HOPE VI Forum: National Perspective from the HOPE VI Cross-site Report

Larry Buron

March 16, 2011

2

• Study objective: To explore the impact of the HOPE VI program on residents, developments and neighborhoods shortly after sites are reoccupied.

• 15 early HOPE VI sites that were the subject of a baseline assessment in 1996

– 1993 or 1994 grantees

– 11 of 15 had full or substantial reoccupancy by end of data collection in 2002

Overview of HOPE VI Cross-Site Study

3

Study Sites: 100% Public Housing Developments

• Camden – McGuire Gardens

• Cleveland – Outhwaite/King Kennedy

• Milwaukee – Hillside Terrace

• Oakland – Lockwood Gardens

• San Francisco – Bernal Dwellings/Plaza East

• Baltimore – Pleasant View Gardens

4

• Boston – Mission Main

• New Haven – Monterey Place

• Charlotte – First Ward Place/Autumn Place

• Washington DC – Townhomes on Capitol Hill

• Atlanta – Centennial Place

Study Sites: Mixed-Income Developments

5

HOPE VI Residents Compared to Original Residents

Characteristic Pre-HOPE VI Post HOPE VI

Returning Residents

-- 41%

Black/African-American

84% 73%

Median Income ($2002)

$7,500 $15,323

Earned Income

16% 59%

6

What drives the difference in characteristics?

Characteristic

Pre-H6 Returning PH Residents

New PH Residents

Non-PH Residents

Black/African-American

84% 74% 82% 53%

Median Income ($2002)

$7,500 $10,362 $11,881 $42,428

7

•Share of non-Public Housing Households:

–Boston: 17%

–New Haven: 18%

–Charlotte: 43%

–Washington DC: 50%

–Atlanta: 60%

How “Mixed” are the Mixed-Income Sites?

8

Median Income at Mixed-Income Sites

$2002 Boston New Haven

Charlotte DC Atlanta

Public Housing

$12,190 $7,619 $10,029 $12,171 $10,447

Tax Credit

-- $25,395 $23,820 -- $26,118

Market-Rate

$63,488 -- $64,772 $47,012 $35,565

9

•8 of 11 are privately managed

• Indicators pointed to good management

–High occupancy rates

–Rent collections at 90% or more

–Evictions low after reoccupancy

–Turnover typically around 10 percent

Management of HOPE VI Developments

10

• Limited measurable effect, but early after reoccupancy

– Crime rate declined, but only declined faster than rest of city and other PH neighborhoods at 3 of 6 sites.

– Census data showed mixed results

– Property value analysis at 2 sites did not find significant effect after H6 announcement, start of demolition, start of construction (too early for post re-occupancy)

– Clear visible changes and returning PH residents reported improvement

HOPE VI Impact on Neighborhood

11

• Early HOPE VI sites took a long time to complete

• Study had a few mixed-finance sites that became more common as HOPE VI evolved

• Implicit assumption in early days of HOPE VI was that original residents would return without concerted effort

• Supportive service plans did not reflect the fact that residents would be dispersed during relocation and many would not return

• Emphasis of many early grants was to replace worst public housing rather than long-term, sustainable improvement of the neighborhood

Observations from Study on the Evolution of HOPE VI