Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in
Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites (21-NOV-03, GAO-04-109).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-109
ACCNO: A08882
TITLE: Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in
Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites
DATE: 11/21/2003
SUBJECT: Comparative analysis
Data collection
Grant monitoring
Grants
Housing construction
Housing programs
Housing repairs
Public housing
Community and supportive services
programs
HUD Hope VI Urban Revitalization
Demonstration Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-109
United States General Accounting Office
GAO 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
a
GAO-04-109
November 2003
PUBLIC HOUSING
HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites
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.
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
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.
Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites
Number of HOPE VI sites 50
40
30
20
10 0
0 to <25
25 to <50
50 to 100 <75 75 to <100
Percentage of original residents returning to revitalized site
(reoccupancy rate)
39 sites where reoccupancy is complete (actual reoccupancy rate)
113 sites where reoccupancy is not yet complete (planned reoccupancy rate)
Source: GAO.
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.
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 of the 165 sites
from our analysis because they did not involve relocation and an
additional 3 sites because the reoccupancy data reported as of June 30,
2003 was incorrect.
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
1 3 6
8 16
19
23 32
Appendixes
Appendix I:
Appendix II:
Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Technical Methodology
Data Sources
Data Reliability
Limitations of Analysis
Analytical Approach and Results
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and Summary Crime Data
Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
34
39 39 40 40 41
44
52
53 53 53
Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3:
Number of Residents That Have Enrolled in and
Completed Community and Supportive Services
Programs 21
Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Education for Each
1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable
Neighborhoods 44
Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Income, Poverty,
and Unemployment for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood
and Four Comparable Neighborhoods 46
Contents
Table 4: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Housing for Each 1996 HOPE
VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods 47
Table 5: Loans Originated for Home Purchase for Each 1996 HOPE VI
Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods 49
Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Initial Relocation of HOPE VI Residents 9
Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites 11
Percentage of Public Housing Units Being Replaced at
1996 HOPE VI Sites 13
Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing
Units at 165 HOPE VI Sites 15
Neighborhood Changes between 1990 and 2000 for
Selected Cities 29
Summary of Crime Data at HOPE VI and Comparable
Sites 51
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
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. However, 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.
A
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
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.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.2 The second report, issued
in May 2003, described HUD's management of the HOPE VI program.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.4
1HUD 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.
2U.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).
3U.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).
4The 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).
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.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.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
5At 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.
6HMDA 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.
without giving Becausenotice or vacated for othe HUD di7r reason d nots.
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
7Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
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.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.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)
8The 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.
9The 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.
to move into the private market, (2) moving to a different public housing
site, or (3) leaving federally assisted housing.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.
10The 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.
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
Evicted
Other
Received vouchers
To other public housing
Source: GAO.
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.
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.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.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
11U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI: Best
Practices and Lessons Learned 1992-2002 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2002).
12The 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.
to being relocated.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.
13The 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.
Figure 2: Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites
Number of HOPE VI sites 0 to <25
25 to <50
50 to 100 <75 75 to <100
Percentage of original residents returning to revitalized site
(reoccupancy rate)
39 sites where reoccupancy is complete (actual reoccupancy rate)
113 sites where reoccupancy is not yet complete (planned reoccupancy rate)
Source: GAO.
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.
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 (lowincome
housing tax credit or other subsidized housing), and market-rate
housing.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
14Low-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.
44,781 replacement public housing units.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 longstanding vacancies when the housing authorities applied for a
HOPE VI grant, and that a majority of the vacant units were uninhabitable.
15As 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.
Figure 3: Percentage of Public Housing Units Being Replaced at 1996 HOPE
VI Sites
HOPE VI site % of public housing units being replaced
Number of original public housing units being replaced
ABLA Homes- 1,287Brooks Extension
Arverne/Edgemere Houses 1,813
Bedford Additions 460
Connie Chambers 200
Cotter/Lang Homes 1,116
Dalton Village 300
Durkeeville 280
Heman E. Perry Homes 1,072
Henry Horner Homes 1,197
Herman Gardens 1,573
219 350 229 329 250 10% 2,400 12% 1,510 173 266
Replacement public housing units
Jackson Parkway
Lamokin Village
North Beach
Riverview/Lakeview Terraces
Robert S. Jervay Place
Robert Taylor Homes B
St. Thomas
Theron B. Watkins Homes
Tobe Hartwell Courts/Extension
Source: GAO.
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.
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.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.)
16HUD did not start encouraging mixed-income development until 1995;
therefore, some of the earlier grant sites were all public housing.
Figure 4: Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing Units at
165 HOPE VI Sites
Number of HOPE VI sites 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2
0 to 25 to 50 to 75 to 100 <25 <50 <75 <100
Percentage of revitalized units that are public housing units
22 sites where construction is complete 143 sites where construction is
not yet complete
Source: GAO.
Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD's HOPE VI
reporting system (as of June 30, 2003).
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.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).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.
17When 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.
18We 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.
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 The amount and type of resident participation
varied at the 1996 sites. All
Varied at 1996 Sites 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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o The Jacksonville and Chester Housing Authorities worked with residents
to develop screening criteria used to select the occupants of the new
development.
o 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.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.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
19GAO-03-91.
20Numbers do not add because of rounding.
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.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
Number of residents enrolled
Number of completions
Employment preparation/placement/retention 25,831 N/A
Counseling programs 23,458 N/A
Transportation assistance 18,202 N/A
21U. S. General Accounting Office, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in
Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing, GAO/RCED-98-187 (Washington, D.C.:
July 20, 1998).
(Continued From Previous Page)
Number of
Number of completionsCommunity and supportive services
residents enrolled
Job skills training programs 11,860 6,477
Child care 9,274 N/A
High school or equivalent education 7,136 2,530
Homeownership counseling 4,901 2,093
Substance abuse programs 2,108 N/A
Entrepreneurship training 1,634 789
English as a Second Language course 1,089 N/A
Source: HUD.
Note: This table is based on data from HUD's HOPE VI reporting system (as
of June 30, 2003).
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.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
22According 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.
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).23 Moreover, at five sites, revitalization work
had begun prior to receipt of HOPE VI funds with various non-HOPE VI
funding sources.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
23A 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.
24Some 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.
conditions. According to experts, it is extremely rare for any one program
or actor to be able to change a neighborhood single-handedly.25
Our analysis of census and HMDA data for the 20 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods
showed the following positive changes:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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).
o 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).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.27
25Sean 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).
26The 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).
27G. 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).
o 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.
o 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.
o 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:
o 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.
o In the Holyoke HOPE VI neighborhood, average housing values declined by
26 percent.
o 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.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
28Using 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.
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
Chester, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Spartanburg, South
Pennsylvania Florida Missouri Carolina
Sources: GAO analysis of 1990 and 2000 Census data.
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
100percent 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.
a1990 dollar values were adjusted to make them comparable to 2000 dollar
values.
bAn associate's degree or better.
cThe change in estimates from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.
dThe difference between the percent changes in the HOPE VI and in the
comparable neighborhoods is statistically significant.
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 onsite
as of December 2002, a comparison of 1990 and 2000 Census data showed that
positive changes occurred in educational attainment, unemployment, income,
and housing.29 For example:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
29As of December 31, 2002, demolition was complete, but no units had been
completed onsite 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.
o 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 Studies by housing and community development
researchers have shown
Positive Changes in HOPE positive changes in HOPE VI neighborhoods as
reflected in income,
VI Neighborhoods employment, community investment, and crime indicators.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.31 While
each study covered a small number of HOPE VI neighborhoods, they showed
positive changes:
30Beginning 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.
31The 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).
o 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.
o The percentage of low-income households living in eight selected HOPE
VI neighborhoods decreased from 82 to 69 percent from 1989 to 1999.
o Median income increased 80 percent from 1990 to 2000 in Chester's 1996
HOPE VI neighborhood.
o Unemployment rates decreased from 24 to 15 percent between 1989 and
1999 in eight selected HOPE VI neighborhoods.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
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,
David G. Wood
Director, Financial Markets and
Community Investment
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 1993-2001.1 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
1The data in the HOPE VI reporting system are self-reported quarterly by
grantees.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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.2
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).3 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.4
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
2At 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.
3Annual 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.
4We excluded one grant from the analysis because the HOPE VI funds were
transferred to another public housing site.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
of the original public housing units, but not completed any on-site
construction as of December 31, 2002.5 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.6 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
5We excluded Robert Taylor Homes B from this analysis because no on-site
construction was planned as a part of the 1996 grant.
6The 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.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
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.
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.1
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
1We 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).
Appendix II
Technical Methodology
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, reemphasis 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
Appendix II
Technical Methodology
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 To analyze census data, we selected nine population
and housing characteristics. Those characteristics were average household
income,
and Results 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
Appendix II
Technical Methodology
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
Appendix II
Technical Methodology
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.
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
Percent with a high school diploma Percent with an associate's degree or better
Neighborhood Percentage Percentage
point point
(comparable neighborhood) 1990 2000 difference 1990 2000 difference
Atlanta, Georgia: Heman E. Perry
Homes 48 59 11a 6 11 4a
Baltimore, Maryland: Hollander
Ridge 59 80 21a 10 15 4a
Charlotte, North Carolina:
Dalton
Village 66 68 2 14 13 0
Chester, Pennsylvania: Lamokin
Village 58 73 14a 10 9 0
(Matopos Hills) (61) (74) (12a) (10) (10) (0)
Appendix III
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data
(Continued From Previous Page)
Percent with a high school diploma Percent with an associate's degree or
better
Neighborhood Percentage Percentage
point point
(comparable neighborhood) 1990 2000 difference 1990 2000 difference
Chicago, Illinois: ABLA Homes -
Brooks Extension 44 56 12a 13 22 9a
Chicago, Illinois: Henry Horner
Homes 40 54 14a 6 16 10a
Chicago, Illinois: Robert Taylor
Homes B 46 57 11a 9 8
Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview and
Lakeview Terraces 52 64 12a 16 21 6a
Detroit, Michigan: Herman
Gardens 66 70 4a 13 14
Holyoke, Massachusetts: Jackson
Parkway 63 66 3 19 18
Jacksonville, Florida: 50 61 10a 11 12
Durkeeville
(Brentwood Park) (53) (63) (10a) (11) (11) (0)
Kansas City, Missouri: Theron B.
Watkins Homes 57 64 7a 13 13
(West Bluff) (60) (76) (16a) (22) (36) (14a)
Louisville, Kentucky: Cotter and
Lang Homes 61 71 10a 10 14 4a
New Orleans, Louisiana: St.
Thomas 67 75 8a 29 37 8a
New York, New York:
Arverne/Edgemere Houses 58 65 7a 11 18 7a
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Bedford
Additions 58 69 11a 12 19 6a
San Francisco, California: North
Beach 80 87 8a 52 66 14a
Spartanburg, South Carolina:
Tobe
Hartwell Courts and Tobe
Hartwell
Extension 44 58 14a 13 17
(Woodworth Homes) (62) (67) (4a) (21) (20) (0)
Tucson, Arizona: Connie Chambers 51 58 7a 13 16 3a
Wilmington, North Carolina: Robert
S. Jervay Place 52 61 8a 12 15 3
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
aThe difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly
different, and the 2000 estimate is larger than the 1990 estimate.
Appendix III
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data
Table 3: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Income, Poverty, and
Unemployment for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable
Neighborhoods
Average Percent in Percent
household poverty unemployed
incomea
Neighborhood Percentage Percentage
(comparable Percent point point
neighborhood) 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000
change difference difference
Atlanta, Georgia: Heman
E. Perry Homes 23,394 31,522 46 42 -4b 14 19 5b
35b
Baltimore, Maryland:
Hollander Ridge 36,672 49,470 26 6 -20b 11 4 -6b
35b
Charlotte, North Carolina:
Dalton Village 34,443 42,208 21 21 0 6 8 2b
23b
Chester, Pennsylvania:
Lamokin Village 27,289 29,468 8 33 31 -2 13 13
(30,313)
(Matopos Hills) (31,730) (5) (32) (33) (1) (13) (11) (-2)
Chicago, Illinois: ABLA
Homes - Brooks Extension 22,124 34,398 52 40 -13b 22 14 -8b
55b
Chicago, Illinois: Henry
Horner Homes 15,106 32,494 67 48 -18b 34 25 -9b
115b
Chicago, Illinois: Robert
Taylor Homes B 18,086 23,951 67 58 -8b 35 32
32b
Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview
and Lakeview Terraces 22,006 32,074 52 34 -18b 18 14 -4b
46b
Detroit, Michigan: Herman
Gardens 33,072 39,190 32 27 -4b 17 11 -6b
18b
Holyoke, Massachusetts:
Jackson Parkway 35,815 37,332 4 29 26 -2 11 7 -4b
17,261 21,208 51 41 -10b 16 16
Jacksonville, Florida: 23b
Durkeeville
(23,454)
(Brentwood Park) (25,936) (11) (38) (33) (-4b) (14) (13) (-1)
Kansas City, Missouri:
Theron B. Watkins Homes 22,378 28,857 43 34 -8b 14 22 8b
29b
(35,596) (32) (22) (-10b)
(West Bluff) (39,668) (11) (9) (8) (-1)
Louisville, Kentucky:
Cotter
and Lang Homes 28,086 35,890 38 26 -12b 17 10 -7b
28b
New Orleans, Louisiana:
St. Thomas 37,103 45,095 47 38 -8b 16 11 -5b
22b
New York, New York:
Arverne/Edgemere
Houses 35,724 35,868 0 35 30 -5b 15 19 4b
Appendix III
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data
(Continued From Previous Page)
Average household Percent in Percent
incomea poverty unemployed
Neighborhood Percentage Percentage
(comparable Percent point point
neighborhood) 1990 2000 change 1990 2000 1990 2000
difference difference
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania:
Bedford Additions 22,686 25,704 13 39 36 -2 20 17
San Francisco,
California:
North Beach 82,104 106,942 9 7 -2 4 2
30b
Spartanburg, South
Carolina: Tobe Hartwell
Courts and Tobe Hartwell
Extension 23,898 26,248 10 37 34 -3 10 14
(Woodworth Homes) (34,801) (34,730) (0) (24) (24) (-2) (8) (9) (0)
Tucson, Arizona: Connie
Chambers 24,345 30,472 25b 39 30 -9b 14 10 -4b
Wilmington, North
Carolina: Robert S. Jervay
Place 19,489 23,610 21b 46 36 -10b 16 14
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data.
aThe 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to the 2000
dollar figures.
bThe difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly
different, and the 2000 estimate is larger than the 1990 estimate.
Table 4: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Housing for Each 1996 HOPE
VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods
Percent built within last 10 years Percent occupied Average gross renta
Average housing valuea
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood) 1990 2000
Percent change 1990 2000
Percentage point difference 1990 2000
Percentage point difference 1990 2000
Percent change
Atlanta, Georgia:
Heman E. Perry
Homes 56,952 71,784 26b 4 4 0 86 90 4b 360 432 20b
Baltimore,
Maryland:
Hollander Ridge 112,561 111,732 -1 4 5 1 94 68 -26b 478 662 38b
Charlotte, North
Carolina: Dalton
Village 69,341 81,912 18b 10 13 4b 93 91 -2 504 561 11b
Appendix III
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data
(Continued From Previous Page)
Percent built within last 10 years Percent occupied Average gross renta
Average housing valuea
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood) 1990 2000
Percent change 1990 2000
Percentage point difference 1990 2000
Percentage point difference 1990 2000
Percent change
Chester,
Pennsylvania:
Lamokin 52,290 47,895 -8 7 3 -4b 92 92 0 426 12b
Village 480
(Matopos (-4b) (428)
Hills) (59,790) (56,094) (-6) (8) (3) (94) (91) (-2) (427) (0)
Chicago,
Illinois:
ABLA Homes -
Brooks 140,772 238,934 70b 9 7 -2b 81 81 0 370 32b
Extension 487
Chicago,
Illinois:
Henry Horner
Homes 65,884 207,676 215b 8 15 7b 75 83 7b 285 37b
390
Chicago,
Illinois:
Robert Taylor
Homes B 76,587 111,666 46 2 3 1b 77 74 -4 372
397
Cleveland,
Ohio:
Riverview and
Lakeview 48,877 100,494 106b 5 2 -2b 76 83 8b 308 37b
Terraces 424
Detroit,
Michigan:
Herman Gardens 32,110 69,266 116b 0 1 0 89 94 5b 497 18b
586
Holyoke,
Massachusetts:
Jackson 131,763 97,858 -26 b 4 4 0 94 92 -2 510
Parkway 480
Jacksonville,
Florida: 41,565 47,740 15 3 18 14b 80 82 2 309 25b
Durkeeville 387
(Brentwood (14b) (-2b) (384) (11b)
Park) (44,572) (50,936) (4) (1) (82) (85) (3) (426)
Kansas City,
Missouri:
Theron B.
Watkins Homes 39,630 59,743 51b 2 7 51b 76 82 5b 381 12b
425
(10b) (462) (24b)
(West Bluff) (65,204) (72,286) (11) (14) (10) (-3) (79) (90) (571)
Louisville,
Kentucky:
Cotter
and Lang Homes 42,829 67,118 57b 3 14 11b 88 92 3b 300 61b
483
New Orleans,
Louisiana: St.
Thomas 18 4 2 -2b 71 79 8b 494 11b
186,924 221,355 546
New York, New
York:
Arverne/Edgemere
Houses 143,812 173,972 21 2 4 2b 97 87 -10b 484 513 6
Appendix III
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data
(Continued From Previous Page)
Percent built within last 10 years Percent occupied Average gross renta
Average housing valuea
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood) 1990 2000
Percent change 1990 2000
Percentage point difference 1990 2000
Percentage point difference 1990 2000
Percent change
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania:
Bedford Additions 41,035 52,056 27b 11 9 -2 84 84 0 330 360
San Francisco,
California: North
Beach 681,610 895,089 31b 7 4 -2b 91 91 0 983 1,182 20b
Spartanburg,
South
Carolina:
Tobe
Hartwell
Courts
and Tobe
Hartwell
Extension 52,912 65,711 24b 16 3 -12b 92 89 -3 332
338
(Woodworth
(454)
Homes) (65,382) (76,930) (18b) (9) (4) (-4b) (93) (90) (-4b) (472) (4)
Tucson, Arizona:
Connie Chambers 66,704 74,308 11b 26 13 -13b 88 89 1 413 448 9b
Wilmington, North
Carolina: Robert S.
Jervay Place 46,992 92,038 96b 5 6 0 82 87 5b 358 498 39b
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
aThe 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to the 2000
dollar figures.
bThe difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly
different, and the 2000 estimate is larger than the 1990 estimate.
Table 5: Loans Originated for Home Purchase for Each 1996 HOPE VI
Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods
Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood) 1996 2001 Percent change Atlanta, Georgia
Heman E. Perry Homes 63 60 -5
Baltimore, Maryland
Hollander Ridge 7 3 -57
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dalton Village 7 58 728
Chester, Pennsylvania
Lamokin Village 6 16 166
(Matopos Hills) (5) (3) (-40)
Appendix III
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data
(Continued From Previous Page)
Chicago, Illinois
ABLA Homes - Brooks Extension 0 0 0
Henry Horner Homes 7 7
Robert Taylor Homes B 3 11 266
Cleveland, Ohio
Riverview and Lakeview Terraces 9 18 100
Detroit, Michigan
Herman Gardens 194 137
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Jackson Parkway 117 142
Jacksonville, Florida
Durkeeville 2 3
(Brentwood Park) (80) (65) (-18)
Kansas City, Missouri
Theron B. Watkins Homes 8 10
(West Bluff) (37) (12) (-68)
Louisville, Kentucky
Cotter and Lang Homes 32 54 68
New Orleans, Louisiana
St. Thomas 42 56 33
New York, New York
Arverne/Edgemere Houses 29 46 58
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Bedford Additions 0 0 0
San Francisco, California
North Beach 70 60 -14
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell
Extension 6 4 -33
(Woodworth Homes) (103) (56) (-46)
Tucson, Arizona
Connie Chambers 66 32 -52
Wilmington, North Carolina
Robert S. Jervay Place 19 8 -58
Sources: 1996 and 2001 HMDA data.
Appendix III
Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data
Figure 6: Summary of Crime Data at HOPE VI and Comparable Sites
Source: GAO.
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.
aThe 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.
bThe first phase of revitalization at the Kansas City HOPE VI site began
in May 1995 with non-HOPE VI funds.
cNot defined.
dNot available.
Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Appendix V
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts David Wood (202) 512-8678 Paul Schmidt (312) 220-7681
Staff Acknowledgments
(250142)
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.
GAO's Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 fulltext 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, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs 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
Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***