oversight

Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2003-11-21.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                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




GAO-04-109
                a
                                                November 2003


                                                PUBLIC HOUSING

                                                HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in
Highlights of GAO-04-109, a report to           Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee
on Housing and Transportation,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate




Congress established the HOPE VI                The largest percentage of the approximately 49,000 residents that had been
program in 1992 to revitalize                   relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, were relocated to other
severely distressed public housing              public housing, and about half were expected to return to the revitalized
by demolition, rehabilitation, or               sites. Although grantees, overall, expected 46 percent of relocated residents
replacement of sites. In fiscal                 to return, the percentage of original residents that were expected to return
years 1993–2001, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development
                                                (or the reoccupancy rate) varied greatly from site to site.
(HUD) awarded approximately $4.5
billion for 165 HOPE VI                         The level of resident involvement in the HOPE VI process varied at the 1996
revitalization grants to public                 sites. While all of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents about
housing authorities (grantees).                 revitalization plans and solicit their input, some took additional steps to
GAO was asked to examine (1) the                involve residents. For example, in Tucson, the housing authority submitted
types of housing to which the                   the revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site to the city council for
original residents of HOPE VI sites             approval only after the residents had voted to approve it.
were relocated and the number of
original residents that grantees                The neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located generally have
expect to return to the revitalized
                                                experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income, and
sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996
grantees have involved residents in             housing, although GAO could not determine the extent to which the HOPE
the HOPE VI process, and (3) how                VI program contributed to these changes. In a comparison of four 1996
the neighborhoods surrounding the               HOPE VI neighborhoods to four comparable neighborhoods, mortgage
20 sites that received HOPE VI                  lending activity increased to a greater extent in three of the HOPE VI
grants in fiscal year 1996 have                 neighborhoods. But, a comparison of other variables (such as education and
changed.                                        new construction) produced inconsistent results, with HOPE VI
                                                neighborhoods experiencing both greater positive and negative changes than
                                                comparable neighborhoods.

                                                Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites
                                                Number of HOPE VI sites

                                                50
                                                                   6
                                                40
                                                       17          40
                                                30                            9

                                                                             26          4
                                                20     23
                                                                                        21
                                                10
                                                                                                   3
                                                 0                                                 3
                                                       0 to      25 to      50 to      75 to      100
                                                       <25        <50        <75       <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.
                                                Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system (as of
To view the full product, including the scope   June 30, 2003). We excluded 10 of the 165 sites from our analysis because they did not involve
and methodology, click on the link above.       relocation and an additional 3 sites because the reoccupancy data reported as of June 30, 2003
For more information, contact David G. Wood     was incorrect.
at (202) 512-8678 or woodd@gao.gov.
Contents



Letter                                                                                               1
                             Results in Brief                                                        3
                             Background                                                              6
                             Largest Percentage of Original Residents Were Relocated to Other
                               Public Housing, and About Half Are Expected to Return to HOPE
                               VI Sites                                                              8
                             Resident Involvement in the HOPE VI Process Has Varied                 16
                             Community and Supportive Services Yielded Some Positive
                               Outcomes                                                             19
                             Indicators for Education, Income, and Housing Have Generally
                               Improved in 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhoods                               23
                             Agency Comments                                                        32


Appendixes
              Appendix I:    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                     34
             Appendix II:    Technical Methodology                                                  39
                             Data Sources                                                           39
                             Data Reliability                                                       40
                             Limitations of Analysis                                                40
                             Analytical Approach and Results                                        41
             Appendix III:   Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and
                             Summary Crime Data                                                     44
             Appendix IV:    Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
                             Development                                                            52
              Appendix V:    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments                                 53
                             GAO Contacts                                                           53
                             Staff Acknowledgments                                                  53


Tables                       Table 1: Number of Residents That Have Enrolled in and
                                      Completed Community and Supportive Services
                                      Programs                                                      21
                             Table 2: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Education for Each
                                      1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable
                                      Neighborhoods                                                 44
                             Table 3: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Income, Poverty,
                                      and Unemployment for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood
                                      and Four Comparable Neighborhoods                             46




                             Page i                                          GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
          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: Initial Relocation of HOPE VI Residents                                       9
          Figure 2: Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites                              11
          Figure 3: Percentage of Public Housing Units Being Replaced at
                    1996 HOPE VI Sites                                                           13
          Figure 4: Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing
                    Units at 165 HOPE VI Sites                                                   15
          Figure 5: Neighborhood Changes between 1990 and 2000 for
                    Selected Cities                                                              29
          Figure 6: 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.




          Page ii                                                     GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
A
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548



                                    November 21, 2003                                                                 Leter




                                    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



                                    Page 1                                               GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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


1
 HUD did not award the 28 fiscal year 2002 revitalization grants until March 2003; therefore,
they are not covered in this report. HUD also has awarded about $15 million in HOPE VI
planning grants and approximately $336 million in HOPE VI demolition grants, but they are
not the focus of this report.
2
 U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but
HUD Has Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement, GAO-03-91 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15,
2002).
3
 U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Housing: HUD’s Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs
to Be More Consistent, GAO-03-555 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).
4
 The 1996 grantees and sites are as follows: Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta (Heman
E. Perry Homes); Housing Authority of Baltimore City (Hollander Ridge); Charlotte Housing
Authority (Dalton Village); Chester Housing Authority (Lamokin Village); Chicago Housing
Authority (Henry Horner Homes, ABLA Homes—Brooks Extension, and Robert Taylor
Homes B); Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (Riverview and Lakeview Terraces);
Detroit Housing Commission (Herman Gardens); Holyoke Housing Authority (Jackson
Parkway); Jacksonville Housing Authority (Durkeeville); Housing Authority of Kansas City,
Missouri (Theron B. Watkins Homes); Housing Authority of Louisville (Cotter and Lang
Homes); Housing Authority of New Orleans (St. Thomas); New York City Housing Authority
(Arverne and Edgemere Houses); Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (Bedford
Additions); San Francisco Housing Authority (North Beach); Spartanburg Housing
Authority (Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension); Tucson Community
Services Department (Connie Chambers); and Wilmington, North Carolina Housing
Authority (Robert S. Jervay Place).




Page 2                                                        GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                   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


                   5
                    At 16 sites, we interviewed resident leaders. At three sites, we could not interview resident
                   leaders because there was no resident council. Instead, we interviewed individuals that the
                   housing authority identified as residents of the original site. At the remaining site, despite
                   repeated attempts, we were not able to interview the resident leader.
                   6
                    HMDA requires certain financial institutions, including banks, savings associations, credit
                   unions, and other mortgage lending institutions, to submit loan data to the Federal Financial
                   Institutions Examination Council. Data collected includes the number of mortgage loans
                   originated by census tract.




                   Page 3                                                         GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
without giving notice or vacated for other reasons.7 Because HUD did not
require grantees to report the location of original residents until 2000,
grantees have lost track of some original residents. Although grantees,
overall, expect 46 percent of all the residents that occupied the original
sites to return to the revitalized sites, the percentage varies greatly from
site to site. For example, the planned or actual reoccupancy rate is less
than 25 percent at 40 sites and 75 percent or greater at 31 sites.
Additionally, the percentage of residents expected to return has decreased
over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for which we could
obtain data), fiscal year 1993–1998 grantees estimated that 61 percent of
the original residents would return to the revitalized sites. By June 30, 2003,
the same grantees estimated that 44 percent of the original residents would
return. A variety of factors may affect the expected return rates, such as the
numbers and types of units to be built at the revitalized site and the criteria
used to select the occupants of the new public housing units.

The extent to which the 1996 grantees involved residents in the HOPE VI
process varied. All of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents
about revitalization plans and solicit their input. However, some of them
took additional steps to involve residents in the HOPE VI process. For
example, in Tucson, the housing authority waited until the residents had
voted their approval before submitting the revitalization plan for the
Connie Chambers site to the city council. In other cases, litigation or the
threat of litigation ensured resident involvement. For instance, under a
settlement agreement, the Chicago Housing Authority’s decisions regarding
the revitalization of Henry Horner Homes are subject to the approval of the
Horner Resident Committee.

Grantees overall have provided a variety of community and supportive
services to residents under the HOPE VI program; limited HUD data and
information collected during our site visits suggest that the services have
yielded at least some positive outcomes. Services provided include case
management (in which case managers assess the needs of each family and
make referrals to appropriate service providers) and direct services such as
computer and job training. According to HUD data on the 165 sites
awarded grants through fiscal year 2001, about 55 percent of the residents
that had enrolled in job skills training programs since the inception of
HOPE VI had completed the programs as of June 30, 2003, and over 1,000
residents obtained jobs in the second quarter of 2003. Also, 22 percent of


7
Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.




Page 4                                               GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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.




Page 5                                              GAO-04-109 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)




             8
              The HOPE VI program’s authorization is found at 42 U.S.C. 1437v. HUD had planned to
             develop regulations for the HOPE VI program but, as of March 2002, had withdrawn its plans
             to do so.
             9
              The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
             (URA) was enacted to protect the rights of tenants, homeowners, and nonresidential tenants
             and owners who are displaced as a result of federally funded projects for rehabilitation,
             acquisition, or demolition of real property. The URA requires that displaced tenants be
             provided with assistance and services to help them in reestablishing themselves in a
             comparable residential situation.




             Page 6                                                      GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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.




10
 The housing choice voucher program is the federal government’s main program for
assisting very low-income families in renting housing in the private market. Housing
assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, and participants find their own
housing using the voucher. Vouchers are administered locally by public housing authorities,
which receive federal funds from HUD to administer the program.




Page 7                                                        GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Largest Percentage of        According to HUD data, the largest percentage of residents living at HOPE
                             VI sites were relocated to other public housing. Because HUD has not
Original Residents           always required grantees to track original residents during the
Were Relocated to            development process, housing authorities lost track of some original
                             residents. Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of the original
Other Public Housing,        residents would return to the revitalized sites. However, the percentage of
and About Half Are           original residents expected to return varied greatly from site to site. Several
Expected to Return to        factors may affect planned and actual reoccupancy rates, including the
                             planned mix of units and the criteria used to screen the occupants of the
HOPE VI Sites                new units.



Half of Original Residents   As shown in figure 1, a majority of the almost 49,000 residents that had
Relocated to Other Public    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).
Housing
                             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.)




                             Page 8                                               GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Figure 1: Initial Relocation of HOPE VI Residents

                                                Evicted


                       6%

                             14%                Other



          50%

                             31%                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




11
 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI: Best Practices and
Lessons Learned 1992-2002 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2002).
12
 The residents at one site had not yet been relocated as of June 30, 2003; therefore, there
was no need for the housing authority to track them.




Page 9                                                            GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                               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     Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of all the original residents of
the Return Rate for Original   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
Residents
                               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.




                               13
                                The 33 percent that vacated prior to being relocated included families that were evicted for
                               nonpayment of rent or drug involvement, families that moved without notice, and families
                               that left the city.




                               Page 10                                                       GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Figure 2: Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites
Number of HOPE VI sites

50


                   6

40
       17          40

                              9
30


                             26
                                         4
       23
20
                                        21



10

                                                   3
                                                   3
 0
       0 to      25 to      50 to      75 to      100
       <25        <50        <75       <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 (low-
income 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


14
 Low-income housing tax credits provide tax incentives for private investment in the
development and rehabilitation of housing for low-income households. Under this program,
states are authorized to allocate federal tax credits as an incentive to the private sector to
develop rental housing for low-income households.




Page 11                                                                     GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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 long-
standing vacancies when the housing authorities applied for a HOPE VI
grant, and that a majority of the vacant units were uninhabitable.




15
 As of June 30, 2003, grantees had completed the demolition of 60,580 public housing units
and the construction of 19,070 replacement public housing units.




Page 12                                                      GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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–
                                               52%                                                              666             1,287
                Brooks Extension

     Arverne/Edgemere Houses                                 99%                                                                         1,803 1,813


                Bedford Additions              48%                                           220            460


                Connie Chambers                             100%                          200 200


               Cotter/Lang Homes              45%                                                     500                1,116


                    Dalton Village                  60%                                  180          300


                      Durkeeville                           98%                               275 280


         Heman E. Perry Homes         21%                                                    228                        1,072


           Henry Horner Homes         23%                                                     271                           1,197


                 Herman Gardens 16%                                                          258                                         1,573


                Jackson Parkway                      65%                                142         219


                  Lamokin Village             43%                                        150              350


                     North Beach                            100%                             229 229


   Riverview/Lakeview Terraces                              102%                               335 329


         Robert S. Jervay Place         28%                                             71          250


         Robert Taylor Homes B          10%                                                  251                                                        2,400


                      St. Thomas         12%                                             182                                            1,510


      Theron B. Watkins Homes                               100%                         173 173


Tobe Hartwell Courts/Extension                 48%                                      128          266


                                                                     Replacement public housing units
Source: GAO.




                                                           Page 13                                                                  GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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.)




16
 HUD did not start encouraging mixed-income development until 1995; therefore, some of
the earlier grant sites were all public housing.




Page 14                                                           GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Figure 4: Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing Units at 165
HOPE VI Sites
Number of HOPE VI sites

70

                    2
60
                   59

50
                              5
40                            43


30


20                                       5
                                                    9
                                         19
        1
10                                                  12
       10

 0
       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




Page 15                                                              GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                         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     The extent to which grantees involved residents in the HOPE VI process
                         has varied at the 1996 sites. HUD has provided guidance on resident
in the HOPE VI Process   involvement in its NOFAs and grant agreements and on its Web site. The
Has Varied               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.


                         17
                           When a family volunteers to participate in the family self-sufficiency program, the housing
                         authority and the head of the family execute a contract of participation that specifies the
                         rights and responsibilities of both parties. The 5-year contract specifies goals and services
                         for each family. The housing authority establishes an interest-bearing escrow account for
                         each participating family and credits the account, based on increases in earned income of
                         the family, during the term of the contract. If the family completes the contract and no
                         member of the family is receiving welfare, the amount of the account is paid to the head of
                         the family.
                         18
                          We excluded 6 of the 20 1996 sites from our analysis. At 4 sites, construction was begun
                         prior to the completion of relocation. At 1 site, relocation has been postponed until after the
                         completion of off-site construction. At the remaining site, no construction was planned
                         because the funds were transferred to another site.




                         Page 16                                                         GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
HUD Has Provided General     HUD’s guidance on resident involvement in the HOPE VI process consists
Guidance on Resident         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
Involvement                  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:



                             Page 17                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
• In Tucson, the housing authority first asked residents to vote on the
  revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site. Only after the residents
  expressed their support for the plan did the mayor and city council vote
  to submit the plan to HUD.

• The Chicago Housing Authority formed working groups at each of its
  HOPE VI sites to solicit input on plans and the selection of developers.
  These groups include representatives from the resident council, the
  housing authority, and city agencies.

• The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s plans for its
  Riverview/Lakeview grant involved acquiring 54 off-site public housing
  units and, in many cases, the residents to be relocated selected the
  single-family homes that the housing authority then purchased for them.

• The Jacksonville and Chester Housing Authorities worked with
  residents to develop screening criteria used to select the occupants of
  the new development.

• The Holyoke Housing Authority asked residents to be part of its HOPE
  VI Implementation Team and the mayor’s HOPE VI Advisory Task Force.

At one site we visited, the resident leader stated that residents were not
adequately involved early in the HOPE VI process. Not until the residents at
Robert Jervay Place in Wilmington, North Carolina, sent a letter to HUD
describing the lack of progress at the site did the housing authority start
moving forward with the project and involving residents in design
meetings.

In some cases, litigation or the threat of litigation has led to increased
resident involvement. Due to a settlement agreement, any decisions
regarding the revitalization of Henry Horner Homes in Chicago are subject
to the approval of the Horner Resident Committee. According to the
president of the St. Thomas resident council, the Housing Authority of New
Orleans agreed to provide an additional 100 off-site public housing eligible
rental units and change the screening criteria so that most of the original
residents would be able to return in response to petitions filed by the
attorney for St. Thomas residents with HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity.




Page 18                                            GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Community and              Grantees have provided a variety of community and supportive services,
                           including case management and direct services such as job training
Supportive Services        programs. HUD data and information obtained during our site visits
Yielded Some Positive      suggest that the supportive services yielded at least some positive
                           outcomes. However, the data are limited and do not capture outcomes for
Outcomes                   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   Grantees are using HOPE VI and other funds to provide a variety of
Variety of Community and   community and supportive services, including case management and direct
                           services such as job training programs. In our November 2002 report on
Supportive Services to
                           HOPE VI financing, we reported that the housing authorities that had been
Residents                  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


                           19
                                GAO-03-91.
                           20
                                Numbers do not add because of rounding.




                           Page 19                                            GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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.




Page 20                                            GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Limited Data Show That    Limited HUD data on all 165 grants awarded through fiscal year 2001 and
HOPE VI Services Have     information collected during our visits to the 1996 sites indicated that
                          HOPE VI community and supportive services have achieved or contributed
Helped Achieve Positive   to positive outcomes. We recommended in July 1998 that HUD develop
Outcomes                  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

                                                                                 Number of           Number of
                          Community and supportive services               residents enrolled       completions
                          Employment preparation/placement/retention                  25,831                 N/A
                          Counseling programs                                         23,458                 N/A
                          Transportation assistance                                   18,202                 N/A


                          21
                           U. S. General Accounting Office, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing
                          Distressed Public Housing, GAO/RCED-98-187 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 1998).




                          Page 21                                                   GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
(Continued From Previous Page)
                                                             Number of                Number of
Community and supportive services                     residents enrolled            completions
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



Page 22                                                           GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                        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          According to our analysis of census and other data, the 20 neighborhoods
                        in which the 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have experienced
Education, Income,      improvements in a number of indicators used by researchers to measure
and Housing Have        neighborhood change, such as educational attainment levels, average
                        household income, and average housing values. However, for a number of
Generally Improved in   reasons, we could not determine the extent to which the HOPE VI program
1996 HOPE VI            was responsible for these changes. For example, we relied primarily on
Neighborhoods           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


                        22
                         According to the HOPE VI reporting system, the community and supportive services
                        caseload, as of June 30, 2003, was 835 at Bedford Additions, 521 at Cotter and Lang Homes,
                        468 at St. Thomas, and 2,188 at Arverne and Edgemere Houses.




                        Page 23                                                     GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                        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            The 20 neighborhoods in which the 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have
Neighborhoods Have      experienced positive changes in education, income, and housing indicators
                        as measured by comparing 1990 and 2000 Census and 1996 and 2001 HMDA
Generally Experienced
                        data. When using census data, we defined the neighborhood as consisting
Positive Changes        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




                        23
                           A statistically significant difference is one where the probability of the difference
                        occurring by chance is less than 5 percent. See appendix II for a detailed explanation of
                        statistical significance.
                        24
                         Some Dalton Village units in Charlotte, North Carolina, were rehabilitated through the
                        Comprehensive Grant program beginning in May 1996; the first phase of revitalization at the
                        Henry Horner site in Chicago, Illinois, began in 1995; the modernization of 425 units at the
                        Lakeview site in Cleveland, Ohio, began in 1994; the first phase of revitalization at the
                        Theron B. Watkins site began in May 1995; and the first phase of revitalization at the
                        Cotter/Lang site in Louisville, Kentucky, began in January 1995.




                        Page 24                                                       GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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:

• In 18 of the 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods, the percentage of the
  population with a high school diploma or equivalent increased, from a
  minimum of 4 percentage points in Detroit to a maximum of 21
  percentage points in Baltimore.

• In 11 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods, the percentage of the population
  with an associate’s degree or better increased, from a minimum of 3
  percentage points in Tucson to a maximum of 14 percentage points in
  San Francisco.

• Average household income increased in 15 of the 1996 HOPE VI
  neighborhoods, from a minimum of 18 percent in Detroit to a maximum
  of 115 percent in Chicago (Henry Horner).

• The percentage of the population in poverty decreased in 14 of the
  HOPE VI neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in
  Atlanta and Detroit to a maximum of 20 percentage points in Baltimore.
  Despite these decreases, 9 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods remained
  “high-poverty neighborhoods” (having poverty rates of 30 percent or
  more), and 5 remained “extremely high-poverty neighborhoods” (having
  poverty rates of 40 percent or more).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


25
 Sean Zielenbach, The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods, (Washington,
D.C.: Housing Research Foundation, 2002); and Chris Walker et. al, The Impact of CDBG
Spending on Urban Neighborhoods, (Washington, D.C.: prepared by the Urban Institute for
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, October 2002).
26
 The definitions of high and extremely high poverty neighborhoods are from G. Thomas
Kingsley and Kathryn L.S. Petit, "Concentrated Poverty: A Change in Course," Neighborhood
Change in Urban America, no. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, May 2003).
27
 G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathryn L.S. Petit, HOPE VI and Section 8:
Spatial Patterns in Relocation, (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, January 2001).




Page 25                                                     GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
• Average housing values increased in 13 of the 20 HOPE VI
  neighborhoods, ranging from a minimum of 11 percent in Tucson to a
  maximum of 215 percent in Chicago (Henry Horner). It is generally
  accepted among researchers that housing values represent the best
  available index of expectations regarding future economic activity in an
  area.

• Rental housing costs increased in 15 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods,
  from a minimum of 9 percent in Tucson to a maximum of 61 percent in
  Louisville. Increasing rental-housing costs are an indication that there is
  a greater demand for housing in that area.

• The number of mortgage loans originated in 10 of the HOPE VI
  neighborhoods increased between 1996 and 2001. These increases
  ranged from a minimum of 21 percent in Holyoke to a maximum of 728
  percent in Charlotte—where the number of loans originated increased
  from 7 to 58.

However, some of the HOPE VI neighborhoods showed negative changes
for certain indicators. For example:

• The percent unemployed rose at 4 of the 20 sites, from a minimum of 2
  percentage points in Charlotte to a maximum of 8 percentage points in
  Kansas City.

• In the Holyoke HOPE VI neighborhood, average housing values declined
  by 26 percent.

• The number of mortgage loans originated in seven of the HOPE VI
  neighborhoods decreased between 1996 and 2001. These decreases
  ranged from a minimum of 5 percent in Atlanta to a maximum of 58
  percent in Wilmington.

Appendix III shows the census and HMDA data for all of the indicators we
analyzed for each of the 1996 HOPE VI sites.




Page 26                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
By Some Measures, HOPE      Comparison of four HOPE VI neighborhoods with neighborhoods in which
VI Neighborhoods Have       comparable public housing sites are located (comparable neighborhoods)
                            showed that HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced greater positive changes
Experienced More Positive   in some, but not all, of the variables that we evaluated.28 We conducted this
Change Than                 comparative analysis to attempt to better isolate the effects of the HOPE VI
Neighborhoods with          program, although it was not possible to directly link changes to the HOPE
Comparable Public Housing   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


                            28
                              Using census, mortgage lending, and crime data summaries, we made comparisons
                            between the neighborhoods in which HOPE VI sites that had completed 75 percent or more
                            of their on-site construction (as of December 2002) are located and the neighborhoods in
                            which comparable public housing sites are located. The comparable public housing sites
                            were identified by local housing authority officials as being approximately the same age,
                            size, type, or condition as their HOPE VI sites. The HOPE VI sites were located in Chester,
                            Pennsylvania; Jacksonville, Florida; Kansas City, Missouri; and Spartanburg, South Carolina.
                            The HOPE VI site in Tucson, Arizona, had also completed 75 percent or more of its on-site
                            construction as of December 2002. However, according to public housing officials from the
                            City of Tucson, there are no public housing sites in Tucson that are comparable to its HOPE
                            VI site. As a result, we could not do a comparative analysis using this site.




                            Page 27                                                       GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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.




Page 28                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Figure 5: Neighborhood Changes between 1990 and 2000 for Selected Cities

                                                                                                                                                                                   Spartanburg,
                                                       Chester, Pennsylvania                     Jacksonville, Florida                   Kansas City, Missouri
                                                                 ble                                                                                                              South Carolina




                                                                                                           ble




                                                                                                                                                   ble




                                                                                                                                                                                          ble
                                                                                ce




                                                                                                                         ce




                                                                                                                                                                 ce




                                                                                                                                                                                                        ce
                                                              ara




                                                                                                        ara




                                                                                                                                                ara




                                                                                                                                                                                       ara
                                                  VI




                                                                                            VI




                                                                                                                                    VI




                                                                                                                                                                             VI
                                                                              en




                                                                                                                       en




                                                                                                                                                               en




                                                                                                                                                                                                      en
                                               PE




                                                                                         PE




                                                                                                                                 PE




                                                                                                                                                                          PE
                                                            mp




                                                                                                      mp




                                                                                                                                              mp




                                                                                                                                                                                     mp
                                                                          fer




                                                                                                                   fer




                                                                                                                                                           fer




                                                                                                                                                                                                  fer
                                             HO




                                                                                       HO




                                                                                                                               HO




                                                                                                                                                                        HO
                                                          Co




                                                                                                    Co




                                                                                                                                            Co




                                                                                                                                                                                   Co
                                                                         Dif




                                                                                                                  Dif




                                                                                                                                                          Dif




                                                                                                                                                                                                 Dif
 Average household incomea                    8           5               3          23c           11            12           29c          11             18           10          0            10

 Poverty rate                                -2           1               -3         -10c         -4c             -4          -8c         -10c             1            -4         0             -4

 Unemployment rate                            0          -2               2            0           -1             1            8c           -1            8d            4          0             3

 Population with high school degree         14c         12c               1          10c          10c             0            6c         16c             -8d          14c         4c           10d

 Population with a degreeb                    0           0               0            0            0             0            0          14c            -14d           4          0             4

 Average housing valuea                      -8          -6               -2          15          14c             1           51c          11             40           24c        18c            7

 Housing units constructed
                                            -4c          -4c              1          14c          -2c            16d           5c           -3            8d          -12c        -4c           -8d
 within the last ten years

 Occupied housing units                       0          -2               2            2            3             -2           5c         10c              -6           -3        -4c            0

 Average gross renta                        12c           0              13          25c          11c            14           12c         24c            -12            2          4             -2

 Population                                 -27         -21               -6         -28           -4            -24          -19           8            -27           -20        -10           -10

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 100-
                                                                  percent census figures. Differences for poverty rate, unemployment rate, population with high school
                                                                  degree, population with a degree, housing units constructed within the last 10 years, and occupied
                                                                  housing units are based upon percentage point differences. Differences for average household
                                                                  income, average housing value, average gross rent, and population are calculated as percent
                                                                  changes.
                                                                  a
                                                                      1990 dollar values were adjusted to make them comparable to 2000 dollar values.
                                                                  b
                                                                      An associate’s degree or better.
                                                                  c
                                                                   The change in estimates from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.
                                                                  d
                                                                   The difference between the percent changes in the HOPE VI and in the comparable neighborhoods is
                                                                  statistically significant.




                                                                  Page 29                                                                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Changes in Indicators          Even in the six 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods where the original public
Suggest That HOPE VI Can       housing units had been demolished, but no units had been completed on-
                               site as of December 2002, a comparison of 1990 and 2000 Census data
Influence Neighborhoods        showed that positive changes occurred in educational attainment,
through the Demolition of      unemployment, income, and housing.29 For example:
the Old, Deteriorated Public
Housing Alone                  • The percentage of the population with a high school diploma or
                                 equivalent increased in all six neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4
                                 percentage points in Detroit to a maximum of 21 percentage points in
                                 Baltimore. Similarly, the percentage of population with an associate’s
                                 degree or better increased in five neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4
                                 percentage points in Atlanta and Baltimore to a maximum of 14
                                 percentage points in San Francisco.

                               • The unemployment rate decreased in four of the six HOPE VI
                                 neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in Cleveland to
                                 a maximum of 6 percentage points in Baltimore and Detroit.

                               • Average household income increased in all of the neighborhoods, from a
                                 minimum of 18 percent in Detroit to a maximum of 46 percent in
                                 Cleveland.

                               • The poverty rate decreased in five of the neighborhoods, from a
                                 minimum of 4 percentage points in Atlanta and Detroit to a maximum of
                                 20 percentage points in Baltimore.

                               • Average housing values increased in four of the neighborhoods, from a
                                 minimum of 26 percent in Atlanta to a maximum of 116 percent in
                                 Detroit.

                               • The percentage of occupied housing units increased in four
                                 neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in Atlanta to a
                                 maximum of 8 percentage points in Cleveland and New Orleans.


                               29
                                 As of December 31, 2002, demolition was complete, but no units had been completed on-
                               site at seven of the 1996 HOPE VI sites: Heman E. Perry Homes in Atlanta, Georgia;
                               Hollander Ridge in Baltimore, Maryland; Robert Taylor Homes B in Chicago, Illinois;
                               Riverview and Lakeview Terraces in Cleveland, Ohio; Herman Gardens in Detroit, Michigan;
                               St. Thomas in New Orleans, Louisiana; and North Beach in San Francisco, California. The
                               Robert Taylor Homes B site was excluded from our analysis because no on-site construction
                               was planned as a part of the 1996 grant.




                               Page 30                                                     GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                           • 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,
                           employment, community investment, and crime indicators.30 In reviewing
VI Neighborhoods           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:




                           30
                            Beginning in fiscal year 1999, HUD began to encourage HOPE VI revitalization grant
                           applicants to form partnerships with local universities to evaluate the impact of their
                           proposed HOPE VI revitalization plans. HUD suggested evaluating economic development,
                           spillover revitalization activities, and property values. Some grant recipients initiated such
                           studies prior to fiscal year 1999.
                           31
                            The three reports are: (1) Abt Associates Inc., Exploring the Impacts of the HOPE VI
                           Program on Surrounding Neighborhoods (Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., January
                           2003); (2) Adriana Cimetta and Ralph Renger, Final Evaluation Report for the Greater
                           Santa Rosa HOPE VI Project Year Ending 2002 (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona,
                           College of Public Health, October 2003); and (3) Zeilenbach, The Economic Impact of
                           HOPE VI on Neighborhoods (2002).




                           Page 31                                                        GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                  • Per capita incomes in eight selected HOPE VI neighborhoods increased
                    an average of 71 percent, compared with 14.5 percent for the cities in
                    which these sites are located between 1989 and 1999.

                  • The percentage of low-income households living in eight selected HOPE
                    VI neighborhoods decreased from 82 to 69 percent from 1989 to 1999.

                  • Median income increased 80 percent from 1990 to 2000 in Chester’s 1996
                    HOPE VI neighborhood.

                  • Unemployment rates decreased from 24 to 15 percent between 1989 and
                    1999 in eight selected HOPE VI neighborhoods.

                  • The number of small business loans closed in seven selected HOPE VI
                    neighborhoods grew by an average of 248 percent from 1998 to 2001,
                    compared with 153 percent in the neighborhoods’ respective counties.

                  • The number of new business licenses issued in Tucson’s 1996 HOPE VI
                    neighborhood increased from 6 in 1996 to 28 in 2002. In addition, the
                    number of business closures in the neighborhood decreased from 23 in
                    1996 to 15 in 2001.

                  • The vacancy rate decreased from 9 to 6 percent between 1990 and 2000
                    in Chester’s 1996 HOPE VI neighborhood, while the vacancy rate for the
                    city increased from 12 to 14 percent during the same period.

                  • Overall and violent crime rates decreased by 48 and 68 percent,
                    respectively, between 1993 and 2001 in four of the HOPE VI
                    neighborhoods where crime data were available. Overall and violent
                    crimes decreased by 25 and 38 percent, respectively, during the same
                    time period for the cities in which these sites are located.



Agency Comments   We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its comment and review. We
                  received comments from the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
                  Housing (see app. IV) who thanked GAO for its thorough review of the
                  HOPE VI program and stated that HUD regards our study as an important
                  tool in its continuing efforts to improve the program.




                  Page 32                                          GAO-04-109 HOPE VI 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




Page 33                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                                                 AA
                                                                                                    ppp
                                                                                                      ep
                                                                                                       ned
                                                                                                         n
                                                                                                         x
                                                                                                         id
                                                                                                          e
                                                                                                          x
                                                                                                          Iis




              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


              1
              The data in the HOPE VI reporting system are self-reported quarterly by grantees.




              Page 34                                                     GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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


2
 At 16 sites, we interviewed resident leaders. At 3 sites, we could not interview resident
leaders because there was no resident council. Instead, we interviewed individuals that the
PHA identified as residents of the original site. At the remaining site, despite repeated
attempts, we were not able to interview the resident leader.
3
 Annual contributions contracts are written contracts between HUD and PHAs under which
HUD agrees to make payments to the PHA and the PHA agrees to administer the public
housing program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements.
4
 We excluded one grant from the analysis because the HOPE VI funds were transferred to
another public housing site.




Page 35                                                      GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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



Page 36                                            GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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



5
 We excluded Robert Taylor Homes B from this analysis because no on-site construction
was planned as a part of the 1996 grant.
6
 The HOPE VI site in Tucson, Arizona, had completed more than 75 percent of its on-site
construction as of December 31, 2002, but PHA officials stated that there was no public
housing site in Tucson that was comparable.




Page 37                                                     GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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.




Page 38                                       GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Appendix II

Technical Methodology                                                                                      Appendx
                                                                                                                 Ii




               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


               1
                We defined HOPE VI neighborhoods using a concept similar to that in Sean Zielenbach’s
               The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods, (Washington, D.C.: Housing Research
               Foundation, 2002). Abt Associates Inc. also studied the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE
               VI sites by analyzing the census tract in which each of the HOPE VI sites studied is located,
               in Exploring the Impacts of the HOPE VI Program on Surrounding Neighborhoods
               (Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., January 2003).




               Page 39                                                       GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                          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, re-
                          emphasis on the Community Reinvestment Act (Zielenbach, 2002), or
                          national trends in the economy and unemployment (Zielenbach, 2002)—in
                          conjunction with HOPE VI efforts may have contributed to observed
                          changes in the geographic region surrounding a HOPE VI site.

                          To attempt to isolate the influence of HOPE VI activities, an ideal
                          evaluation research design would include the identification of a
                          neighborhood identical to the HOPE VI community based on key



                          Page 40                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                      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



                      Page 41                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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



Page 42                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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.




Page 43                                           GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, and Summary Crime Data                                                                                                    Appendx
                                                                                                                                     iI




                                        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 point                                    Percentage 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)



                                        Page 44                                                  GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                                          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 point                                               Percentage 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                          -1
Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview and
Lakeview Terraces                             52           64                      12a                 16                21                          6a
Detroit, Michigan: Herman
Gardens                                       66           70                       4a                 13                14                          2
Holyoke, Massachusetts: Jackson
Parkway                                       63           66                        3                 19                18                          0
                                                                                      a
Jacksonville, Florida: Durkeeville            50           61                      10                  11                12                          0

(Brentwood Park)                          (53)            (63)                   (10a)               (11)              (11)                         (0)
Kansas City, Missouri: Theron B.
Watkins Homes                                 57           64                       7a                 13                13                          0

(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                          4

(Woodworth Homes)                         (62)            (67)                    (4a)               (21)              (20)                         (0)
                                                                                      a
Tucson, Arizona: Connie Chambers              51           58                       7                  13                16                          3a
Wilmington, North Carolina: Robert
S. Jervay Place                               52           61                       8a                 12                15                          3
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
                                          a
                                           The difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is
                                          larger than the 1990 estimate.




                                          Page 45                                                                 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                                             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 household incomea             Percent in poverty               Percent unemployed
 Neighborhood                                                                        Percentage                   Percentage
(comparable                                            Percent                              point                       point
neighborhood)                      1990       2000     change       1990     2000     difference      1990   2000 difference
Atlanta, Georgia: Heman
E. Perry Homes                   23,394     31,522         35b         46       42            -4b       14     19           5b
Baltimore, Maryland:
Hollander Ridge                  36,672     49,470         35b         26        6          -20b        11      4          -6b
Charlotte, North Carolina:
Dalton Village                   34,443     42,208         23b         21       21             0         6      8           2b
Chester, Pennsylvania:
Lamokin Village                  27,289     29,468           8         33       31            -2        13     13            0

(Matopos Hills)                 (30,313)   (31,730)        (5)       (32)     (33)            (1)     (13)    (11)         (-2)
Chicago, Illinois: ABLA
Homes – Brooks Extension         22,124     34,398         55b         52       40          -13b        22     14          -8b
Chicago, Illinois: Henry
Horner Homes                     15,106     32,494        115b         67       48          -18b        34     25          -9b
Chicago, Illinois: Robert
Taylor Homes B                   18,086     23,951         32b         67       58            -8b       35     32           -2
Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview
and Lakeview Terraces            22,006     32,074         46b         52       34          -18b        18     14          -4b
Detroit, Michigan: Herman
Gardens                          33,072     39,190         18b         32       27            -4b       17     11          -6b
Holyoke, Massachusetts:
Jackson Parkway                  35,815     37,332           4         29       26            -2        11      7          -4b
                                                                b                                 b
Jacksonville, Florida:           17,261     21,208         23          51       41          -10         16     16            0
Durkeeville

(Brentwood Park)                (23,454)   (25,936)       (11)       (38)     (33)          (-4b)     (14)    (13)         (-1)
Kansas City, Missouri:
Theron B. Watkins Homes          22,378     28,857         29b         43       34            -8b       14     22           8b

(West Bluff)                    (35,596)   (39,668)       (11)       (32)     (22)         (-10b)      (9)     (8)         (-1)
Louisville, Kentucky: Cotter
and Lang Homes                   28,086     35,890         28b         38       26          -12b        17     10          -7b
New Orleans, Louisiana:
St. Thomas                       37,103     45,095         22b         47       38            -8b       16     11          -5b
New York, New York:
Arverne/Edgemere
Houses                           35,724     35,868           0         35       30            -5b       15     19           4b




                                             Page 46                                                  GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                                                             Appendix III
                                                             Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
                                                             Act, and Summary Crime Data




(Continued From Previous Page)
                                           Average household incomea                        Percent in poverty                      Percent unemployed
 Neighborhood                                                                                                    Percentage                         Percentage
(comparable                                                               Percent                                       point                             point
neighborhood)                                      1990          2000     change           1990       2000        difference         1990      2000 difference
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Bedford Additions                                 22,686    25,704              13            39          36                -2          20        17                   -4
San Francisco, California:
North Beach                                       82,104   106,942              30b            9           7                -2           4           2                 -1
Spartanburg, South
Carolina: Tobe Hartwell
Courts and Tobe Hartwell
Extension                                         23,898    26,248              10            37          34                -3          10        14                   4

(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                   -2
Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data.
                                                             a
                                                             The 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to the 2000 dollar figures.
                                                             b
                                                              The difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is
                                                             larger than the 1990 estimate.




Table 4: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Housing for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable
Neighborhoods

                                                                        Percent built within last
                                Average housing valuea                         10 years                         Percent occupied             Average gross renta
 Neighborhood                                                                      Percentage                                Percentage
(comparable                                             Percent                          point                                      point                      Percent
neighborhood)                      1990            2000 change           1990 2000 difference              1990 2000          difference     1990 2000         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




                                                             Page 47                                                                 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                                             Appendix III
                                             Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
                                             Act, and Summary Crime Data




(Continued From Previous Page)
                                                      Percent built within last
                        Average housing valuea               10 years                   Percent occupied            Average gross renta
 Neighborhood                                                    Percentage                          Percentage
(comparable                               Percent                      point                                point                 Percent
neighborhood)             1990       2000 change       1990 2000 difference            1990 2000      difference    1990 2000     change
Chester,
Pennsylvania:
Lamokin Village         52,290     47,895        -8       7      3            -4b       92     92              0     426   480        12b

(Matopos Hills)        (59,790)   (56,094)    (-6)       (8)    (3)         (-4b)      (94)   (91)           (-2)   (428) (427)       (0)
Chicago, Illinois:
ABLA Homes –
Brooks Extension       140,772    238,934      70b        9      7            -2b       81     81              0     370   487        32b
Chicago, Illinois:
Henry Horner
Homes                   65,884    207,676    215b         8     15                7b    75     83              7b    285   390        37b
Chicago, Illinois:
Robert Taylor
Homes B                 76,587    111,666        46       2      3                1b    77     74              -4    372   397            7
Cleveland, Ohio:
Riverview and
Lakeview Terraces       48,877    100,494    106b         5      2            -2b       76     83              8b    308   424        37b
Detroit, Michigan:
Herman Gardens          32,110     69,266    116b         0      1                0     89     94              5b    497   586        18b
Holyoke,
Massachusetts:
Jackson Parkway        131,763     97,858    -26 b        4      4                0     94     92              -2    510   480            -6
Jacksonville,
Florida: Durkeeville    41,565     47,740        15       3     18           14b        80     82              2     309   387        25b

(Brentwood Park)       (44,572)   (50,936)   (14b)       (4)    (1)         (-2b)      (82)   (85)            (3)   (384) (426)     (11b)
Kansas City,
Missouri: Theron B.
Watkins Homes           39,630     59,743      51b        2      7           51b        76     82              5b    381   425        12b

(West Bluff)           (65,204)   (72,286)    (11)      (14)   (10)          (-3)      (79)   (90)          (10b)   (462) (571)     (24b)
Louisville,
Kentucky: Cotter
and Lang Homes          42,829     67,118      57b        3     14           11b        88     92              3b    300   483        61b
New Orleans,
Louisiana: St.
Thomas                 186,924    221,355        18       4      2            -2b       71     79              8b    494   546        11b
New York, New
York:
Arverne/Edgemere
Houses                 143,812    173,972        21       2      4                2b    97     87            -10b    484   513            6




                                             Page 48                                                         GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                                                        Appendix III
                                                        Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
                                                        Act, and Summary Crime Data




(Continued From Previous Page)
                                                                  Percent built within last
                                Average housing valuea                   10 years                       Percent occupied                 Average gross renta
 Neighborhood                                                                Percentage                               Percentage
(comparable                                          Percent                       point                                     point                        Percent
neighborhood)                         1990      2000 change        1990 2000 difference              1990 2000         difference        1990 2000        change
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania:
Bedford Additions                41,035       52,056        27b      11        9               -2       84       84                  0     330    360               9
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               2

(Woodworth
Homes)                         (65,382)      (76,930)   (18b)        (9)     (4)            (-4b)     (93)     (90)             (-4b)    (454) (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.
                                                        a
                                                        The 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to the 2000 dollar figures.
                                                        b
                                                         The difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is
                                                        larger than the 1990 estimate.




                                                        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)




                                                        Page 49                                                                    GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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                 0
Robert Taylor Homes B                          3         11               266
Cleveland, Ohio
Riverview and Lakeview Terraces                9         18               100
Detroit, Michigan
Herman Gardens                               194        137                -29
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Jackson Parkway                              117        142                21
Jacksonville, Florida
Durkeeville                                    2          3                50
(Brentwood Park)                             (80)       (65)             (-18)
Kansas City, Missouri
Theron B. Watkins Homes                        8         10                25
(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.




Page 50                                             GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
                                                            Appendix III
                                                            Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure
                                                            Act, and Summary Crime Data




Figure 6: Summary of Crime Data at HOPE VI and Comparable Sites

                                                                                                                                                                          Spartanburg,
                                Chester, Pennsylvania                         Jacksonville, Florida                      Kansas City, Missouri
                                                                                                                                                                         South Carolina

                                                                                                                                    b
                             HOPE VI         Comparable                   HOPE VI             Comparable                 HOPE VI          Comparable              HOPE VI            Comparable
                                       ge




                                                       ge




                                                                                   e




                                                                                                        e




                                                                                                                               e




                                                                                                                                                    e




                                                                                                                                                                           e




                                                                                                                                                                                              e
                                                                                   ng




                                                                                                        ng




                                                                                                                               ng




                                                                                                                                                    ng




                                                                                                                                                                          ng




                                                                                                                                                                                              ng
                                     an




                                                     an




                                                                                   a




                                                                                                       a




                                                                                                                               a




                                                                                                                                                   a




                                                                                                                                                                         a




                                                                                                                                                                                             a
                                                                                        a
                                  ch




                                                   ch




                                                                                ch




                                                                                                    ch




                                                                                                                            ch




                                                                                                                                                ch




                                                                                                                                                                      ch




                                                                                                                                                                                          ch
                      96

                           02



                                  96

                                             02




                                                                   96

                                                                         02



                                                                                        99

                                                                                              02




                                                                                                               96

                                                                                                                     02



                                                                                                                                    96

                                                                                                                                          02




                                                                                                                                                           96

                                                                                                                                                                 02



                                                                                                                                                                               96

                                                                                                                                                                                     02
                     19

                           20



                                      19

                                            20




                                                                  19

                                                                        20



                                                                                       19

                                                                                             20




                                                                                                              19

                                                                                                                    20



                                                                                                                                   19

                                                                                                                                         20




                                                                                                                                                          19

                                                                                                                                                                20



                                                                                                                                                                             19

                                                                                                                                                                                    20
                                 %




                                                  %




                                                                               %




                                                                                                   %




                                                                                                                           %




                                                                                                                                               %




                                                                                                                                                                      %




                                                                                                                                                                                          %
 Crime

 Assault/battery      5    3 -40      0     24 n/dc                8    3 -63      67        88    31         8     27 238     20        16 -20           70    4 -94      27       13 -52

 Burglary–breaking
                      4    1 -75      5      7    40             15     2 -87      27        34    26         7      2 -71         7     1 -86            16    1 -94        5       5    0
 or entering

 Drugs                3    0 -100     0      2 n/d                 6    0 -100 n/ad n/a n/a                  n/a     2 n/a n/a           0 n/a            11 n/a n/a         3       2 -33

 Larceny              1    0 -100     8     12    50             12     4 -67      47        67    43        11      6 -45         6     5 -17            37    12 -68     15       15    0

 Motor
                      2    0 -100     0      5 n/d                 8    3 -63      25        32    28         3     11 267         5     6     20         37    1 -97        1       5 400
 vehicle theft
 Vandalism/
                      9    1 -89      3     12 300                 6    0 -100 n/a n/a n/a                    6     15 150         4     5     25         38    8 -79      19        7 -63
 property crimes

 Total               24    5 -79     16     62 288               55     12 -78 166 221             33        35     63    80   42        33 -21          209    26 -88     70       47 -33

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.
                                                            a
                                                             The Jacksonville Housing Authority was unable to provide 1996 summary crime data for their
                                                            comparable public housing site. The earliest data they could provide was from 1999.
                                                            b
                                                            The first phase of revitalization at the Kansas City HOPE VI site began in May 1995 with non-HOPE
                                                            VI funds.
                                                            c
                                                             Not defined.
                                                            d
                                                                Not available.




                                                            Page 51                                                                                      GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development                                    Appendx
                                                               iIV




              Page 52           GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments                                                       Append
                                                                                                  x
                                                                                                  i
                                                                                                  V




GAO Contacts      David Wood (202) 512-8678
                  Paul Schmidt (312) 220-7681



Staff             In addition to those individuals named above, Kristine Braaten, Jackie
                  Garza, Catherine Hurley, Grant Mallie, Alison Martin, John McGrail, Sara
Acknowledgments   Moessbauer, Marc Molino, Lisa Moore, Barbara Roesmann, Sidney
                  Schwartz, Paige Smith, Ginger Tierney, and Carrie Watkins made key
                  contributions to this report.




(250142)          Page 53                                           GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program
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      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
                         through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-
GAO Reports and          text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
                         products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
Testimony                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
United States                  Presorted Standard
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. GI00
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested