCED-98-187 (Washington,
D.C.: July 20, 1998).
[22] According to the HOPE VI reporting system, the community and
supportive services caseload, as of June 30, 2003, was 835 at Bedford
Additions, 521 at Cotter and Lang Homes, 468 at St. Thomas, and 2,188
at Arverne and Edgemere Houses.
[23] A statistically significant difference is one where the
probability of the difference occurring by chance is less than 5
percent. See appendix II for a detailed explanation of statistical
significance.
[24] Some Dalton Village units in Charlotte, North Carolina, were
rehabilitated through the Comprehensive Grant program beginning in May
1996; the first phase of revitalization at the Henry Horner site in
Chicago, Illinois, began in 1995; the modernization of 425 units at the
Lakeview site in Cleveland, Ohio, began in 1994; the first phase of
revitalization at the Theron B. Watkins site began in May 1995; and the
first phase of revitalization at the Cotter/Lang site in Louisville,
Kentucky, began in January 1995.
[25] Sean Zielenbach, The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods,
(Washington, D.C.: Housing Research Foundation, 2002); and Chris Walker
et. al, The Impact of CDBG Spending on Urban Neighborhoods,
(Washington, D.C.: prepared by the Urban Institute for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research, October 2002).
[26] The definitions of high and extremely high poverty neighborhoods
are from G. Thomas Kingsley and Kathryn L.S. Petit, "Concentrated
Poverty: A Change in Course," Neighborhood Change in Urban America, no.
2 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, May 2003).
[27] G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathryn L.S. Petit, HOPE
VI and Section 8: Spatial Patterns in Relocation, (Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute, January 2001).
[28] Using census, mortgage lending, and crime data summaries, we made
comparisons between the neighborhoods in which HOPE VI sites that had
completed 75 percent or more of their on-site construction (as of
December 2002) are located and the neighborhoods in which comparable
public housing sites are located. The comparable public housing sites
were identified by local housing authority officials as being
approximately the same age, size, type, or condition as their HOPE VI
sites. The HOPE VI sites were located in Chester, Pennsylvania;
Jacksonville, Florida; Kansas City, Missouri; and Spartanburg, South
Carolina. The HOPE VI site in Tucson, Arizona, had also completed 75
percent or more of its on-site construction as of December 2002.
However, according to public housing officials from the City of Tucson,
there are no public housing sites in Tucson that are comparable to its
HOPE VI site. As a result, we could not do a comparative analysis using
this site.
[29] As of December 31, 2002, demolition was complete, but no units had
been completed on-site at seven of the 1996 HOPE VI sites: Heman E.
Perry Homes in Atlanta, Georgia; Hollander Ridge in Baltimore,
Maryland; Robert Taylor Homes B in Chicago, Illinois; Riverview and
Lakeview Terraces in Cleveland, Ohio; Herman Gardens in Detroit,
Michigan; St. Thomas in New Orleans, Louisiana; and North Beach in San
Francisco, California. The Robert Taylor Homes B site was excluded from
our analysis because no on-site construction was planned as a part of
the 1996 grant.
[30] Beginning in fiscal year 1999, HUD began to encourage HOPE VI
revitalization grant applicants to form partnerships with local
universities to evaluate the impact of their proposed HOPE VI
revitalization plans. HUD suggested evaluating economic development,
spillover revitalization activities, and property values. Some grant
recipients initiated such studies prior to fiscal year 1999.
[31] The three reports are: (1) Abt Associates Inc., Exploring the
Impacts of the HOPE VI Program on Surrounding Neighborhoods (Cambridge,
Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., January 2003); (2) Adriana Cimetta and
Ralph Renger, Final Evaluation Report for the Greater Santa Rosa HOPE
VI Project Year Ending 2002 (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona,
College of Public Health, October 2003); and (3) Zeilenbach, The
Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods (2002).
[32] The data in the HOPE VI reporting system are self-reported
quarterly by grantees.
[33] At 16 sites, we interviewed resident leaders. At 3 sites, we could
not interview resident leaders because there was no resident council.
Instead, we interviewed individuals that the PHA identified as
residents of the original site. At the remaining site, despite repeated
attempts, we were not able to interview the resident leader.
[34] Annual contributions contracts are written contracts between HUD
and PHAs under which HUD agrees to make payments to the PHA and the PHA
agrees to administer the public housing program in accordance with HUD
regulations and requirements.
[35] We excluded one grant from the analysis because the HOPE VI funds
were transferred to another public housing site.
[36] We excluded Robert Taylor Homes B from this analysis because no
on-site construction was planned as a part of the 1996 grant.
[37] The HOPE VI site in Tucson, Arizona, had completed more than 75
percent of its on-site construction as of December 31, 2002, but PHA
officials stated that there was no public housing site in Tucson that
was comparable.
[38] We defined HOPE VI neighborhoods using a concept similar to that
in Sean Zielenbach's The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods,
(Washington, D.C.: Housing Research Foundation, 2002). Abt Associates
Inc. also studied the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI sites by
analyzing the census tract in which each of the HOPE VI sites studied
is located, in Exploring the Impacts of the HOPE VI Program on
Surrounding Neighborhoods (Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc.,
January 2003).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
