Submitted To: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development UI No. 07032
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The HOPE VI Program
Research on Public Housing Transformation
Overview of Research Objectives and Methods
Research Questions
Site Selection
Data Collection
Benchmarks
CHAPTER 2: SAMPLE AND STUDY SITES
Respondent Characteristics
Site Profiles
CHAPTER 3: HOUSING CONDITIONS AT BASELINE
Housing Conditions
Resident Reports
Multiple Problems
Maintenance
Comparison to American Housing Survey
Housing Satisfaction
Summary
CHAPTER 4: NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS AT BASELINE
Neighborhood Effects
Characteristics of Neighborhood Housing and Residents
Neighborhood Amenities
Crime and Disorder
Physical Disorder
Social Disorder
Violent Crime
Personal Safety and Victimization
Differences Between Older and Younger Adults' Perceptions of Crime and Safety
Neighborhood Social Environment
Social Networks
Summary of Findings
CHAPTER 5: HEALTH
Housing, Neighborhoods, and Health
Physical Health
Chronic Illness
Asthma
Mental Health
Self-efficacy
Overall Mental Health
Major Depressive Episodes
Stress and Mental Health in the HOPE VI Sample
Multiple Health Problems
Older Adults in the HOPE VI Panel Study Sample
Summary
CHAPTER 6: CHILDREN IN THE HOPE VI SAMPLE
Children in Poverty
Neighborhood Effects
Children in the HOPE VI Panel Study Sample
Growing up in Distressed Public Housing
Attending Distressed Public Schools
School Experiences
School Quality
School Safety
Racial Tension
School Performance
School Mobility
Special Education
Children's Physical and Mental Health
Emergency Care
Asthma
Behavior
Summary
CHAPTER 7: EMPLOYMENT, WELFARE, AND HARDSHIP
Employment, Mixed-Income, and Dispersal Strategies
Employment and Income
Income from Employment
Barriers to Employment
Factors that Make it Hard to Find or Keep a Job
Public Assistance
Material Hardship
Summary
CHAPTER 8: HOUSING CHOICE AND OUTLOOK FOR REDEVELOPMENT AT BASELINE
HOPE VI and Relocation
Plans for Revitalization and Relocation
Revitalization Plans
Relocation Services
Preferences for Relocation
Factors Associated with Relocation Preferences
Perspectives on Relocation Options
Moving Away from the Site
Concerns about Redevelopment
Summary
CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Major Findings
Physical Environment
Adult Physical and Mental Health
Children
Economic Status
Housing Choice and Outlook for Relocation
New Areas for Research
Older Adults
Physical and Mental Health
Resiliency
Lessons from the HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline
Next Steps
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX B: HOPE VI BASELINE SURVEY
APPENDIX C: BASELINE INTERVIEW GUIDES
APPENDIX D: SITE TABLES
APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The HOPE VI program is the major federal initiative driving the transformation of distressed public housing developments nationwide. Under HOPE VI, distressed developments are being demolished and replaced with mixed-income housing. Like welfare reform, this transformation offers both the potential to improve the quality of life for low-income households and the risk that an unknown proportion of families may be unable to make a successful transition. In particular, HOPE VI has the potential to have a major impact—positive or negative—on the lives of the many poor children who live in distressed public housing.
Congress commissioned the HOPE VI Panel Study in 1999 to address the question of how this transformation affects the lives of original residents of HOPE VI developments—those living in the developments prior to the grant award.1 The study involves tracking the living conditions and well-being of residents from five developments where revitalization activities began in mid- to late 2001. This report describes the status of these residents at baseline, prior to relocation.
The HOPE VI Program
Created by Congress in 1992, the HOPE VI Program represents the federal government's most ambitious effort to date to address the problems of severely distressed public housing. Its major objectives are
- to improve the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete projects (or portions thereof);
- to revitalize sites on which such public housing projects are located and contribute to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood;
- to provide housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very-low-income families; and
- to build sustainable communities.2
Between 1993 and 2001, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded a total of 165 HOPE VI revitalization grants, representing $4.5 billion for redevelopment and supportive services activities. In addition, HUD awarded 35 planning grants and $293 million for demolition activities. According to HUD, the efforts represented by these grants will result in the demolition of some 78,000 units of distressed public housing and the development of a roughly equal number of new housing units. This figure includes approximately 62,000 units of rental housing (80 percent new construction) and 21,000 homeownership units of various types, for a total of 83,000 units of all types, both on and off the original HOPE VI sites.3 In addition, housing authorities that receive HOPE VI grants are required to develop supportive services to assist both original and new residents in attaining self-sufficiency.
Research Objectives and Methods
The HOPE VI Panel Study focuses on the longer-term location, neighborhood conditions, physical and mental health, and socioeconomic outcomes for original residents of five HOPE VI developments where redevelopment activities began in mid- to late 2001. The specific research questions the study addresses fall into seven issue areas: housing outcomes; neighborhood outcomes; social integration; health outcomes; child education and behavior outcomes; socioeconomic outcomes; and experiences with relocation and supportive services. The study is structured as a pre- and post-intervention study, with the intervention being the changes brought about by HOPE VI activities.
Study Sites
The five sites included in the study were purposively selected to represent a range of HOPE VI programs. The sites are:
- Shore Park/Shore Terrace (Atlantic City, N.J.);
- Ida B. Wells Homes/Wells Extension/Madden Park Homes(Chicago, IL);
- Few Gardens (Durham, N.C.);
- Easter Hill (Richmond, CAalif); and
- East Capitol Dwellings (Washington, D.C.).
Data Collection
Site Visits
We conducted two-day reconnaissance visits to all five sites in spring 2001. The purpose of this visit was to gather information from housing staff and resident leaders about the plans for redevelopment, including any changes that had occurred since the initial proposal was submitted to HUD.
Resident Survey
We administered the baseline survey to a sample of 887 heads of households across the five sites during summer 2001, and will conduct follow-up surveys at 24 and 48 months after baseline. The response rate for the baseline survey was 86 percent overall. The survey was administered in person and covered basic demographics; housing and neighborhood conditions; health; employment and public assistance receipt; financial stability; material hardship; education; access to social and community services; and outlook for relocation. We also asked specific questions about up to two randomly selected focal children per household, one under age 6 and one between the ages of 6 and 14. The questions about children concerned child health and well-being, schooling, special education, and behavior.
In-Depth Interviews
We conducted in-depth interviews with a small sample of parent and child dyads from each site in August and September 2001. We attempted to interview eight dyads at each site, and succeeded in every site except Wells, where we completed seven. Our final sample consists of 39 adults and 39 youth between the ages of 10 and 14. At baseline, we used these semi-structured interviews to focus on topics that are more amenable to the interview format, especially interactions with neighbors and mechanisms of neighborhood influence. The interviews also covered many of the topics addressed in the survey. The same respondents will be interviewed again at each subsequent wave of data collection.
Benchmarks
To provide context for the baseline findings described in this report, we make comparisons to findings from other major studies on housing interventions, neighborhood effects, and welfare reform. These studies include studies of the Gautreaux Program, the Moving To Opportunity Demonstration (MTO), the Jobs Plus Demonstration, the Three-City Study, The New Hope Project, and the National Survey of American Families (NSAF). In addition to these studies, we draw on other national data sources, including HUD's Multifamily Tenant Characteristics database (MTCS), the U.S. Census, the American Housing Survey, and the National Health Interview Survey.
Summary of Major Findings
Our summary of the findings from the baseline data collection focuses on the key study domains.
Physical Environment
Our findings on housing and neighborhood conditions provide a context for the employment, education, and health findings at baseline, just prior to the start of relocation at these five sites.
Housing
HOPE VI targets the worst public housing in the nation, developments that have major, systemic problems that cannot be addressed through standard rehabilitation efforts. Not surprisingly, all five of the developments in our sample were severely distressed according to both HUD administrative data and resident reports.
- A large percentage of our respondents reported multiple problems with the condition of their housing. About one-third reported two or three housing problems (e.g., peeling paint, water leaks), and one in five reported more than three problems.
- Despite these poor conditions, more than two-thirds of HOPE VI respondents reported that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their housing. Older adults were more satisfied with their housing than younger adults.
Neighborhood
HOPE VI developments are typically located in extremely poor, segregated, high-crime neighborhoods. The communities surrounding the five study sites fit this profile; all are located in high-poverty, predominantly minority neighborhoods. These five communities lack adequate public services and have serious problems with crime.
- Residents reported that there are few retail stores in their neighborhoods; those that exist are small and expensive. However, they reported convenient access to public transportation.
- Overall, about three-fourths of the HOPE VI Panel Study respondents reported serious problems with drug trafficking and criminal activity in their communities. Two-thirds of respondents reported major problems with shootings and violence in their neighborhoods.
- Surprisingly, across the sites, older adults (age 62 or older) in our sample were less likely to report problems with crime and reported feeling safer than the younger respondents.
- Respondents reported low levels of collective efficacy, a factor associated with neighborhood safety, in their communities. Collective efficacy consists of social control (i.e., willingness of neighbors to intervene if children are misbehaving) and social cohesion (i.e., neighbors trust and feel connected to each other) in their neighborhoods. Fewer than half reported having friends in their community.
Adult Physical and Mental Health
The HOPE VI families in the sample live in extremely distressed environments that pose many threats to their health and well-being. Our results indicate that poor health is a major problem for the households in our sample, with many experiencing multiple chronic problems.
- Adult respondents reported dramatically lower overall health status than national averages. Further, more than one-third of adult respondents reported having a chronic illness or health condition such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or arthritis.
- Asthma is a serious problem for the respondents in our sample. More than one in five adults has been diagnosed with asthma.
- Poor mental health among adults is a widespread problem. Nearly one-third of our respondents (29 percent) reported poor mental health, a level that is almost 50 percent higher than the national average. Further, nearly one in six adult respondents has experienced a major depressive episode within the past 12 months.
- Our findings suggest special concerns for the older adults in the HOPE VI panel. The majority reported poor health, much worse than national averages for those over age 62.
Children in the HOPE VI Sample
Across the nation, HOPE VI is affecting the lives of tens of thousands of children who live in distressed public housing developments. For this reason, children are a special focus of this study. At baseline, our findings suggest that these children are starting from extreme disadvantage, facing the challenges of dangerous neighborhoods and inadequate schools. Many are already behind academically and others are experiencing serious health and emotional problems. Still, some appear to be remarkably resilient, thriving despite the challenges of their environment.
- The children in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample attend schools that are extraordinarily segregated, both racially and economically. School test scores indicate that many of these schools are low-performing relative to other schools in the same district and substantially worse off than other schools in the same state.
- Fewer than half of the respondents in our sample say they view school quality in their neighborhood as a big problem. Still, across the sites, parents describe poor teachers and chaotic school environments; children complain about problems with fights, gang activity, and shootings.
- Although in-depth interview respondents generally reported that their children were doing well in school, a substantial proportion appeared to be experiencing serious problems. Still, some children—even those from the worst developments—showed striking resiliency, doing well and enjoying school.
- HOPE VI children are highly mobile, despite the potential stability of living in public housing. Across the sites, one in five children has already attended three or more schools; at some sites, the figures are even higher.
- Many very young children (under age 6) have already been placed in special education—one in ten is reportedly already receiving services. The proportion of older children (age 6 to 14) who are in special education classes is considerably higher; one in four is in special education for learning problems and one in ten is in classes for behavior problems.
- Like the adults in the sample, children in the HOPE VI Panel Study are in worse health than other children their age: Their parents reported substantially lower health ratings than for children in national samples. Asthma is a serious problem. One in five children between the ages of 6 and 14 has been diagnosed with asthma; the figure for younger children is one in four, more than three times the national average.
- Parental reports about children's behavior suggest that mental health is also an issue. About two-thirds of the older children (age 6 to 14) have one or more reported behavior problems; about half have two or more. Further, a quarter of the older children have been suspended or expelled from school.
Economic Status
Promoting self-sufficiency and increasing residents' economic status is one of the central goals of the HOPE VI program. Our findings at baseline suggest that achieving complete self-sufficiency may be unrealistic for the substantial proportion of residents who have serious health concerns or complex family situations.
The overall key findings about employment, income, and material hardship at baseline are:
- Fewer than half of the respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample were employed at baseline. Most had at least some employment experience in the past. Health problems and a lack of adequate child care were major barriers to employment for respondents in our sample.
- Nearly 80 percent of respondents reported a yearly household income of $15,000 or less; two-thirds reported an income of $10,000 or less—well below the poverty thresholds for families of three and four.
- Approximately one-third of working-age respondents reported receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits in the past six months. Just over half were long-term recipients. Another quarter reported receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and many said they received food stamps.
- Levels of reported food hardship were high. About half of the respondents reported worrying about running out of food because they did not have enough money.
Housing Choice and Outlook for Relocation
At baseline, the majority of respondents said that they would like to return to the revitalized development. Those who preferred to leave permanently generally said they wanted improved housing quality or a safer neighborhood.
- Residents who have been living in the development longer, are receiving disability benefits, or are older are more likely to say they want to return to the new site than other residents.
- Most respondents would like to move (either temporarily or permanently) to a neighborhood within city limits; only a small percentage would like to move to the suburbs.
- Confusion, suspicion, and mistrust of the housing authorities appear to be a major relocation challenge at all sites.
- A surprising number of respondents in two sites appeared to be very poorly informed about the plans for their developments. Respondents at the other three sites indicated that they had received adequate information from the housing authority.
New Areas for Research
In addition to highlighting the issues in each of the study domains that will be important to track over time, our baseline results suggest three areas for special investigation in subsequent waves of the study: issues of older adults, physical and mental health, and the factors that are connected to resiliency.
Older Adults
One of the surprising findings from the baseline study is the unexpectedly high number of older adults who live in these five family developments—nearly a quarter of the sample is age 50 or older; 12 percent are 62 years old or older. These residents may be at risk for health problems due to relocation and may require special assistance in moving. In addition to creating stress, relocation may disrupt their networks of social support. Further, many of these older respondents, even those who are very frail, are assisting younger family members: about one-fourth of the households headed by older adults have children under 18. Finally, a surprising finding from our baseline study is that the older adults were less likely to report problems with crime in their communities and reported feeling safer than younger residents. Together, these findings suggest a special focus on older adults in subsequent waves of the study.
Physical and Mental Health
Health issues were even more important in the HOPE VI Panel Study baseline than we had anticipated. Both adults and children were in poor health overall. In addition, many of our respondents suffered from multiple chronic conditions that required ongoing care and created significant barriers to employment. These findings on health suggest the need for more detailed and comprehensive measures of health status for all respondents—adults and children. Finally, we should explore the relationship between physical and mental health problems and ability to make a successful transition out of public housing.
Resiliency
At baseline, our respondents live in substandard housing in poor, dangerous communities. Even so, we found evidence of remarkable resiliency, especially in our qualitative interviews with adults and children. Some families seemed to cope amazingly well with the challenges they faced. Researchers understand a great deal about what causes poor outcomes for children. However, we know less about why others in the same circumstances manage to thrive. This question of resiliency seems particularly suited to qualitative analysis and should be a focus of subsequent rounds of interviews for this study. It may also be an issue we can explore quantitatively by looking at the factors (e.g., physical and mental health status, parental employment) associated with children's educational achievement.
Lessons from the HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline
These baseline findings offer some short-term lessons for the HOPE VI program, particularly on the supportive services that are offered to residents as part of the relocation and revitalization initiative.
- Service programs that emphasize self-sufficiency will not meet the special needs many residents have.
- Health should be a focus of any supportive service package.
- Housing authorities and service planners need to pay attention to the needs of older adults.
- Relocation plans should try to minimize disruption for school children.
- Housing authorities should make sure that residents have adequate information to make informed choices about relocation.
Next Steps
This baseline study has provided the groundwork for a longitudinal exploration of how the lives of original residents of HOPE VI developments changed after relocation. The HOPE VI panel study will track this sample of residents over a four-year period, conducting rounds of data collection at two-year intervals. The first follow-up wave will occur in spring 2003, with the final wave to occur in 2005.
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.
Notes
1. The study is now supported by a consortium of funders, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
2. Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended by Section 535 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-276).
3. HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report, September 30, 2001, and National Fact Sheet FY 2001 HOPE VI Revitalization Grant Awards.
Acknowledgements
The HOPE VI Panel Study is a large and complex project and we wish to thank the many people who have made significant contributions to the completion of this Baseline Report. Daryl Dyer, Claudia Aranda, Davis Kim, Michael Baker, and Rhiannon Patterson all participated in the initial reconnaissance visits to the study sites. Skip Camp and Dennese Neal of Abt Associates Survey Research Group directed the survey data collection, as well as making contributions to the design of the survey instrument. Lynn Reneau managed the field data collection. We want to acknowledge the survey interviewers' outstanding work, which is reflected in the high quality of the data and the impressive response rates they achieved. In addition to the authors, Aaron Graham, Elizabeth Cove, Carla Herbig, Sherri Lawson-Clark, and Ken Williamson all conducted in-depth interviews for this project, doing an exceptional job of getting both adults and children to talk openly about their experiences . We particularly want to thank all of the survey and in-depth interviewers for their enthusiasm and their willingness to conduct interviews in what were sometimes dangerous and unpleasant conditions.
William Woodley conducted most of the quantitative data analysis for this report. His attention to detail and cheerful willingness to run—and rerun—seemingly endless data analyses is much appreciated. Shawnise Thompson and Elizabeth Cove have provided much assistance with a range of tasks including literature and internet searches, creating tables, and qualitative analysis . Erin Godfrey and Carla Herbig also made substantial contributions to the analysis of the qualitative data. Jessica Cigna and Sandy Padilla assisted with the development of the maps for this report. Diane Hendricks did an outstanding job formatting and producing the final report. Finally, Tim Ware provided invaluable administrative support along the way.
We wish to thank Margery Turner, Tom Kingsley, and Jill Khadduri for their consistent help and support throughout the project, from the initial development stages through the preparation of the Baseline Report. Art Naperstek helped initiate the project and has remained an enthusiastic supporter and advisor. Our advisory panel, Lynn Olson, Megan Sandel, Mary Joel Holin, Janet Smith, Tama Leventhal, John Goering, Jo Anne Schneider, Greg Acs, Christy Visher, Greg Duncan, Martha Burt, and Mike Puma provided much helpful guidance during the design phase of the project and careful review of the Baseline report. Wendell Johnson, Brett Williams, Adelle Harrell, David Connell, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Tony Earls, Robert Santos, and Robert Sampson all provided valuable feedback and support during the early phases of the project.
We also wish to thank our funders, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Fannie Mae Foundation. Our project officers, Ronald Ashford, Tony Hebert, and Robert Leonard of HUD; Susan Lloyd of MacArthur; Cindy Guy of Casey; Julia Lopez and Darren Walker of Rockefeller; and Amy Bogdan of Fannie Mae have all provided enthusiastic support for this ambitious project. We also wish to thank Todd Richardson, Kevin Neary, and Bob Gray of HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research for their assistance.
HOPE VI staff from the five housing authorities in this study (Atlantic City, Chicago, Durham, Richmond, and Washington, D.C.) have been generous with their time and assistance, providing us with the information we needed to carry out the project.
Finally, we wish to thank the many residents at the five sites who generously shared their personal experiences with us in surveys and in-depth interviews.
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
